"Super Green" Lake of the Isles Bungalow

Today's Star Tribune has an interesting article about a Lake of the Isles LEED Platinum home. It's an interesting story, and it's an attractive house, but the more I read the more I started to wonder about how "green" we can really consider a project of this sort. First, let me admit that I don't know the details. As of right now all of my information is coming from the Star Tribune article. So please, if you have updates, go ahead and post them. All that said, let's get into the issue. First, some basic points drawn from the article:

• This is a new home. And more significantly, it's not just a new home: it's a new home sitting on a lot that was, until recently, housing its original 1926 bungalow.
• Hicks is quoted as saying she had intended to "fix" the original house, but "when she discovered how much it would cost to fix what needed to be fixed, including the foundation, the electricity, the plumbing, and the outdated 6-by 12-foot kitchen with three doorways, Hicks decided it made more sense to build a new house -- one that didn't look new."
• The original house was "just under" 2000 square feet; the new home is 3,300 square feet, including the finished basement. The new space does, however, cost only one quarter of what the original did to heat.
• Final quote from the architect: "you should be able to take any style house and make it green."

I tend to be firmly on the side of historic preservation, but at the same time readily acknowledge that not every house can or should be saved. But this article really has me wondering: did the original house REALLY need to be destroyed? Maybe it did; I don't know the extent of what needed to be fixed. And I know it's not fair to start questioning without having all the details. But I'm always wary whenever people start throwing around things like "fixing" a small kitchen. A dangerous foundation or broken plumbing or other serious issues might indeed need fixing, but throw in mention of a small kitchen and my skepticism radar starts going up. Did all of those things really need to be fixed? Was the house in such bad shape that it required demolition? Sometimes houses do, and that's part of a neighborhood's evolution. But it's also true that there's a history of wealthy homeowners out there who want a house that looks old, but they don't really want the older house. They want the big kitchen, the enlarged square footage, and yes, the added energy efficiency and other similar perks. I don't have a problem with that, as long as they're not tearing down existing homes that don't need to be torn down. And by "need" I don't just mean they need to have a kitchen with an island. And if they do unnecessarily tear something down because they want a new house, then they'd better not call label themselves green. (Again, apologies to Jennifer Hicks, as I don't know if this applies to her situation or not.)

This isn't an attack on Jennifer Hicks or her architect; they did a nice job with the house, and it fits in well (although I'd be equally fine with a well-designed modern house, too) and shows that new construction doesn't have to look like a McMansion in Eden Prairie. I would, however, be curious to know just how uninhabitable the previous home was when she bought it. Mostly, I'm tired of reading all of the rah-rah puff pieces on LEED certified buildings and "green" consumerism. Again, not Hicks' fault, but where's the story of the many, many other people who buy existing homes? (rhetorical question: yes, I know, that doesn't make a good story. It's old news.) That's more environmentally friendly than ripping something down and building new, even if the old house was in terrible shape and the new house built to LEED platinum standards. Modern society seems to think that we can all just buy our way into "greenness;" just put up some low-VOC paint, an Energy Star refrigerator, and some bamboo flooring. All of this is great, of course, and new construction should absolutely seek to be as environmentally-friendly as possible. But all this attention on the new stuff distracts from the bigger issues. At risk of looking really grumpy, the article makes me ask: does it really make sense for one person to live in 3,300 square feet of space in the city, for one? (I wouldn't typically bring that up, but it seems a relevant question in the context of an article about a "super-green" project)

Or, when the architect says "you should be able to take any style house and make it green," I'm really not all that interested in how that works for new construction. That's fine, and someone has to be concerned about it, but the environment would be far worse off if everyone in Minneapolis rushed out to demolish their homes and build new "green" historic-looking homes in their places. It would be nice to see a bit more attention paid to existing houses retrofitted to make them as energy efficient as possible, as well as some debate or guidance over which environmental upgrades to existing properties are worth it (from a green perspective -- both the cash and the environmental kind of green) and which ones aren't. Because really, with the large number of houses already standing -- just take a look at all the empty foreclosures around (although admittedly not by Lake of the Isles) -- it's hard to get really excited about the environmental credentials of someone knocking down something old and putting up something new.

