The Next American Dream
Homes built for a new American Dream
Home developers are morphing designs to match the needs of homeowners in a new economy. Kai Ryssdal talks to Elizabeth Moule, an architect in Pasadena, Calif., who's using the subprime crisis as an opportunity to re-think how homes are built.
The light rail Gold Line passes Mission Meridian Village in South Pasadena, Calif., designed by Moule & Polyzoides architects. (Courtesy of Moule & Polyzoides)
More on Housing - Real Estate
The Mission Meridian Village development in South Pasadena, Calif., designed by Moule & Polyzoides architects.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: Just as people like Emily and Andrew are rethinking home ownership, architects and developers are re-thinking the home. Smaller. Closer to the neighbors. Ideally, close to a train station, too.
RYSSDAL: All right, so why don't you tell us where we are.
ELIZABETH MOULE: Well, we are here at the Mission Station in South Pasadena. We're heading north to a project that we built that is a mixed-used project, that is to say it's a retail area, it's got some housing, and it's got some parking for park and ride.
Architect Elizabeth Moule lives and works in Pasadena, Calif. A short hop on the freeway, or a slightly longer train ride, from downtown L.A. For her the subprime crisis and all those foreclosures out there is really an opportunity to rethink the home. And how it ought to be built.
ELIZABETH MOULE: What we're looking at is a brick building in front, and we've got a little florist and a bakery here on the ground floor with some outdoor seatings.
Ryssdal: On the second floor you've got huge windows and lofts inside I suppose, right?
MOULE: That's right. And then as we're going down the street, we've created a series of bungalow courts that are relatively high density but fit into the neighborhood.
Ryssdal: And South Pas is a great city for these kinds of things because it's got lots of parks, it does have the good schools. A lot of big cities, though, that have some other problems might not be as amenable to this kind of living, no?
MOULE: Well, I think, personally, hope springs eternal. I think every city can be accommodated and transformed into a place like this that has a lot of housing and offices around transit. It's important we talk about housing and offices around transit because what we've got to get to is a jobs-housing balance.
Ryssdal: There's a little bit of marketing problem here, right? Because when you start talking about density of living and getting more people in the same spot, and you know, just in a description it doesn't maybe sell.
MOULE: Well, I think the reason I took you over here is that this is not the picture that most people have of density, but it's dense enough. If the single-family house is say about 5 to 7 D.U.'s an acre -- dwelling units per acre -- now we're looking at something that might be 20, 25, 30, but it doesn't really look or feel very different than a single-family house.
Ryssdal: But we are so invested in this country in single-family homes, the yard, the mortgage, and all of that, that it's sort of an uphill fight for you.
MOULE: Yeah, everybody loves single-family houses, but frankly they've been oversupplied dramatically. And what's been undersupplied are other ways of life allowing you to walk places, jump on a train instead and save a lot of time. Because every single person in this country pinning their hopes on one single-family home is just not reasonable, and we just can't supply that really across the country.
Ryssdal: As the demand, though, for this kind of living increases, isn't that going to drive up prices and then make it perhaps not as affordable as it might ideally be?
MOULE: Uh, yes, but it's important to remember that when you're building more units on a smaller piece of land, it's essentially more affordable than putting one home on the same piece of land. I think one could really argue that it's a way to provide more affordable housing than the other way around.
Ryssdal: So much of this discussion is about sustainability and how we can do that. What does that really mean, though?
MOULE: Well, the main thing about sustainability is we need to be thinking about places we're going to make that are permanent. Because the greatest use of resources are resources over time. They have to be used by lots of different functions over time. They can't be single-use buildings. That's one. They have to be more walkable, and they have to be compact and mixed use because when you look at the energy consumption of a single-family house or any single building, buildings are already the greatest user of energy, but when you add the commuting to that building, you actually increase the energy usage by 50 percent, 50 percent! But the main thing is we just need common sense. We don't need new technologies to make this. We need to make them simple. We need to make them compact and pedestrian oriented.
Ryssdal: To make all this work, do we have to get used the idea of giving up the car?
MOULE: I think a lot of people are dying to get rid of their cars and to get out of them. You know, the fact is that we've made lives where we just drive from one place to another. Back and forth. And our lives are largely led now in our cars. And we don't have enough time for our children, we don't have enough time for our marriages. I don't think, speaking as a working mother, that I had children in order to spend all of my afternoons in a car.
Ryssdal: Elizabeth Moule is the principal architect at the firm Moule & Polyzoides in Pasadena, Calif.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Los Angeles, CA, 05/29/2009
Kyle,
Thanks for pointing out the typo. It's fixed.
