Recently, we’ve begun imagining life in 2050.  Two of the biggest factors to consider for those in the building industry are green, renewable forms of energy and rethinking land use.  The way these two factors get tied together could shape the next several decades of building.

Despite all our greenest intentions, America is not leading the pack when it comes to renewable energy. European countries are much further along, and Asia is catching up fast. While every country has its own needs and priorities, long-term sustainability in the face of climate change is a global concern. What’s holding us back in the United States? What can we learn from international examples?

1. The Importance of Political and Policy Commitments. Policy and infrastructure improvements have gone a long way to achieving renewable goals in Europe. Politically, the commitment towards renewable energy has been much more focused for a longer period of time. Germany, for instance, introduced feed-in tariffs—a policy device widely hailed as a boon to renewable grid integration—in 1990. That’s a 20-year jump on us! It’s also indicative of a larger dedication to sustainability that drives energy solutions. Ten years ago, the European Union launched carbon trading as a way to reach Kyoto targets, one effect of which was to make low-emission energy sources cost effective over fossil fuels. This summer, the United States government failed to sign a meaningful climate bill in part because of contention over carbon emission caps.

2. Step Away from Fossil Fuels and Towards Renewables. In some ways, European countries have benefited from a relative lack of fossil fuels, which promotes conservation and innovation. In contrast, the US has relied on abundant and cheap fuels that have obscured the costs embedded in these resources such as wars in the Middle East or the Gulf oil spill. An important lesson for the US lies in a full lifecycle accounting of our energy policy.

The failure of the federal government to wrangle diverse and powerful interests hampers the development of renewables in the US. Portugal was recently profiled for its “clean-energy makeover,” which is the result of aggressive national policies that have induced a shift to renewables on a short timescale. These include privatization of state energy utilities, price stable contracts for grid integration, and a government mandated purchase of all transmission lines for electricity and gas. While consumer energy prices have risen in that country, the upside is that close to half of their electricity will come from renewable sources this year. Energy prices are also projected to stabilize. Such centralized strong arm tactics are less feasible in the US however, where the influence of individual states with different energy interests fragments the potential for a cohesive federal policy.

Despite difficulties in implementation, the US has the resources to make renewable energy a reality. According to Ren21’s Renewables 2010 Global Status Report, in 2009, the US followed only China in renewable power capacity and led for wind, biomass, and geothermal capacity.  China, while often criticized for environmental laxity, is also notably exceeding the US in investment for renewable energy technologies by almost double the funds. Economic as well as environmental results can be expected from tapping into clean energy resources. Last year renewables in Germany, for instance, displaced 109 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and employed over 300,000 people.

For the US to transform the energy landscape in 2050, it needs to look at international examples as successful case studies that can be adapted to local conditions. Of course, the way that we imagine growth over the next 40 years has a lot of relevance as to how green initiatives will be able to be implemented.  One of the biggest questions explores the traditional dichotomy of urban/suburban in a context of changing resources and expectations.

1. Reconsider Land Use. Land use typology affects transportation, economic linkages, and social relationships. As such, morphology (the form and structure as a whole) has a strong effect on resource allocation, market forces, and personal well-being. Journalist Greg Lindsey has written explicitly about the debate among urbanist thought leaders, identifying demographics, supply and demand, transportation, and density as the main criteria of contention. He is a city-dweller and believes that time pressures on our lives and the increase of internet connectivity will ultimately favor urban density. After all, if time is money, wouldn’t you rather be working on the train than stuck in traffic?

Architect Robyn Vettraino, another active participant, has undeniable green design credibility. Through her work on urban infill projects she is an actual practitioner of design for walkability, yet her location in California requires daily car use. Vettraino struggles with the “last mile problem.” Even when public transportation is in place, it is difficult to connect close enough to homes in urban outlier communities to be effective.

2. Politically and Pragmatically Balance/Fuse Resources and Preferences. Ultimately, the future of urban design will come down to a balance of resources and preferences in the maintenance of a strong economy. Some people like the open space and privacy provided by suburbia; others prefer the cultural attraction of big cities. Then there’s new thinking on re-identifying or merging the two. Pretty much everyone likes to uphold a standard of living where a comfortable life is affordable. If people are rational when it comes to money, then comfort and affordability may well change over time through both design and inevitable changes in climate and resource availability. The question of how to design sustainably, therefore, comes down to identifying and addressing limiting factors, such as the availability of oil and clean water, the development of new energy storage and distributions technologies for biofuels, and of course, population pressures.

While individuals are empowered to direct the future of urbanism through their lifestyle choices, policy makes a real dent in shaping the viability of those choices. Whether the government chooses to subsidize highways versus mass transit, for instance, will economically privilege either sprawl or densification. Tax structures, zoning, and public school funding are all policy issues that affect where people choose to live. Design thinking on urban forms is critically and clearly related to a host of long-term planning issues from achieving renewable energy price parity to determining how people will live and work.

Ultimately, how we build in 2050 is fundamentally connected to our need to simplify and reduce energy consumption. Bringing people and resources closer together rather than continuing to build in wasteful energy structures is critical and needs to operate in conjunction with technological development. Urban density is a good way to do this, and evolved suburban forms are also promising. As we can see, the future of urban land design and green energy are intricately tied.  How this will play out, we can only speculate.  But let’s commit to making 2050 clean, renewable, resourceful and beautiful. How would you build in 2050? How could you re-imagine urban/suburban/rural/ life?

About the Author
Daniela is one of the bloggers for the Neenan Company.  The Neenan Company works pro-actively to further health and education benefits for everyone through maximizing the possibilities of the built environment.  For more information about this topic, the blog or the work of the Neenan Company, please feel free to contact Daniela@neenan.com.