Five smart city recommendations for Portland’s revamping housing market are:
1. Rooftop gardens
2. Solar panels
3. Energy consumption monitors/infographs
4. Low-income housing in all new developments
5. Glass design and colorful, energy efficient lighting
While all of the aforementioned recommendations would have a significant impact on the sustainability and appeal of Portland, I am choosing to focus on the implementation of rooftop gardens for their ability to contribute to the communal, sustainable, and aesthetic spheres of Portland. As we observed on our tours of Portland, there is a depressing shortage of greenery, and while many of the parks could be revamped with easy landscaping fixes, I believe that rooftop gardens would be the most efficient and productive solutions. These gardens would provide each apartment or condominium complex with greenery, fresh produce, an outdoor area for kids and pets, and panoramic views of a beautiful port city lacking such vantage points.
Many apartments and condos already have private decks and outdoor spaces, but the addition of rooftop terraces would provide residents with a communal space that seems to be lacking throughout much of the city. One of Greenfield’s criticism of smart cities is that overspecification “segregates work…from residential clusters and both of these from a designated cultural complex”[1]. In such complexes, however, there would be no divide between residential and cultural complexes. An ideal terrace space would have a space for kids, dogs, and small vegetable gardens. Strategically placed terraces would also be optimal locations for solar panels, which would be ideal for residential sustainability.
In the minutes from Portland City Council’s Meeting last week, a set of guidelines proposed a little over two years ago delineates a series of requirements for features of residential construction. These guidelines say that “rooftop terraces are encouraged to take advantage of views,”[2] and continue to suggest that “from afar, a variable skyline of roof edges, vertical shafts, and signage create interest.”[3] Many of these guidelines focus on the visible appeal of Portland, a city mostly void of a skyline. High rise or multi-story buildings have the capability of adding to these sky lines, especially if they incorporate modern, glass architecture or elements of historic Portland architectural motifs, as the guidelines also suggest. Rooftop gardens add color to the skyline, and stringing lights on trees or having multicolored lighting can greatly improve the ambiance and aesthetic not only on the terrace but of the whole skyline as well.
[1] Adam Greenfield, Against the Smart City (Amazon Kindle Cloud Reader)
[2] Portland Regular City Council Meeting, September 15, 2014, page 190, http://portlandmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09152014-605
[3] Portland Regular City Council Meeting, September 15, 2014, page 188, http://portlandmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09152014-605
I really like your vision for rooftop gardens on new and old developments, especially as communal spaces and vantage points. In my explorations of housing and new development in general, I also focused on the inclusion of low-income housing, but resisted the new standard of glass structures and “sleek” design. I’m not sure why I dislike minimal glass design so much, but your suggestion of colorful fluorescent lighting is definitely adds some character that I find those buildings lack.
As we’ve discovered, Portland’s parks need some revamping. Your idea to bring green space to the city’s rooftops is an exciting one, with the potential to revitalize the community of an apartment or a condo. As my focus thus far has generally been on Portland’s homeless population, it is important to take into account that these gardens will likely benefit those that can afford to create and maintain them. Considering the potential for community building and increased interaction though, rooftop gardens could be very impactful in low- or mixed-income housing where such community might otherwise be more difficult to sustain.
My thoughts on rooftop gardens: they seem to be, to a degree, limited in accessibility and affordability. They sit atop private residencies, so while they may add to an aesthetic, they are not for everyone. (I also wonder about the suitability of most Portland buildings for rooftop gardens, but that is way outside my jurisdiction anyways…) I tend to prefer the idea of a community garden that can border multiple neighborhoods, bringing diverse populations together. I really like the idea of a rooftop garden in mixed-income housing, as Hannah recommends.
I love the idea of rooftop gardens, but I’m worried it won’t be feasible while still incentivizing the preservation of historical buildings. I know that old buildings often do not have the interior support and drainage required for the installation of a rooftop garden. Perhaps new residential constructions should get approval priority if they include green rooftop areas.
Mmm some very powerful but sane critiques of rooftop gardens. At the same time, one major garden on, say, the top of the entire Civic Center would have a profound effect on the city. Such a garden could create a large number of new jobs, not to mention a huge amount of tourism for something so wacky. Do these things work? Yes. But they need much tending. See this piece about how rooftop gardens played out at UGA over the years.