05/29/2009
Sometimes typos really affect a story. This says "If the single-family house is say about 5 to 70 units an acre, dwelling units per acre, now we're looking at something that might be 20, 25, 30..." That extra zero in the first part makes it confusing.
From Chicago, IL, 05/28/2009
It's weird to me to read the responses of libertarians who think that a fifteen minutes wait for a bus is an infringement on their rights. I love being car free. Talk about infringement: I am free of car payments, free of car insurance, free of car repair and storage. Free of road rage. All that mobility comes at a price, and when Americans wake up to what they're paying, they'll howl.
I rent a car if I really need one. I do so a few times a year. It's never a good experience to sit in traffic again, with the road demanding my attention. When I delegate driving to a bus driver, I can use my time productively. When I bike, I get exercise. When I drive, I get to sit and fume at all the people in my way. On top of the unsustainability of it.
From Renton, WA, 05/25/2009
Unfortunately, I misplaced this program on my player and was way late hearing it so nobody will read this, but I have to say that this is the price that we pay for overpopulation. I've said, for a long time, that, if there are few enough of us, we can ALL have waterfront property. Costs only go up when demand exceeds supply. Because we have tried to cram so many people onto the surface of the planet, we are at a point at which we are attempting to replicate the days before modern transportation existed when most people spent almost all of their lives within a day's walk of their home, and the fact is that even this is a relatively short-term solution as the population continues to increase.
I don't want to live in a situation in which I can only go to certain places on a certain schedule, which is determined by somebody else.
Years ago, somebody here, whose name I wish that I'd remembered so I could quote him, said something very profound on this subject: "Nobody ever dreamed of winning the lottery so they could live in an urban flat."
From Santa Cruz, CA, 05/17/2009
I live in a fifty-five plus coop in Santa Cruz that began life in 1912 as a hotel. It is wonderful to live within easy walking distance to downtown Santa Cruz and to have a community of neighbors. For those who love travel, the knowledge that neighbors within the complex are close at hand to keep an eye on your home. Baby boomers moving into downtown coops and condos would open up more single family homes for families with young children who might require more space. I've lived in the suburbs and have no desire to return to the rather barren tract housing lifestyle.
From los angeles, CA, 05/15/2009
Elizabeth Moule's partner in the firm, Stephanos Polyzoides drives a Porsche and they both live in a large estate in Pasadena. In the worlds of Leona Helmsley, I guess high density living is for "the little people" not the Moule Polyzoides clan.
From Las Vegas, NV, 05/15/2009
If Elizabeth Moule was sincere about energy consumption she would promote the idea of telecommuting and relaxing the zoning laws of the land to allow one to more easily work from home. Instead what I hear is a sales pitch to promote a socialistic way of life. Elizabeth’s vision of the future home and workplace sounds more like a prison camp than the American Dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
From Arlington, VA, 05/15/2009
I just read about how the recovery act is financing a large highway outside of
Houston which will allow for the building of more far flung suburbs. As long as the gov't subsidizes sprawl it will continue.
Brian
From Philadelphia, PA, 05/14/2009
While development that follow the New Urbanist principles (dense, walkable, close to transit) are certainly a step in the right direction, let's not lose track that such neighborhoods already exist in so many American towns/cities. Just about every neighborhood built before 1940 was, by necessity, followed these principles. Most of these neighborhoods are still out there, waiting to be rehabilitated and re-occupied by middle class families. American cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, etc... have lost hundreds of thousand of their residents, but the housing stock, the compact city grid and even the public transportation infrastructure is mostly still intact. Wouldn't it be more efficient to steer public policy into making these already existing walkable neighborhoods more attractive to middle class professionals, than building new neighborhoods from scratch?
Anyone who lives in a large city, knows how desirable a newly gentrified neighborhood becomes, as soon as it hits a certain critical mass that makes it palatable for middle class tastes. The demand is certainly there, it's just that there are not enough of these neighborhood that fit a certain criteria of safety/schools/amenities. That's what makes the urban neighborhoods that do fit those criteria so expensive. It's not about making everyone live a certain way, it's about giving people options beyond single-family, car dependent suburbia. The demand is certainly there, we just need policy solutions to allow the market to create the supply that is so sorely lacking right now.
From South Pasadena, CA, 05/14/2009
We moved to South Pas for the easy living: Farmer's Market, walkable streets, restaurants, etc.. But we know people in the Mission Meridian complex Ms. Moule designed and they hate it - only because you have to deal with the HOA and the obsessive compulsive types that live there. That is why I will never live in a condo again: too many people with nothing better to do than complain about their neighbors.
