Sustainable Jump Start:

Moving the Midwest towards a Denser Future

Kevin Montgomery
UO_M.Arch_Portland
March 16, 2010
Rethinking Architecture: Final Manifesto

The world is facing an increasingly drastic threat that is becoming a common factor in nearly every
aspect of life: climate change. Fortunately, there are also increasingly numerous ideas of how we need to
adapt ourselves to correct our abusive course. While many would argue we are not accomplishing near
enough, others would say in the last five years, our country in particular, has opened its eyes and begun to
remedy the issue. I agree with the first statement, we need to do much more and do it now; however there
is something that distresses me more. As many make wiser choices and invite lifestyle change, there are
more people who ignore responsibility, reject transformation and oppose innovation. Regionally, in the
Midwest, there is a shortfall in sustainable values. There are countless options for improvement. I believe
one of the most practical, helpful, and overall important aspect is adding density to urban cores. How do
architects create catalytic projects to promote transition back into the city centers, sparking growth
in density and a start towards sustainability?

Introduction
Less than a century ago the Midwest would have been described as beautiful rolling hills of dense
forests interwoven with open prairies, all fed with a perfectly balanced system of rivers, streams, and lakes.
A place where one can live off the land, and simple life was the life. This is also when there was less than 2
billion people on our planet. There are still places like this in the region, most refer to them as state parks.
Today the heartland of America is a bald landscape of expansive corporate farms and unexciting suburban
subdivisions that rely on coal burning power plants, water pumped from the aquifer, and a extensive highway
system all so their children can spend 91 percent of their life indoors often leading to obesity, depression, or
mental health problems (Farr, 21).

While these issues are the honest truth, I do not want to simply be another critique that points fingers
at all we have done wrong. I grew up in the Midwest and plan on returning in the near future, I hope to
make a difference in people's lives that can ultimately better the planet. First, one must better understand
the problem and how it came about, then explore options to improve the situation, and in this case I have
chosen to look at one possible solution in depth. A solution that I feel is direct, practical, and could be a
valuable starting point for other strategies to launch from.

It Actually Is Greener on the Other Side

San Francisco will be the first city to fully support electric cars, Portland was ranked the greenest
city in the country by Popular Science magazine, other coastal locations like Boston and Seattle are some
of their company (Svoboda, online). How much importance is put on this information though? These cities
are proud of their titles as they should be, but many consider them to be exceptions to the norm. However,
if one begins to look at CO2 emissions across the country, there is a realization that entire regions are often
very similar (from city to neighboring city). The real difference is seen when comparing places in the middle
of the country to those on the coast.

1
 California 15,390
United States of America 720
Pennsylvania 13,1860

Most Cumulative Emissions, U.S. States 1960–2005 MtCO2

China

Per Capita Emissions

68
Ohio 12,351
Russian Federation 543 Illinois 10,752
1960–2005 tCO2 Texas 25,191
Germany
Charts comparing CO2 emissions
531 from New York 10,696
California
Indiana 8,950 15,390
Japan
nited States of America countries and323states. 720

United Kingdom
China 68
Figure 1: Top 20 Nations
439
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Ohio
Louisiana
8,538
8,369 12,351
13,1860
Figure 3
1960-2005
India
Russian Federation 21 543 Illinois
Florida 7,405 10,752
million tons of CO2
Ukraine
Germany
Cumulative Emissions
435 531
NewJersey
New York
Per Capita Emissions
5,799 10,696 Most C
Indiana
Georgia-USA 5,427 8,950
Canada
Japan 323 1960–2005
573 MtCO2
Michigan
North Carolina
1960–2005
5,220
tCO2
8,538 Texas
France
United Kingdom 439
298 Louisiana
Alabama 5,168 8,369 California
United States of America 213,608 United States of America 720
Italy
India 21 Florida
Kentucky 5,133 7,405 Pennsylvania
274
China 88,643
Poland
Ukraine JerseyChina
New Missouri 68 5,799
4,861 Ohio
435
404
Russian Federation 77,762 Georgia-USA
Tennessee
Russian Federation 5,427
4,712 543 Illinois
Mexico
Canada
102 573
North
WestCarolina
Virginia 5,220
4,624 New York
South Africa
France Germany 43,810 Germany 531
217 298 Alabama
Virginia 5,168
4,430 Indiana
Australia
Italy Japan 41,232 Japan 323
274 Kentucky
Wisconsin 5,133
4,149
497 Michigan
KoreaPoland
(South) United Kingdom 26,416 Missouri
United Kingdom 4,861 439
188 404 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Louisiana
Spain
Tennessee 4,712
Mexico India 22,922 India
102 204 21 Florida
West Virginia 4,624
Kazakhstan
South Africa Ukraine 20,487 Ukraine New Jersey
217 560 Virginia 4,430 435
Brazil
Australia Georgia-USA

