Sustainable Residential Development in the South

West

Author: Brian DonovanMentor: Bob VintUniversity of Arizona, 2014

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Abstract – P. 3

Chapter 2: Literature Review – P. 4

Chapter 3: Methodology

Site Selection – P. 9

Procedures – P. 14

Chapter 4: Results – P. 20

Chapter 5: Conclusion – P. 23

References – P. 29

DONOVAN 2

Chapter 1: Abstract

The goal of this study is to address the issues of sustainable residential

housing in the United States, more specifically Tucson and the arid climate of the

southwest. Until recent years the lack of awareness for sustainable practices has

not damaged society, but currently, mankind’s impacts on the planet are

unprecedented. As we progress into the future, acknowledgment of this problem

needs to be addressed with innovation and solutions to secure a guaranteed

healthy future for humanity, the species that humanity coexists with, and planet

Earth. This study examines the principles of development that best produce

sustainability and addresses building form and material use, solar orientation and

shading, and land-use efficiency and governmental policy. These aspects of

development are examined in detail by contrasting a typical University of Arizona

rental development and a development that was constructed with sustainable

consciousness for Tucson’s local population. Sustainable residential

development is an issue that must begin on large scale with government policy

and lawmakers, and end with individual home residencies and educated personal

environmental decisions. The study found that, while there are many different

aspects of sustainable development that are influenced by countless variables, a

sense of cooperation among all phases of construction is the most effective way

to guarantee a smooth transition into a more sustainable future.

DONOVAN 3

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The most widely accepted definition of the word “sustainable” comes from

the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) which states,

“sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

(WCED, 1987). While the broader term of sustainability refers to many aspects

of society, to understand the distinction between sustainably housing and non-

sustainably housing it is essential to first understand the concept of sprawl. In

Gottdiener & Budd’s, Key Concepts in Urban Studies, sprawl is termed as low

density “haphazard growth” over a large area with a lack of regional planning,

usually resulting in unnecessary additional public services such as elementary

education or police and fire fighting (Gottdiener & Budd, 2005). The more spread

out, or less dense, a community is the additional resources and infrastructure it

will require to function. In return, the higher the density is in a region the more

effective those same resources can be consumed and distributed equally among

the population. This difference is critical to comprehend, especially because

recently in society the phrase sustainable has become an overused term. The

over use of the term has lead an unfortunate “[reconditioning] to describe

anything negative that pertains to urban growth like boundless development and

ecological destruction” (Peiser, 2001).

There is also a distinct difference between “strong” and “weak”

sustainability. Weak sustainability is a concept that survives on the basis that

humans will always value economic gains greater than environmental

DONOVAN 4

conversation or natural benefits. Strong sustainability rejects this perception and

states that natural benefits cannot be substituted for any amount of economic

benefit (Neumayer, 2003). Attention to whether a concept addresses a problem

with a strong or a weak sustainable solution is important, especially when

considering information presented by politicians or the media. Differentiation

between these two types of sustainability is crucial in determining educated

personal opinions on any issue of sustainable development.

While the relative significance of each characteristic of sustainability is

widely debated, Smith describes the key factors that contribute to sprawl in,

Sprawl, Squatters And Sustainable Cities: Can Archaeological Data Shed Light

On Modern Urban Issues, as: raising incomes, highway construction and factors

that favor automobile use, poor mass-transit systems, market forces affecting

land values and job locations, the fragmented nature of laws, administration, and

planning within metropolitan areas, political relationships between developers

and local officials (Smith, 2010). Many of these problems began in the United

States during the “baby-boomer” generation of the post World War II era, a

generation that grew up in a time where the “American Dream” was a federally

subsidized large plot of land with a white picket fence and sprawling front and

backyard for the family to enjoy. The new “Millennial Generation” does not

identify with the same American Dream as their parents and many individuals in

younger generations aspire to live in a lively downtown area of a major city

(Winston & Eastaway, 2008).