From Cleveland, OH, 05/14/2009
The ideas of Ms. Moule are nothing new, they've been around for 50 years! I'm currently reading "The death and life of great American cities" by Jane Jacobs. Jacobs in 1961, through stimulating prose, describes and predicts the demise of american urban centers. She also describes in great detail, solutions such as mixed use etc.. I am Irish and spent 6 years as a student in Munich, Germany, where I could not afford and did not need a car! Reading Jacob's book reminds me constantly of my lifestyle in Europe. Despite my gym membership here, I was 10lbs lighter, probably because I walked 2-3 miles a day! I live in Cleveland, which I think as a city has lots to offer but you need a car to get anywhere! My monthly ticket in Munich cost me $70, I spend approximately $350 on my car a month, plus an extra $50 for gym membership!! That's a big saving and a healthier lifestyle!
From TX, 05/14/2009
I've been involved with Moule and Polyzoides for a large scale project. They are very into conceptual thinking and illustrative plans, not much of anything based in a practical reality. Has anyone bothered to ask Elizabeth Moule if she has given up her car? Its funny how some people like to try to dictate how others should (conceptually) live but think those rules shouldn't have to apply to them as well. Also, how cute, there just happened to be a small bakery and florist right here! What an ideal spot for an interview! What about daycare? What about auto repair/gas stations? What about a grocer large enough to have what I actually use not just some health-nut expensive place? What about a bowling alley? Where would the free clinic go? Hardware store with real stuff like plaster and sink parts? Head shop? Not in the conceptual world of Moule and Polyzoides.
From Menlo Park, CA, 05/13/2009
I've owned various homes and as long as they relatively spacious I am fine with either a rambling ranch or an efficient condo. I live in a condo now that has the best of both worlds, lots of space, lots of green, but still high density. The windows all look out over green space or the pool. So, I don't think it has to be one or the other. And if I had a decent balcony for a dinner table and chairs, I'd love to live in a high rise. It's all about having enough space to relax and windows that have a view of space, not of a wall. I think the point of the story that there should be many options along the continuum is the key!
From Phoenix, AZ, 05/13/2009
During my early childhood in the '50s in Chicago, we lived behind the cleaning shop my parents managed, my dad worked second shift, down the street in a small plastics factory. We were able to have dinner with my dad by bringing it to him. We packed a lunch and my parents were able to take us to the beach on Lake Michigan on the bus. My parents never did own a car.
When they moved to Phoenix in the early '80s, my mother said she was unable to go grocery shopping without being driven. My Greek immigrant mother had poor English skills so I thought she just didn't know where to catch the bus. When I finally visited Phoenix, I was taken aback at her inability to get to a grocery store without walking at minimum 8 blocks!
Now that I am preparing to retire in the next few years, my primary criteria will be to live in a city with great public transportation. For me, in addition to removing the burden and cost of car ownership, my main concern is to have built in/forced exercise and movement which can only keep me healthier!
From East Los Angeles, CA, 05/13/2009
I think one of the telling points about all this modern urban planning is the following quote from the interview:
"Well, the main thing about sustainability is we need to be thinking about places we're going to make that are permanent. Because the greatest use of resources are resources over time."
This is certainly true. But why would we assume that the buildings being built now are going to be kept for longer than the much-better constructed (certainly in terms of materials), much better architected, relatively compact, mixed-use buildings and neighborhoods our modern culture inherited from the late 19th and early 20th century? In many cities, nearly all of these flexibly-designed buildings and areas have been utterly demolished for freeways, parking lots and sky-scrapers after having been condemned by "forward thinkers" like Eliel Saarnen as hopelessly slum-prone.
What stops people in the future from demolishing all of these supposedly "green" buildings long before they have paid back the energy it took to erect them, replacing them with whatever fancy or notion that occurs to them, just as we have continuously done throughout the 20th century?
If we want to talk about saving energy, keeping the buildings that exist and the "embodied energy" that it took to build them viable is more important than building new, supposedly "energy efficient" projects.
And, why is the assumption always made that "single family homes" are somehow necessarily implicated in commuting vast distances? Isn't the city of Los Angeles, as one example, full of hundreds of thousands of single family houses that are near transportation, trains and employment?
It would be helpful if the understandable pro-development bias of an architect was countered by some sober discussion of the costs in terms of energy, pollution, and waste of demolishing still usable buildings in favor of continuing to build, build, build.
From Saint James, NY, 05/13/2009
I listened to this story while driving home from work (ironically). I am Italian but I have been living in Long Island, the place where the first truly mass-produced suburb, widely regarded as the archetype for postwar suburbs throughout the country, was built - Levittown. An island where there are no sidewalks and everything has been built with cars in mind. This is a place where if you want to go to the park to take a walk, you will go there by car!