Iran
Korea (South)
45
Canada 18,518497
Figure 4
Wisconsin
Canada 4,149
573
North Carolina
188 France 18,134 0
France 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
108 298 Alabama
Spain
204 Italy 16,071 Most
Italy by State Kentucky
Kazakhstan
0 100 200 300

Poland
400

15,421
500 600 700 800
Fewest
Poland
Cumulative Emissions,
274
U.S. States,
Fewest 1960–2005 MtCO2
by State Missouri
560
Tons CO2 per person 404
Brazil

Iran
45 Mexico 10,477 Figure 4 256309
Vermont
Mexico
District of Columbia
102
Tennessee
West Virginia
108 South Africa 10,158 South Africa
South Dakota 533 217 Virginia
0 100 200 300
Australia 400 10,131500 600 700 800
Fewest Cumulative
Australia
Rhode Island 541 Emissions, U.S.
497 States, 1960–2005 MtCO2 Wisconsin
Korea (South) 9,078
Tons CO2 per person Idaho
Korea (South) 568
188 0
Vermont
New Hampshire 256 646
Spain 8,835 Spain
District of Columbia
Hawaii 309 204 762
Kazakhstan 8,480 Kazakhstan
SouthDelaware
Dakota 533 771 560
Brazil 8,472 Rhode Island
MaineBrazil 541 848

Iran 7,438
Idaho
Montana Iran
45
568 1,045 Figure
New Hampshire
Alaska 108 646 1,148
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
Hawaii
Nevada 762 1,196
Delaware
0 100 200 300
771
400 500 600 700 800
Fewest
Most by CountryMillion tons CO2 Oregon
NorthMaine
Dakota 848 Tons CO2 per person 1,478
1,446

Vermont
Montana
Nebraska 1,045 1,489
Alaska 1,148 District of Columbia
Figure 2
Wyoming 1,905
Nevada 1,196 South Dakota
Utah 1,937
Oregon 1,446 Rhode Island
Connecticut 1,995
North
NewDakota
Mexico 1,478 2,040 Idaho
Nebraska
Arkansas 1,489 2,142 New Hampshire
Wyoming 1,905 Hawaii
0 500 1,000 1,500  2,000 2,500
Utah 1,937 Delaware

The charts shown are the best witness to the terrifying reality of green house gas emissions. First
Connecticut
New Mexico
1,995
2,040
Maine
Montana
we can see the amount produced by America compared Arkansas to the next top producers in the world. The
2,142 U.S. Alaska

is far and away the biggest producer, however the severity can best be seen not when compared to other
0 500 1,000 1,500  2,000 2,500 Nevada

"evils" but when compared to lower impacting countries. Texas is the worst individual state, it by itself Oregon
North Dakota
produces more than the lowest 122 countries combined. Comparing individual states is the only way for us Nebraska

to be on the same chart as other countries. In fact the top seven states would be enough for the US to still Wyoming
Utah
hold the top spot (Biel,4). All of this information is concerning, but for me more interesting is which states Connecticut
make of the top of the list. If we remove Texas and California because they are the top two most populous New Mexico

states and therefore need more energy, we are left with states like Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Arkansas

Pennsylvania. With Pennsylvania slightly off to the east, the rest of these states make up the core of the 0