DONOVAN 5

If a lack of regional sprawl and high density translates into a more

sustainable community, then it is important to direct developmental efforts and

policies away from suburbs and back to downtowns and city centers. The

process of large-scale real estate development resulting in scattered low-density

and discontinuous car-dependent construction is usually a result of declining

older suburbs and shrinking city centers (Hayden, 2004). As society focuses on

deterring away from outward development, it is also crucial to consider short and

long term city planning and install governmental policies to support the system.

Samuel Stanley’s, Sustainable Development in American Planning, addresses

this concept and he stresses the importance of defining specific goals and

objectives revealing that “relatively little attention has been given to the

institutional context in which sustainability goals can be realized, or the

economic, social, cultural and political institutions necessary to achieve them”

(Stanley, 2006). Without consensus on a coherent framework for achieving

sustainable development goals it is unreasonable to expect results and,

ultimately, the scenario leaves cities and city planes in a policy vacuum (Stanley,

2006). Smith contributes to this argument stating that the large and diverse

literature about sustainable development, historically over the last 30 years,

ignores urban centers as a problem and implies little or no discussion of the role

of policymaking and management (Smith, 2010). A famous example of policy

impeding the development of a region is the Florida’s Concurrency Laws from the

1980’s. This is an incident where a misinformed policy maker, in an attempt to

reduce the amount of sprawl, passed law requiring that all infrastructure be built

DONOVAN 6

prior to residential development and consequently increased sprawl significantly

(Peiser, 2001). If this lawmaker had spoken to scientists or experts on the issue

then this never would have been able to happen, representing a real world

situation that truly impeded the progression of sustainable development in the

United States.

On the largest scale, sustainable development requires government and

policy cooperation in order to meet a desire for higher density and digression

away from the traditional suburb. This will result in better utilization of community

resources and transitions into the concept of “smart growth”. Smart growth is not

restrictive of population, economic, or social progression, but aids in a more

sustainable approach to doing so on already developed land (Stanley, 2006).

Another aspect of smart growth is material use, which is unique to the climate of

the region being developed. For the southwest region of the United States and

Mexico, there requires an especially distinguishing style of building because of

the climactic restrictions the desert demonstrates. This region of the southwest

is vast, but this is where we begin to see small-scale development’s importance

to the process of becoming a more sustainable society.

The temperature of this hot-arid region can exceed 110 °F and receives

an average yearly rainfall of less than 12 inches, this is extremely unique,

especially in comparison to any other region of the United States, and the type of

building style and natural materials required reflects this. (Vint & Neumann, 2005)

The southwestern region of the United States is also one of the fastest

expanding areas of the country and one of its largest cities, Phoenix, between

DONOVAN 7

1940 and 1960 saw a population increase from 65,000 to 439,000 people and an

increase in municipality from 9.6 to 187 square miles (Konig, 1983). In addition

to the outward migration of people, the retail and other industries of the city

followed and from 1948 to 1958 the central business district of Phoenix saw a

26% drop in businesses (Fairbanks, 2006). This multiple industry expansion

from the downtown area into the previously undeveloped wilderness of the

Arizona desert in such a short period of time can begin to explain how the

problem of sprawl has quickly escalated on a national scale. When Phoenix, and

other cities of the southwest, underwent these developmental patterns the

traditional building techniques and materials of the native nations of Arizona were

replaced with easily repeatable and cheap low-density suburb housing (Vint &

Neumann, 2005). As a result of this pattern untraditional development there are

numerous types of building in Tucson, many of which have been designed

specifically for University of Arizona student rentals. It is the goal of this paper to

compare the dissimilarities between this standard college residential

development and a house built with the intention of being “sustainable”.

DONOVAN 8

Chapter 3: Methodology

Site Selection

The first residential development being examined in this study is

representative of a University of Arizona student rental house in a large

development named “The Village”. These houses have been developed around

Tucson in small blocks, but this specific house is located on the cross streets of

North 3rd Avenue and East Adams Street. The house is one of four of its kind

located on two adjacent residential plots. Michael Goodman deigned the project

architecturally, and this cluster of student housing development can be seen

below in Site Plan 1 taken from Google Maps.