Beautify Your Boulevard

Are you tired about garbage on the street? If so, here’s a novel solution: the Adopt-a-Litter-Container program. The premise is simple. You fill out a short application, agree to provide garbage bags and to keep the area around the container clean and clear, and either empty the garbage yourself or pay the city a small fee to pick it up for you. While there’s no guarantee of “litter container” (really, who else other than a government official refers to “litter containers”?) style, you can put in a request for plastic, smooth concrete, or aggregate concrete. They drop it off, you agree to maintain it for two years, and there you have it – your own personal public garbage can.

Residents of the Wedge have an extra incentive to get the cans. LHENA approved NRP funds to give the first 20 applicants $100 in return for your participation. You can use that money to help offset the cost of liners or to pay for any additional garbage hauling fees associated with the project.

For an odder clean-up effort, you can also participate in the “Adopt-An-Ash Receptacle” program. It works essentially the same as the Litter Container program, but instead of trash you get to clean up cigarette butts. While I hate it when people throw their cigarettes on the ground (and even designed a billboard with the slogan “the Earth is Not Your Ashtray” while in junior high) I don’t know how well this program will work. Will it encourage smokers to congregate in specific areas? Who should decide where those spots are located? Do neighbors get a say in it? I’m all for public gathering places, and just as against cigarette litter as the next person, but that doesn’t mean I want my local boulevard turned into an outdoor chimney.

If you’re looking for actual boulevard beautification, and not just the absence of unsightly litter, then consider adding a boulevard garden. Helpful Twin Cities boulevard-specific gardening tips, including a list of dos and don’ts, can be found here. Minneapolis has specific ordinances regarding height and type of plants, but there’s still plenty of room for creativity. Just don’t grow or plant weeds (or weed, for that matter), shrubs, vegetables, or “noxious plants,” at least not without first obtaining a permit from the city.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to empty the Dirty Diaper Receptacle. (and yes, I'm accepting Dirty Diaper Receptacle adoption requests...)

Uptown's Urban Farmland

Uptown is a pretty "green" place to live. The area is packed with people who care about environmental issues, and both the local neighborhood boards as well as the recent Uptown Small Area Plan address options for improving the neighborhood's impact on the environment. Uptown's lakes offer residents and visitors with an opportunity to get outside and enjoy nature in all seasons, as does the Midtown Greenway. And, while the lakes offer multiple obvious environmental and quality of life benefits, it's the Midtown Greenway and its possibilities that really excite me.

The Midtown Greenway Coalition advocates for the use of the Greenway as a "green urban pathway," and suggests adjacent community gardens as a way to "showcase native plants, on site water management, and ecological sustainability." I completely agree with all of this, but how about putting additional emphasis on organic, local, appropriate food production? I would love to see the length of the Greenway dotted with continuous, or near continuous, gardens. These gardens, whether owned and operated by community groups, the city or park, schools, private landowners, or any other organization, business, or individual, would provide Minnesota-appropriate organic food for area residents, thereby increasing everyone's access to fresh, affordable produce, decreasing the environmental costs associated with the transportation of food from elsewhere, adding beauty to the Greenway, and providing additional Greenway safety as a result of increased people presence in the form of Greenway gardeners.

The Soo Line Garden, a community garden located just outside of Uptown (at Garfield in Whittier) is already well into its second decade of existence. According to the Midtown Greenway Coalition, talks are underway with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to investigate the possibility of formally transferring ownership of the land to ensure its continued and permanent status as a public garden. Interest in these and other gardens across the city is high (with many gardens lacking space to accommodate all who would like to participate), and will presumably continue to grow as a result of rising food costs coupled with an increased awareness of and interest in the local foods and urban farm movements. Let's build on the concept of community gardens and line the Greenway - including the portion running through Uptown - with fruits, vegetables, and other edibles. These plants, in accordance with the Midtown Greenway Coalition's existing resolution on native plants, could be selected from native species wherever possible.

I'd like to expand this idea even more and suggest that additional agricultural options also be included along the Greenway. Chickens, dairy goats, honey bees - all could find a place in what could be a stretch of urban agriculture running through the heart of the city. This would involve, among other things, the loosening of current city regulations to encourage and support responsible, well-run urban mini-farms up and down the Greenway. The farms could be both public and private, selling their products (an Uptown Cheese Company? Lyn-Lake Honey?) at the eventual Uptown's Farmer's Market or even directly from their plots to walkers and bikers making their way up and down the Greenway.

The urban farm movement isn't new, but it does seem to be picking up speed in recent years. It's admittedly a new world to me, and I have a lot yet to learn. The Greenway is still fairly young and is still evolving, so this is our chance to truly do something radical that will help the environment, our neighborhood, and the city. I would welcome any input from readers who have information on already existing conversations on this or similar topics.

The Midtown Greenway is already a highly artificial, human-shaped pathway through the city. It's not an existing untouched native landscape. While lining the shores of Lake Calhoun or Lake of the Isles with food-producing gardens wouldn't make sense, doing so on the Greenway does. It's not even necessary to have a full, complete community garden - thin strips of fruit trees, bean plants, corn stalks, or thin beds of herbs, whatever we can squash into the space available, whether in raised beds, in the ground itself, or even in boxes hanging from nearby building walls - along the route could fill in sections between the larger, more formal parks and gardens. Let's take the concept of a "green urban pathway" to the next step and provide Uptown - and south Minneapolis - with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop and implement a modern vision of a more self-sustainable and environmentally-friendly urban life.

Filling in the Gaps: Things I Wish Were in Uptown

I might complain about the people who spend their time trying to make Uptown into something that it's not, never has been, and never should become, but that doesn't mean that I don't have my own wish list of things that would make this neighborhood better place to live. The difference, I think, is that my list builds on what Uptown already has, rather than trying to fundamentally change the area and its nature. I think these additions will only improve the neighborhood and boost its already-considerable assets.

So, in no particular order, here's a wish list for Uptown:

1. A Farmer's Market. What's not to love? A weekly farmer's market gives locals the chance to buy fresh, locally-grown food, all while enjoying wandering around outdoors with your friends and family. The best farmer's markets offer something for everyone: fruits and vegetables, of course, but also local soaps, nuts, crafts, prepared foods, and entertainment. They attract a diverse audience, and would be beneficial to all of Uptown's various constituencies. A farmer's market could truly be a community gathering place. Our farmer's market should accept food stamps, welcome and encourage Uptown vendors, offer a broad selection of food, including "ethnic" options, and be open as much of the year as possible.
2. Good Mexican food. Minneapolis has plenty of good Mexican restaurants and bakeries in other neighborhoods - let's get some more taco and burrito options in Uptown itself. I'd like both more authentic cheap taco stand-type places as well as perhaps a more formal sit-down place.
3. A Post Office. It doesn't have to be a full-service place, just a basic substation will do. Remember when Calhoun Square used to have one tucked away in the back? This is such a neighborhood essential - let's figure out how to get one back.
4. A Light Rail Station. Really, is there any need to explain this? The vast majority of Uptown residents want our neighborhood plugged into the larger Twin Cities transit network, and buses alone aren't the option. Let's all cross our fingers (and send some emails) and hope that Uptown gets its much-needed station.
5. A Community Garden. Check out the Dowling Community Garden for an interesting example of how these can work. Uptown - especially apartment-dense areas such as those found in the Wedge and in parts of CARAG - could really benefit from one of these. It's healthy, provides yet more sense of community-building opportunities, environmentally-friendly, and gives everyone a chance to get outside and enjoy the benefits - health, taste, and economic - of growing produce or even just flowers.

This is just a partial list, of course, but any or all of these things would certainly add to my quality of life. Here's to hoping that they all come true.