Midwest Region.
pg. 10

I used this data to create one more chart (below). I was curious to what the per capita carbon
emissions was for people living within these states. Note: the numbers given assume all emissions
produced in the state were consumed there, this is probably not the case, but for this scenario that was
assumed. The result for Hoosiers should be depressing. Indiana leads by a significant amount, An
embarrassing 1393 tons of CO2 per person from 1960-2005, or 31 tons per year. This 31 compared to 8.4
in Oregon. So even if the numbers are skewed, it is not by a factor of 4. It is not an opinion that Midwest
states are less sustainable, it is a fact.
State Tons of CO2 Population Tons CO2/person
Indiana 8,950,000,000 6,423,000 1393 31
Ohio 12,351,000,000 11,542,600 1070
Pennsylvania 13,180,000,000 12,605,000 1045
Texas 25,191,000,000 24,782,000 1016
Michigan 8,540,,000,000 10,045,000 841
Illinois 10,752,000,000 12,910,000 832
New York 10,696,000,000 19,541,000 547
California 15,390,000,000 36,961,000 416 Chart comparing CO2 emissions per capita
Oregon 1,446,000,000 3,825,000 378 8.4 by state. 2
 I spent the first 23 years of my life in Indiana and while the ideas in this paper refer to the majority
of the Midwest (as well as other parts of the country), I am particularly speaking with regard to Central
Indiana. Indianapolis with a metro population approaching two million (14th largest in the nation) is one of
the least dense cities in America, has no rail transit, only the 99th largest bus system, and is working on a
multi-billion dollar project to expand 60 miles of freeway (Renn, online). While these are the dismal truths,
the city is still far and away more impressive than any urban environment within 80 miles of it. The outlying
cities have all but abandoned the downtowns in exchange for an endless sea of suburban developments.
The west coast is leading a charge in sustainable design and lifestyle, the east coast remains dense and
more open to change, and the Midwest is lingering behind in nearly all aspects.

Why do you do what you do?

"Everything happens
for a reason" (unknown).
Hoosiers did not wake up
and decide they should be
the single worst green house
gas emitters on the planet.
Although I do not believe that
there are any excuses for the
problems I am discussing,
there is a history that helps
explain how we got here.
The Midwest is one of the
most natural resource rich
places on earth. It has
mostly flat terrain covered
with rich fertile soil, it sits on
one of the world's largest
coal reserves, and has (or
did have) an impressive Map shows capacity and cost of
amount of freshwater from coal fired power plants in U.S.
the aquifers and great lakes.
Local architect Mike Montgomery simply states, "In
Landscape & Natural Resources the Midwest, we make stuff and grow stuff, that is what it boils
down to". The chart above illustrates coal fired power plants
Strategy for Survival in the U.S. and their productivity levels. As you can see the
Midwest is able to produce large amounts of energy for a lower
Production & Needs for Production cost than any other part of the country. So the answer of why,
is simply because we can. We have the resources others do
Way of Life... or work not and there is a large demand, so the gap was filled with the
obvious solution. This explanation is also the answer for the
Lifestyle industry and production that takes place in the region. Low
energy and land costs, available resources like iron for steel
making, and a centrally and well connected location makes it
Time

ideal for heavy industry. The auto industry was the foundation
for many cities throughout the Midwest. Several of the same
resources made it ideal for agriculture. Industry and farming
became a way of life for a vast majority of the Midwest's
History population. Over multiple generations, a way of life forms
values and ideas that are often difficult to change, as a result
Values there is often instant resistance to the sustainability movement
which requires change. However, change is not an option, it is
Diagram represents the
Culture the responsibility of each person, each state, the whole nation,
process that creates and the entire world.
values within any culture.
3
 Do Something...Do Anything
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model
that makes the existing model obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller (Farr 31). The Midwest has its way of doing
things and will not make a drastic shift by itself. Unlike Portland, the people do not go green just to be
green. Indiana and other states know they are behind the ball, but continue to resist progressive policy or
planning. If pointing the finger does not work, then maybe it is time to try something else.

To create a strategy for success one must look at successful case studies. I have come across
only a few such projects that were within similar situations and have had real results. One, is the town of
Greensburg, Kansas. Already having that name, the town was like any other small town community until
2007 when a tornado flattened 95% of the buildings. Afterwards the city decided to use this rebuilding as an
opportunity to go green. It was the first city to require all city buildings meet LEED platinum standards. The
town is powered completely from new wind turbines and has a local non-profit group, led by Daniel Wallach,
educating people on how to build and live more sustainable. The town is now receiving new support from
large corporations who want to be associated with the green movement (Greensburg, online).