Site Plan 1 (Google Maps, 2014)

The owners of this property have had the luxury of maintaining it without the

burden of long-term renters because of University student rental patterns, and

DONOVAN 9

are not expected to make improvements over years of occupancy. Each of the

four households in this development has 4 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, a kitchen,

living room, 3-car garage, 2 balconies, and a small backyard. The layout of an

individual house can be seen below in Floor Plan 1, which shows the first floor of

the residency on the left and the second floor on the right.

Floor Plan 1

Upon analysis of these building designs, it would seem that the architect

did a satisfactory job in utilizing space and amenities, but students are the ones

paying the bills not the owners. The utilities inside the home, electric and water

are completely paid each month by renting occupants and there is no incentive

for the owners to make sustainable improvements. Why should the owner of the

home install expensive new water or energy saving technologies when there are

DONOVAN 10

not monetary benefits in the long run? Students are still going to rent the house,

pay the bills, and then move into a new residency the next year.

The second comparative residential development being analyzed in this

study was constructed as part of “The Smart Lofts” project. The Smart Lofts are

also an example of rental housing in Tucson, but dissimilar to the Village

because the property was intended to be rented by local residents of Tucson,

and not frequently alternating student tenets. The Smart Lofts were

architecturally designed by Bob Vint, and can be see below in Site Plan 2 taken

from Google Maps.

Site Plan 2 (Google Maps, 2014)

A floor plan of this home’s first floor can be seen below displayed in Floor Plan 2

while the second floor’s plan is show in Floor Plan 3. This development, like the

Adams development, does a great job utilizing space and includes the many of

DONOVAN 11

same attractive features as the other house, but has two bedrooms not four and

exchanges the 3-car garage for private outdoor space. This is important

because the heat from the non-air-conditioned garage rises through the floors in

the above bedrooms. This creates discomfort from difference in temperatures in

the Adams Avenue house and makes the cool units work unnecessarily.

Floor Plan 2

DONOVAN 12

Floor Plan 3

An example of another sustainable characteristic that the Glenn Street

project incorporated that the other residency did not is keeping the natural

vegetation and landscape gradient from before construction began until the

project was finished. Conventionally in Tucson it is common practice to

completely wipe a plot of land clean of all growth before construction, build, and

then plant new vegetation after the house is completed. Not only does this

practice introduce non-native invasive species into the Tucson desert more

rapidly, but it also degrades the surrounding environment as a whole. Again

sustainability concepts rely on cooperation between development and the natural

environment, not opposition.

DONOVAN 13

Procedures

In order to complete a full sustainability analysis of the two residential

developments it is important to analyze certain characteristics of the buildings

and how each performs on a monthly parallel. These building features of

sustainability are building form and material use, solar orientation and shading,

and land-use efficiency and governmental policy. All of these concepts together

reflect how sustainable a building is or isn’t in its design and illuminates the

practical functioning of the building through testing and analysis.

Material use and building design are two of the most important aspects of

construction in a desert climate, but both have been ignored in recent historic

trends in Tucson. Indigenous inhabitants of the Sonoran Desert had to rely on

instinct to provide comfortable housing in the same weather conditions because

of the lack of harnessed energy, air conditioning, and other amenities that desert

cities take for granted today (Vint & Neumann, 2005). The lack of technology of

their time challenged the native nations of Arizona to adapt building techniques

that exhibit resourceful use of natural materials and environmental forces that

were manageable at the time. Some examples of this biological ingenuity are

solar orientation, thermal storage mass walls, earth cooling, evaporative cooling,

vegetated and built shade devices, and natural ventilation (Vint & Neumann,

2005). As in many aspects of living sustainably, the cost of environmental

materials is greater than the non-sustainable option and explains the recent

trends in non-native material use. “In 2004 the regional cost per square foot

DONOVAN 14

(PSF) of wall area as approximately $18.00 for unplastered adobe, compared to

$12.00 PSF for an insulated, plastered concrete block wall and $8.00 PSF for

frame [and] plaster wall” (Vint & Neumann, 2005). The development on Adams

Avenue chose the cheaper form of construction and used wooden frame and

plaster as shown below in Image 1.

