Sustainability in real estate keeps creeping into the forefront of discussion as a prevalent civic concern, so these blogs aim to shed some light on the different aspects of that concern, as well as some ways in which the concern is being addressed. Last time, we went over how sustainability in real estate is important in combatting climate change, and this time we will be going over a less materialistic concern. The social concerns that come with the lack of sustainable real estate are equally as important, if not more so than the logistical concerns. First, to understand this concern, we have to look at what is happening that is causing this to be an issue. In a certain light, it might not look like a social issue, but it’s rooted in taking away from those who are already underprivileged. The issue tends to bleed into the discussion on climate change, but it is mostly focused on the terrible social situations associated with not sustainable housing.
What this problem truly encompasses is the intersection between real estate and systematic discrimination based on financial status. Let me give a clearer understanding of the situation first. The current forms of least sustainable housing tend to be in bigger cities, referred to sometimes as the projects. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, it is short for Public Housing Projects, which was a federal installment that started as part of the Housing Act of 1937, passed as a part of the New Deal (NLIHC). The projects started off very segregationist, with the homes being built, black families evicted, and white-only neighborhoods being created (NLHIC). However, after a time they started becoming less and less popular, with the last bunch of public housing being popular among only the people who were living in the homes and those who were waiting to get into them (NLHIC). Essentially, they are a bunch of the same design of row houses, or something similar, built en masse to try and alleviate some of the problems with slums in bigger cities. Living in those environments causes a host of problems. Being that they are mostly occupied by underprivileged individuals, those areas tend to be the least developed, have the worst amenities, and be the least efficient at dealing with carbon emissions.
The reason this becomes such a bad social issue is due to a chain reaction of events that deprioritizes the less affluent people living in the projects in bigger cities. A lot of times those less affluent neighborhoods tend to be in bigger cities, so there is already less of a natural element in those peoples’ environments, meaning carbon dioxide absorption is much lower. This leads to an increase in the release of greenhouse gases, and in areas with the least amount of nature, something happens called the heat island effect. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Heat islands are urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas. Structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit the sun’s heat more than natural landscapes such as forests and water bodies. Urban areas, where these structures are highly concentrated and greenery is limited, become “islands” of higher temperatures relative to outlying areas. Daytime temperatures in urban areas are about 1–7°F higher than temperatures in outlying areas and nighttime temperatures are about 2-5°F higher” (EPA). In those areas with limited greenery, people have to pay more to keep cooler due to that heat island effect, but they are the very same people who are struggling to make basic payments as is, and there is not much policy available to provide aid, so in a continuous cycle, people of lower financial standing are getting essentially the short end of the stick when it comes to living conditions.
The lowest income real estate, as discussed earlier, has the least ability to be sustainable, and the lack of policy or funding to fix that puts any underprivileged people trying to live in the city at a distinct disadvantage. Just as with the solutions to the climate change issue, similar measures to increase sustainability can help these underprivileged people lead relatively more comfortable lives. According to the EPA, “Green building materials, techniques, and appliances can reduce energy consumption by an average of 33 percent and water use by about 30 percent. These savings are significant, as energy costs can be as much as 22 percent of household income after taxes for the lowest-income households” (EPA). Increasing the affordability of housing allows the working poor to have more of a comfortable margin of total income left after having spent it on housing. Using green building techniques like regenerative design increases the greenery in those areas, lowering the effect of the heat island effect. This, in turn, lowers the cost of cooling the area down compared to an area with no greenery, it makes the air cleaner, and it allows for the people in those environments to lead better lives. Therefore, sustainability once again offers a solution to a different set of issues brought up in the discussion on sustainable real estate.
Overall, we have seen here that in addition to affecting climate change, low-income public housing represents a major social issue where those same low-income communities are systematically discriminated against by the general policy that governs housing. The lack of sustainable housing creates a vicious cycle in which more financial pressure is placed on people of low financial status, and there is not much in place to help them overcome that. Sustainable real estate development is once again an answer, helping make developments more affordable and helping the environment in the process.
https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-affordable-housing
Wow. It is crazy to think that low income housing has environmental impacts alongside its socioeconomic impact. One problem I can think of when making low income housing more “green” is the perception that low income housing will be built with expensive materials. In order to build such housing, I believe the public will have to be educated on why they can benefit in the long run if low income housing is built with more expensive “green” materials. Overall, this opened up my eyes to the underlying problems with low income housing.