Another impressive example is that of a project entitled "Envision Utah". It occurred from 1995 to
2001, took place in the greater Wasatch area, and including 10 counties of Utah. Hundreds of professionals
from different disciplines along with local and state government and eventually lead by new urbanist, Peter
Calthorpe, used tremendous amounts of public input to fuel research on how the area could implement
smart growth (State of Utah, 4-30). The initial issue for most was not reducing carbon emissions, but rather
how this area in which they all love will absorb a five million person population increase over the next fifty
years. There was a realization by everyone that if their current course did not change, there would be
dramatic impacts such as loss of valuable agriculture land, loss of recreation space, increase in travel time
(worse traffic), and most importantly a multibillion dollar budget increase to expand roads and utilities which
would be paid for by all. As a result, they came together to adopt a smart growth plan increasing density in
new urban centers that can create walkable environments and be connected by mass transit.

Each of these examples is impressive on what they were able to accomplish in such a short period
of time. Still, in each case it was not the public's burning desire to be green that led to these results, in
fact people in Greensburg stated "I don't want to be a tree-hugger", but they had other needs (Greensburg,
online). It was these other needs that created an overlap issue and provided an opportunity for sustainability
to piggyback on to. This may be the key to creating successful projects in the Midwest where many oppose
making any sacrifice just to protect the planet. Rallying people behind ideas such as rebuilding their homes
or protecting their wallets would be much easier than rallying for Save the Pikas.

Image of Greensburg after 2007 Tornado. This led to green rebuilding strategies. Envision Utah target areas. 4
Green Starting Point
An overlap issue would be a good strategy for any sustainable strategy, which there are many of.
Establishing a mass transit system that could reduce auto emissions is one option. Another is putting in
place policy changes that encourage businesses and residence to waste less, consumer less energy, or
protect valuable resources. Begin supporting more alternative energy projects is another, or requiring green
building standards. Other solutions on a smaller scale would be: bike more, electric cars, plant trees, better
recycling, become vegetarian, or simply better educate the public. In the end all of these need to be apart of
the solution, but where is the best place to start?

Choosing an approach that can help launch more change is important, as well as a strategy that
would have a strong overlap with issues common in many Midwest communities. Searching for this answer
we can look back at what this region lacks compared to the coasts. The coasts are more populous and are
made up of many major cities. Most people throughout our country live in cities, so are the cities on the
coasts different from Midwest cities? Yes. If one has visited places like New York, San Francisco, Seattle,
and Boston, and then travels to Indianapolis, Louisville, and Minneapolis, there is clear difference. The
Midwest cities (with exception of Chicago) are less crowded, or less dense. The diagram below illustrates
this with the population and land area of three cities.
Diagram demonstrates
how Indianapolis is
much less dense than
coastal cities such as
Portland or New York.

New York City Portland, OR Indianapolis, IN

468 mi­2 metro 140 mi­2 metro 375 mi­2 metro
8.4 million people 2.2 million people 1.7 million people

Density is a key component in creating a more sustainable culture. Concepts such as mass transit,
walkable communities and proper land use all require more people to live closer together. This does
not mean we all need to live in towers like most people in Manhattan, but smaller homes and mixed use
communities can provide a higher quality of life while being much more sustainable. This idea is true on
many different scales. Smaller cities could benefit equally from creating a denser environment. In fact, this
is where I see an overlap issue that could make smart density a reality. Hundreds of small cities and towns
have watched people and businesses vacate their downtown. Many citizens and officials hope to revive the
city centers before it is too late. One place that has reached that point is Detroit. A place that has inverted
itself placing all life in suburbs which allowed the downtown to be over run by crime which pushed more
people away. Today there are 16,000 buildings awaiting demolition in Detroit and wild coyotes run through
the city. People now understand the importance of downtowns and are looking for ways to revitalize them,
while others, like myself, are looking for ways to create more sustainable environments.