Image 1, 2014

The setback to wooden frame and plaster construction is that the materials are

considered low mass construction, while the more expensive concert “Integra”

blocks of the Glenn Street development are high mass construction. The mass

of the construction is derived from the thermal storage capacity and while high

mass construction absorbs heat, low mass construction insulates by creating a

thermal barrier (Vint & Neumann, 2005).

The Smart Lofts might not have saved money in material use, but because

these residencies were made out of Integra insulation block as opposed to

DONOVAN 15

traditional concert cement building blocks or frame and plaster, and this gives

them a large sustainable and economic advantage. Integra blocks are more

sustainable than other materials because they retain heat better through

intelligent design and higher hear absorbing capacity. This unique design can be

seen below in Image 2.

Image 2 (Vint, 2013)

The amount of energy that a building expedites is dependent on the material use

of the walls and roofing, but also in its design and orientation to nature. The Intra

blocks are designed to reduce heat loss by channeling the heat of the walls

inside or outside to reduce the amount of air conditioning or cooling that a

building needs, but sharing walls is even more effective in temperature

regulation.

This development on Glenn Street has four different occupancies, similarly

to the Adams house, but the difference is that two sets of apartments share a

common wall. Shared walls are a strategic concept of sustainable design

DONOVAN 16

because they not only saves money on material use, which is obviously more

sustainable, but shared walls will save the renter on heating and cooling costs.

Proper material use and the utilization of shared walls will lower energy bills by

reducing exposure to elements, restricting heat loss and gain, resulting in lower

air conditioning costs and utility bills (Vint & Neumann, 2005).

In the desert, it is important to consider material use and the amount of

heat being transfer between walls of the interior and exterior of the development,

but sun orientation and shading can influence this exchange of heat just as

drastically. Solar orientation and shading, while always important in building

design, is even more crucial of a concept to consider in long sunny days of the

desert heat. Like sharing walls, solar orientation is something that must be

planed before construction has begun, but can have significant results on the

energy use of a building. Because the sun is relatively predictable, orientation

and shading are extremely effective sustainable practices that have been used in

the Tucson region for thousands of years. Shown below in Image 3 are

differences in sun exposure that a building can receive on the 32 ° north

longitudinal line that the city of Tucson is located on. This diagram, published in

2000 by Graphic Standards, illuminates the influence solar orientation can have

on development in the southwestern region of the United States. The large lines

swooping across the center represent the path of the sun in the sky and confirms

how small degrees of orientation can greatly influence the sustainable efficiency

of a development.

DONOVAN 17

Image 3 (Olgyay, 2000)

As exemplified by the Florida’s Concurrency Laws case, so much of the

construction industry relies on governmental policy and law. Tucson is no

exception to governmental obstruction and local architects and developers deal

with this problem regularly. In the case of the Glenn Street development proper

solar orientation was not possible due to city zoning codes and law, which

drastically reduced the potential sustainability of the building. The inability to

properly orientate to the sun limits the amount of energy that the panels on the

roof can absorb, and also the quantity of sun exposure or heat storage the

building can reduce. These laws were put into place to avoid developers from

taking advantage of the unique population of students in the area and putting up

DONOVAN 18

large residencies in historic neighborhoods to turn a quick profit. While in theory

these policies have good intentions, now that developmental patterns are

converting to more sustainable systems of manufacturing obstruction is doing

more damage than help. The development of Glenn was limited to the amount of

occupants per acre and the ability to have better solar orientation due to parking

codes. By requiring parking regulations the plot of the land could not be utilized

to its full potential, this a typical example of how the laws in the city of Tucson

can impede sustainable progression.

DONOVAN 19

Chapter 5: Results

Solar orientation was not considered during the design phase of the

Adams development and the sun prominently faces the large eastern facing wall

throughout the day. As the sun heats up the low mass materials it warms the

house and makes the air condition unit for more active and consume more

energy. This is where the benefit of using better quality and more natural

materials in the Glenn house should be obvious. The $4.00 PSF difference

between using insulated concert block or a frame and plastered wall might seem

insignificant, but when extrapolated to the square footage of the two

developments the false attraction of these cheaper material use begins to

appear. The 1,347 square foot home on Glenn Street, which was built using the

more expensive insulted cement, could have saved around $20,000 by opting for

the cheaper building material used in the Adams house. Observing the $4.00

PSF difference, multiplying it by the 1,347 square feet of each building, and then

multiplying that sum again by the four houses in the development calculated this

total of $20,000. While the upfront cost of this material might be more expensive,

overtime the choice could prove to be economical as “traditional houses… when

built well, can outlast and outperform conventional wood-frame houses (Vint &

Neumann, 2005).

The Glenn development might have exhausted more funds on

manufacturing materials, but consequently has less heat transfer through the

walls due to the use of high mass materials. The Glenn Street household is not

orientated to the sun perfectly, but pays more attention to the solar cycle then the

DONOVAN 20

Adams Avenue household. The Smart Loafs even uses this orientation to power

solar panels located on the roofs of each individual property and provides its

tenets with an alternative source of energy. The use of alternative energy

sources is a substantial means to reduce both the cost and impact of living in the

desert environment.

A comparison of the utilities each home uses over a 5-month period can

be seen below in the Water Consumption Analysis Table and Energy

Consumption Analysis Table. The analysis tables unfortunately do not reflect the

sustainable efforts that this developer has strived to obtain. While it may appear

that the individual Glenn home consumed fewer resources from the charts, this is

not the case. The Glenn house has 2 less people then Adams and the “average

per person” (APP) on each table is representative of the analysis results.

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Average per

Month

Average per

Person

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Water Consumption Analysis

Adams StGlenn St

Month

Gal

lon

s of

Wat

er (

Th

ousa

nd

s)

Water Consumption Analysis Table

DONOVAN 21

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Average per

Month

Average per

Person

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Energy Consumption Analysis

Adams StGlenn St

Month

Kil

low

atts

of E

ner

gy

Energy Consumption Analysis Table

The amount of resources consumed per month per person is an important

characteristic to observe, but because of the different amounts of people per

house the APP consumption is more critical to observe.

DONOVAN 22

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Although the analysis of the utility bills between the two residencies failed

to demonstrate the effectiveness of sustainable practices in the desert climate, I

am going to explain why. A noticeable flaw in the comparison of water and

energy bills between the residencies is the utility companies’ information and

statistics manipulate the average amount of consumption per person. I was not

aware of this before the study, but apparently the prices of utilities are different

rates throughout the city. One person in a neighborhood does not pay the same

for 1000 gallons of water as someone else in a different neighborhood. Also

included in the electric and water bill are charges for more than just the resource

itself. “Miscellaneous” and “environmental service fees” are examples of some of

the charges that are added to the bills and could be uniquely calculated per

neighborhood as well. The meter reading dates are also all different and some

months are longer than others. The regularity and effectiveness of these bills

explanation on the monthly statement provided for customers is simply not

enough to yield significant results.

In addition to the discrepancy in billing from the utility companies the

amount of water or electricity an individual uses can be greatly affected by

personal decisions like the length of shower per day or if the facet is left on

during shaving. The same is true for electric use. When you leave the room do

you turn all the lights off? The fan? Unplug the television… because even if not in

use, if it’s plugged in the television is still demanding power. The influence that

individuals have over their own bills is just as important as the sustainable

DONOVAN 23

improvements and concepts that have been discussed in this study and the lack

of results from the analysis compliments this indication. In reality small personal

choices like these sway results significantly, especially over a 5-month

compounded period. This is an excellent instance of how small personal

decisions can make a great difference in water and energy conservation. What

this analysis does validate is that no one branch of the developmental process

alone can generate a sustainable community.

The utilities bills might not reflect the sustainable consciences of The

Smart Lofts, but that does not mean these developers are not making a

difference for the environment. While touring the interior of the house it was

apparent that this development is sustainable from the inside out. Physically, the

carpets and the individual roof decks are made from predominantly recycled

materials while the solar panels on the roof heat the houses hot water. Although

this could not be graphed in a table for the report, these long-term techniques of

development are facilitating sustainability and cooperation through a more

natural lifestyle. For example the interior of the house is exposed Integra block,

not for aesthetic reasons, but to prevent the use of excess materials. To cover

the interior walls would be more expensive, and also involve the use of excess

materials from an anonymous factory that manufactures the product using any of

the numerous chemicals expended in large-scale industrial manufacturing

around the world. At first one might think that the developers could simply use a

sustainable product for the interior, as opposed to a move traditional, but there is

no need. It is not essential to use more materials then necessary and the added

DONOVAN 24

cost of the materials, even sustainable, requires the use of resources,

manufacturing those resources, and then transporting the finished product. All of

these steps to use this product, whatever it might be, are harmful to the

environment and the true sustainable material is nothing at all because nothing is

necessary.

The tenets of the Glenn Street development also go above and beyond to

help renter’s monitor their utility bills and inform them on simple, but effective,

ways to live as sustainably as the house was intended. Originally the tenets

required renters to pay their own bills to gain an appreciation of the amount of

resources his or her household consumed, but soon changed this policy because

the utility companies offered them better rates if the bills were paid through the

landlord. This is another example of the manipulation of the utility companies’

information and how consequently the outcome of the analysis was

compromised. The education of renters on their utility bills stretches far beyond

their stay at The Smart Lofts, because now that individual is thinking about their

lifestyle and how that lifestyle impacts the environment. If someone begins

noticing their resource consumption, monitors it, and eventually alters their

lifestyle that individual is going to take that level of conscious wherever he or she

goes in the future.

Another variable of the study that was not observed as effectively as I had

hoped is the concept of solar orientation and shading in both developments. Due

to time restraints this important aspect of sustainable design was not scrutinized

as absolutely as it could have been. If time had not been a restrain, the report

DONOVAN 25

would have benefited from calculating the exact angles the houses are

positioned with orientation to the sun, and then recorded the amount of sunlight

per day each house was actually receiving. This would allow a more in depth

observation of the effects that sun exposure has on diverse materials and the

thermal transfers that are associated with those materials. Another aspect of

shading and material use that was overlooked in the study is the ratio of floor

area to windows in the households. Glass and windows are an excellent way to

let natural light into a home, but the energy loss through heat transfer in the

desert would be an noteworthy relationship to examine, record, and compare.

Enormous or high numbers of windows are another developmental trend that

Tucson has been cursed with in recent history, but opening up homes to beautiful

desert views and scenery with these windows are ironically what is destroying

that beautiful landscape. The more individuals that move to the outer fringe of

Tucson, with hopes of living outside the city and enjoying nature, the closer those

views are from disappearing. Not only does this type of development degrade

the natural environment with pollution and non-native materials, but also as

people move further away from downtown the setting becomes no longer natural.

Each time a new development is built on the outskirts of town it sets a precedent

for the next developer to build even longer distances outside of downtown.

Eventually all the land will be developed with houses and gated communities,

and there will be no desert or beautiful landscape for anyone to enjoy. This

would consequently lower the value of all homes in the real estate market,

drastically reduce the large number of tourists that wish to travel to Tucson each

DONOVAN 26

year, and eventually decrease the quality of life in all parts of Tucson.

Government laws and regulations should be in place to control the rate of which

the city expands into the desert, but it seems that in most cases the city would

rather capitalize on short term gains and profits then invest in the preservation for

the future. The city and its community must make it easier for developers to

construct sustainable housing, large or small scale developments, and restrict

outward progress to impede communities from extending further into the natural

environment.

In addition to the monetary benefits that are a driving force behind the

transition into a more sustainable future, there is also an added variable of

personal responsibility that accompanies the movement. If the excepted average

lifestyle is going to reduce the opportunities and quality of life for future

generations then it is more than irresponsible or ignorant to continue living this

way. This includes all the citizen of the Earth, but especially in developed

countries like the United States. The developed countries of the world are the

ones that will need to spearhead this revolution using the education and

resources provided for us. The developed countries of our society are not only

more capable of reversing current market trends because of the financial

influence they have, but also these same countries are predominantly

responsible for the current environmental complications. It is the excepted high

standard of living in developed countries that is consuming resources and

destroying the planet and it is our responsibility to contribute proportionately.

Developed countries, contrasting to undeveloped countries, have also all gone

DONOVAN 27

through an industrial revolution and the epidemiologic transition which has

resulted in the current levels of pollution and rising levels of planet warming

greenhouse gases. To reverse this current trend there will need to be an

unprecedented level of international cooperation and the notion of individual

countries desires will need to be overlooked. This is the only way to guarantee

that the planet is secure and prosperous in the future for all people.

In conclusion, sustainability is a concept that requires participation

throughout all phases of development. How sustainable a development can

potentially be is defined by complex variables, but the notion begins with

governmental policy and law, continues through intelligent design and planning,

and ends with the educated and environmentally conscience decisions of

individuals. The effort is not confined to just one group of citizens but commands

cooperation from everyone in the construction industry from start to finish. This

is confirmed by the Tucson government restricting building codes to require

specific parking requirements on Glenn Street, the building consequently is not

orientated properly to the sun, and then the idea that individuals living in this

residency can choose to how adjust his or her lifestyle and significantly contribute

in the larger system. Soon, citizens will not consider sustainable practices as an

additional positive characteristic of their residency, but these aspects that make

up sustainable development are going to be expected.

DONOVAN 28

References

1. Gottdiener, M. & L. Budd, 2005. Key Concepts in Urban Studies. London:

Sage Publications.

2. Smith, M. E. (2010). Sprawl, Squatters And Sustainable Cities: Can

Archaeological Data Shed Light On Modern Urban Issues. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal, 20(02), 229-253.

3. Hayden, D., 2004. Field Guide to Sprawl. New York (NY): Pantheon.

4. Staley, S. (2006). Sustainable Development in American Planning: A

Critical Appraisal. The Town Planning Review, 77(1), 99-126.

5. Peiser, R. (2001). Decomposing Urban Sprawl. The Town Planning

Review, 72(3), 275-298.

6. Winston, N., & Eastaway, M. P. (2008). Sustainable Housing in the Urban

Context: International Sustainable Development Indicator Sets and

Housing. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 211-221

7. Vint, B., & Neumann, C. (2005). Southwestern Housing Traditions.

Tucson: Vint and Associates Architects Inc.

8. Michael Francis Konig. “Toward Metropolitan Status: Charter Government

and Rise of Phoenix, Arizona, 1945-1960. (PhD Diss., Arizona State

University, 1983), 101

9. Fairbanks, R. (2006). The Failure of Urban Renewal in the Southwest:

From City Needs to Individual Rights. The Western History Association,

37(3), 303-325.

DONOVAN 29

10. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987).

Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

11. Neumayer, Eric. (2003). Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the

Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Cheltenham, UK.

12. Rosenthal, J. (1960). Planning Advisory Service. American Society of

Planning Officials, 1(139), 2-44.

13. Google Maps, 2014

14. Olgyay, Victor. "Sun-path Diagram for Tucson's Latitude." Graphic

Standards 10th ed. (2000): 803.

DONOVAN 30