I have always jokingly said with my friends that Long Island is a gigantic parking lot, because it's flat and full of cars.
What I liked about your article is that essentially you are presenting the European lifestyle (and I suppose we could say Asian as well, although my experience in Asia has been limited to visiting Japan only) as the solution to the problem.
Yes, it's nice to have your little house with the white picket fence, but then your life BECOMES the house with the white picket fence. I know a lot of people here in Long Island and all they do is to talk about their houses, their backyards, the renovations that they have been making to their houses and the time they have been spending on weekends and vacation to implement those renovation themselves...
If you go in Europe and Asia, people are much more social and because of the way the cities are structured, where residential and commercial areas are essentially the same place, there is more interaction. People walk more, use less gas and need less to go to the gym. People meet in the streets and talk. People seems to live a less busy and more interactive life.
Overall, I think this might be an improvement, if not a solution, for the development of urban areas in the US as well. At a minimum it would reduce energy consumption, improve health of the individuals and better their social relations within their neighborhoods.
Sorry for my English, it's not my first language.
From Boulder, CO, 05/13/2009
I live in a neighborhood a lot like the one that was described in this story. I was listening to this thinking, "I'm not sure the people talking really did this justice." I live in a mixed use neighborhood in Boulder, CO. It's new (most homes here were built within the last 5 years). More than anything that they conveyed well in the segment, what makes living here cool, is really being in a "neighborhood". This isn't just a subdivision or a place with houses. It's a community. Because people walk or bike every place here, we see each other, interact with each other and respect each other more. Also, because we are not living in "suburban castles" we spend a lot of time outside our homes. There are very few fenced in yards here, so most people choose to go to the park that the neighborhood is built around, or to the coffee shop or the pizza place to get out and enjoy. Also, because we are higher density, it was easier for the city to plan to put in trails and bus service to get us easy access to things.
Is it cheap? Well, not really cheap, but cheaper. In Boulder, as in many places in the US, land is very expensive, so building closer homes that are tall (mine is 4 floors), you reduce the cost of homes. But, most of our homes are built to a completely new standard of sustainability (mine has both solar electric and solar heat). Ultimately, however, the point isn't to make homes more affordable, that is an issue of markets and regulation, but to make homes more livable and more sustainable for the planet and our culture. By getting back to the idea that homes need not be huge to be great and neighborhoods could be a place where we all work together, I think we are moving in a direction that the entire nation is beginning to see has great value.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
From Macon, GA, 05/13/2009
Kudos for Elizabeth Moule and Moule & Polyzoides architects. Let's live in community and not in our cars! "We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them." Albert Einstein
From Sugar Land, TX, 05/13/2009
No thanks. I've lived in Japan and visited most major cities around the world. Being packed together isn't fun. Why do you think New Yorkers are so grumpy? I don't want to live that close to my neighbors. I want to reduce my energy consumption, but I'll figure out a way to do it in a rural setting. I suspect most Americans would prefer to live in a single family dwelling and don't want to give up their cars. I convinced my employer to allow me to telecommute. My car can sit for a week without being started if I don't have to take a trip. For those that like this life style, go for it. I'm not interested.
From Sausalito, CA, 05/13/2009
Great story about the planet's need for rethinking how we build our shelters--and live IN them! In 2007 the Wall Street Journal picked my book RIGHTSIZING YOUR LIFE: Simplifying Your Surroundings While Keeping What Matters Most (Warner Books aka Grand Central Books/Hachette) as "One of the Top 5 Books on Retirement"--recognizing even before the current economic meltdown that waves of baby boomers (some 78 million in America alone) were going to have to pare down their earthly possessions and figure out what wordly goods they actually need, use NOW, and love. I call it "downsizing with a difference" and offer specific guides for dealing with a too many photos, files, clothing, collections, etc. It is very much on the same wave length as architect Elizabeth Moule's housing philosophy: living with less can actually feel like MORE: more time, more comfort, more freedom from our "stuff!" Bravo Marketplace and Kyle for exploring this new way to live sustainably!
From Pasadena, CA, 05/13/2009
HI there! Great story! We are a couple (both architects) with a young son and would LOVE to live in one of these exact units. Unfortunately, they are not cheap. It is not only, or even primarily, an issue of the back lawn- it is about affordability. I love this concept- I would love to live above a florist and a baker (even a candlestick maker), but it is almost impossible, even for two young professionals...Thanks for the story, again, M&P is a great architecture firm, doing alot to improve the fabric of Pasadena and surrounding cities..
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.