Suburb Sprawl
where most people live
Empty City Centers
Potential Mass Transit
Path to Destination

Diagram shows how mass

transit strategies do not
work well without dense
nodes of people.
5
 Downtown Detroit is
often a ghost town, over
16,000 buildings are
awaiting demolition.

A Reuse Opportunity
The Midwest has many disadvantages as I have mentioned. However, these vacant
downtowns due to sprawl could now have an inverse affect that may be able to become an advantage.
As everyone moved to the suburbs, in most cases they left behind a "perfectly good city". Today it might
have poorly insulated, graffiti covered, vacant buildings, but none the less it is there along with an immense
infrastructure. The streets, sidewalks, utilities, and many lasting buildings are sitting in a cluster, close
together, and half empty. Other projects, like those following New Urbanism, attempt to create most of this
from scratch which uses extra resources and money.

An urban center means several different environments depending on the scale one is referring
to. Again, I do not think it matters what scale one would choose to look at, very similar principals could be
applied. If we take Pendleton, Indiana, with a population of a few thousand, the city center may only be a
group of two story civic and commercial buildings; surrounding it with a group of town homes would greatly
increase density. Anderson, Indiana, with around 60,000 people has a downtown a half mile wide, but half
is surface parking, there is no housing, and many buildings are vacant. One could imagine the vibrant street
life if half the city's population lived within that half mile, rather than 6 miles away in a cul-de-sac with no
windows on two sides of their poorly built houses.

A final thought on reusing urban cores is that we would also be addressing the issue of a massive
energy wasting existing building stock. An important piece of the aggressive 2030 challenge is to renovate
an equal amount of existing space as new construction up to 2030 expectations. In the Midwest where 90
percent of all energy comes from coal there has been very little attention to upgrading existing structures.
A project that reused a downtown building and the surrounding infrastructure to activate the area would
be a huge step in the right direction. Also know as adaptive reuse, this process must become much more
common if we as architects intend on meeting low energy and minimal waste goals.
There are many great adaptive reuse projects, most
often located in large cities with grand historic buildings. One
would be Joseph Vance building in Seattle. This LEED gold
project upgraded 13 floors of office space taking advantage
of its correct orientation with passive systems and continuing
to attract new tenants to the downtown area surrounded with
mass transit (AIA, online). This project took well advantage
of its active location and did not have to address attracting
people into the area. Another notable project is the White
Stag Block in Portland. This project by Venerable Properties
and the University of Oregon has also received the LEED gold
award and has worked to reuse an existing block of buildings
to create high quality educational studio spaces and office
space. This project did move into a struggling neighborhood
and has been quite helpful to the area. However, in a compact
city like Portland the area is bordered by the city center and the
new Pearl district, both only a few blocks away, meaning the
neighborhood could, and was inevitably going to, bounce back
quickly.
The Joseph Vance building in Seattle is
a nice example of adaptive reuse in an 6
active urban environment.
 Doing the Right Thing...A New Idea
Unlike these examples, an adaptive reuse project in many Midwest towns would be starting alone
without the attractive surrounding context. Could a single project be successful enough to rally others back
to the city center. Or, how do architects create catalytic projects to promote transition back into the
city centers, sparking growth in density and a start towards sustainability? I believe there is a way.
Using the right combination of program, location, timing, and design a project could excite people enough
that there would be an opportunity that others would want to follow, and together the downtown could be
revitalized.

For a single project to do this I feel it would need several exceptional traits. The first being a
program that drove people to it, not always by choice, but by requirement. For instance a retail store would
most likely fail, because people can choose to simply shop somewhere else. Second, the project must
involve a large amount of people, affecting only a handful would not be reason for other businesses to follow
suit, these smaller programs are part of the growth. Meaning a coffee shop will not spark redevelopment,
but redevelopment will bring lots of coffee shops. Third, the design must be extremely attractive. Both
inside and out the architecture and spaces created must be inspiring, encouraging people to stay in the area
or return often. These three design criteria may not all be necessary for every project, but in extreme cases
it is difficult to envision a project being successful as a catalyst with any one piece missing.

For an example I wish I could point to a wonderful success story, but I can not. Rather I will purpose
my own case study. Mentioned early was the town Anderson, Indiana. This is my hometown; it now has
a population of about 60,000 and is located 45 minutes north east of downtown Indianapolis. Anderson
boomed after World War II becoming a leader in automotive production (similar to many towns in the area),
during this time it was a place where the American dream came true. In the 1980s the auto industry folded
up shop and left town, leaving thousands unemployed beginning a downward spiral for local businesses.
Today most people live in surrounding suburbs, shopping at Wal-Mart, and commuting toward Indianapolis
(usually Indianapolis suburbs) for work. You could not pay most people to live in downtown, crime and poor
schools has driven real estate prices to rock bottom. An attempt was made in recent years to "dress up"
the downtown. Main street was repaved with brick, new trees were planted, and a public square was built
next to the courthouse, library, and YMCA. On that same block I have watched two restaurants, a bar, and
a shop open and then close each within a year. These were too small and relied on people's choice for their
success.

Downtown Anderson has quality architecture that would be ideal for adaptive reuse. 7
 Bright Automotive
has a competive
product and wants
to start production in
Anderson, IN.

Bright Idea

A project that I feel would succeed is that of Bright Automotive. This is a small company currently
based out of Denver that hopes to produce electric delivery vehicles. This group of engineers has already
developed a concept model that competes with all major producers of similar product. The best part is, they
truly want to begin manufacturing in Anderson, Indiana. However, the site they have currently chosen would
not be of the most benefit for Anderson. The site sits nearly 8 miles from the city center along the interstate
in an office/industry park. If one could envision Bright selecting an existing factory near downtown, which
there are several of, and employ a few hundred workers, Anderson could have the jump start it needs. The
program would be very large and it would force not only workers to downtown but also future business
partners. The only piece left would be for the architecture and planning of the area to be very supportive
and attractive to other companies leading more and more people into the city. A lively environment quickly
becomes appealing for housing. As land values rise and more of the existing building stalk is used up,
new architecture will fill in surface parking and buildings will begin to get taller leading to more and more
density. Within this new denser town made up of smarter buildings, successful mass transit and a walkable
communities will become more realistic.

What if Bright moved to downtown rather than the

suburbs. This project may spark other businesses
and housing development in downtown.
Summary
Although the culture of the Midwest has transformed it into the least sustainable place on earth,
there are still practical solutions that can benefit quality of life and the planet. I feel one of these solutions is
rebuilding our downtowns into places of activity and where people want to live. Density is a key component
of maintaining a healthy planet with seven billion people on it. Density, or whatever the first strategy is, it
needs to be put in place now, and needs to encourage more change to follow. The Midwest has a long way
to go and can not afford to fall farther behind. With the extensive room for improvement, the region could
become an example of how drastic change can take place. This is an example America should be setting
for the rest of the world. This is a world wide problem and everyone needs to do more, especially those
farthest behind.

Sources

AIA Seattle, . "What makes it Green." Joseph Vance Building (2008): n. pag. Web. 01 Mar 2010. <http://
wmig.aiaseattle.org/node/151>.

Biel, Steven and Carrol Muffet: America's Share of the Climate Crisis. Washington DC: Green Peace USA,
2008. Online post of print publication.

Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. 1st. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sones, 2008.
Print.

Feireiss, Kristin and Lucas Feireiss: Architecture of Change 2. 2nd. Berlin: Gestalten Verlag Gmbh, 2009. Print.

Gratz, Roberta. Cities Back From the Edge: New Life for Downtown. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sones, 1998.
Print.

Greensburg, . "GreenTown Featured in USGBC Web Clip." Greensburg Green Town (2010): n. pag. Web. 04 Mar
2010. <http://www.greensburggreentown.org/home/2009/2/18/greentown-featured-in-usgbc-web-clip.html>.

Montgomery, Mike (AIA, LEED AP), Phone Interview, January 24, 2010.

Renn, Aaron. "Portland and the Limits of Urban Planning Policy." Urbanophile (2010): n. pag. Web. 24 Jan 2010.
<http://www.urbanophile.com/>.

State of Utah, . The History of Envision Utah. Utah: epa.gov, 2003. Print.

Svoboda, Elizabeth. "America's 50 Greenest Cities." Popular Science (2008): n. pag. Web. 09 Mar 2010. <http://
www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities?page=1>.
9