Are the Plans To Build A Green, Sustainable Building of Tomorrow Smack in the Heart of Downtown Dallas Some Pipedream or A Reality?

Imagine, if you will, a utopia smack in the heart of downtown Dallas. In this green, sustainable building of tomorrow, you might roll out of bed, take a shower and find your runoff water feeding vegetation growing on the roof and walls, upon which you'll feast later that night. Or maybe you'll move downtown and become a cattle rancher several stories above the concrete jungle. Or perhaps you'll grab a bite in the slow-food café downstairs after knocking off your shift working the counter in the holistic pharmacy next door.

Solar panels heat and light your home, and the high-tech and the natural mesh seamlessly in a Logan's-Run-to-a-kibbutz kind of way. It's a place so inviting, so self-contained that there's really not much reason to ever leave home.

The possibilities, say the three architectural firms competing to design this future world, are endless—so much so they can't really pin down what life in their buildings would be like, which is precisely what makes it so hard to believe one will ever exist. But if local affordable housing advocates Brent Brown and John Greenan have their way—and they insist they will—this world of tomorrow might be a lot closer than you think.

For Brown and Greenan, this story begins on a pan-fried July 2008 afternoon behind Dallas City Hall. Theirs had been nothing more than a routine trip to a bureaucrat's office. Brown and Greenan often had occasion to visit City Hall: Brown, as the head of bcWORKSHOP, celebrated for its efforts to give ramshackle South Dallas homes extreme makeovers; Greenan, as founder and executive director of nonprofit Central Dallas Community Development Corp., a subsidiary of Larry James' Central Dallas Ministries.

That summer, Greenan was knee-deep in his biggest project to date: converting 511 N. Akard St. from a ghost town of an office tower into affordable and low-income housing into which Brown plans to move. The two men could not be more dissimilar. Greenan sports a gray beard obscuring a baby face; he speaks softly and seldomly, especially when Brown is around. Perhaps that's because Brown, tall and broad and bespectacled, is as exuberant as his colleague is placid. They are, say many who know them, a perfect match. Says one real estate executive, "If Brent and John try doing something, I can't imagine it won't get built."

So, on this day, after crunching numbers and implementing action-plan items and whatever it is dreamers do when they spend time with public servants, Brown and Greenan took the elevator down to the ground floor and exited into the blinding sunlight. And, for no reason other than the fact it was all he could see, Greenan turned to Brown and commented upon the asphalt wasteland where they had parked the car.

"There ought to be a better use for a block in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the country than a dollar-a-day parking lot," Greenan told Brown.

To which Brown replied, "Let me get back to you on that."

Architect Eric Corey Freed is something like a tent-revival preacher, traveling the country proselytizing for Frank Lloyd Wright's theory of organic architecture, which melds the man-made with the found-in-nature. He sits on the advisory board of a nonprofit out of San Francisco called Urban Re:Vision, which since 2007 had been holding a series of academic competitions that asked doers and dreamers to re-imagine the future of building, designing and living. Each competition—involving such things as urban planning, transportation, energy delivery, architecture, commerce and construction materials—had a cutesy name such as Re:Connect, Re:Construct, Re:Design, Re:Route, Re:Store or Re:Volt.

But all along, Urban Re:Vision has planned a climactic competition that could render the theoretical tangible. Hypotheticals were good for fund-raising. They got Urban Re:Vision's name out there. They were fun as hell. And, hey, that idea for making walls using building blocks fashioned from compressed maps? Kick. Ass. But until Urban Re:Vision lived up to its name, so what?

Which is why, during the course of these competitions, Urban Re:Vision began scouting for a city in which to plant their piles of theories, to see if it would sprout an architectural revolution—a self-sustaining block, a steeped-in-green building where people of all incomes would live, work, play, shop and eat (off their own walls, more or less). San Francisco seemed, at first, the likely site—then organizers realized it was too obvious. New York City? Perhaps, but there's not much separating a left-coast crunchy from a right-coast liberal. Again, too predictable. Portland? Maybe. But wait. How about, um...Texas?

As far as Freed was concerned, it made sense: Something in flyover land would attract attention. It would prove that this was no hippy-dippy, never-gonna-happen, greenwashing bullshit. So Freed called Kathy Zarsky in Austin, where she runs a "sustainability consulting firm" called the HOLOS Collaborative. Urban Re:Vision also reached out to Sergio Palleroni, who, at the time, was teaching architecture and sustainable design and development at the University of Texas at Austin. He told Urban Re:Vision he knew just the guy.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next Page >>
 
  • Will Warner 10/13/2009 9:28:00 AM

    I know building a wall of straw sounds like something only the first of the three little pigs would do, but a hay bale covered in a thin layer of adobe is cheap, fairly lightweight, surprisingly fireproof, and being two or three feet thick, excellent insulation in a hot sunny climate. Even though it sounds like the kind of thing no one would ever have been foolish enough to try until the current green craze, it has been done quite successfully for centuries in what is now New Mexico. Without a steel frame, it doesn't really work for multistory buildings, but with a steel frame underneath it could probably work fine for skyscrapers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction

  • chevytexas 10/07/2009 9:46:00 PM

    I commend the article for at least showing us that this is no weak sister in development processes. I question, somehow, why it had to journey to SFO (architectural nirvana? I don't think so)for the selection process, so I'll re-read the article. That said, it's the usual silliness: they don't own the property, near City Hall or wherever. Can you visualize Chavez Properties, who have been regularly screwed out of "insider" development projects by Hillwood and others, giving this to the City? Don't think so; I wouldn't. Next: there is a lot of hoopla about housing what are sometimes seen as "transitional" occupants (read: housing for the homeless); again, the site is amidst a poster-child neighborhood that may have to decide very soon how democratic it wants to be. The fact that it is a parking lot surrounded by the shelters and even 508 Park do not veil its extreme value to for-profit developers. Finally --frankly-- what the hell's wrong with a deck-park over the MixMaster Canyon? That's what drove that end of Dallas into convenient dissolution so the Cedars could be divided into "right side" and "wrong side"--any reduction of the canyon barrier would cause property values to soar. Nice try, wrong location.

  • Catbird 10/01/2009 6:48:00 PM

    Just to be fair�what these guys are proposing can be built technically but it will never work without taxpayer funding for construction, maintenance and long term operational subsidies. The world�s fair type of �sustainable housing of the future� project rationale may be mildly interesting for a time but it will be seen as laughable after the Obama administration ends and cap and trade is repealed. The thing will ultimately become a non-functional government-run slum right next door to the landmark I.M. Pei city hall. For the money, I�d rather have the �Biosphere� in Oracle, Arizona, that Ed Bass built to prepare astronauts to survive on the Earth after the long prophesied nuclear holocaust. It�s a better aesthetic fit for Dallas than any of the entrants and I hear it�s for sale since the Bass family lost interest. Think of it this way: the LEED carbon off-sets produced by repurposing the Biosphere at a new location in Dallas instead of building new will make it far greener than any of the proposals. Just to be fair�

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy