Circle C vs. SoCo - which is more environmentally friendly? (Austin: condos, appliances)

[austin-steve]

On another thread I veered off into a comment which at first I thought sounded absurd, but after thinking about it, I'm not so sure.

Here is what I said:

Escarpment Village is in fact greener and more environmentally friendly than the SoCo area. So for people who want to spend money in establishments that practice earth friendly values, they'd actually be more empowered to live their values in Circle C than in Travis Heights, with regard to shopping destinations within 1 mile. I'll guaranty you the carbon footprint of Guerros on S. Congress is massive compared to that of Satalite Cafe in Circle C, and that drivers have driven further to come to Guerros than those coming to Satalite Cafe.

Central Austinites tend to be far more left leaning and often think of themselves as more socially responsible, more socially aware, more environmentally conscious than their suburban brethren.

But, as the new Austin ordinance requiring all 10+ year old homes in Austin to receive an energy audit upon being sold indicates, the older central homes are horribly energy inefficient, as are all those old commercial buildings along SoCo.

Is it possible that a suburbanite living in a new energy efficient home in Circle C, driving a Toyota to work downtown, and partonizing the local Escarpment Village green-built establishments is actually producing a smaller dollar for dollar carbon footprint than a Travis Heights resident living in an old leaky home who rides a bus to work downtown and hangs out and spends money in SoCo establishments?

[atxcio]

No.

Just by virtue of density and public transportation, it's possible to live with no car or just one car per family in SoCo (and I'm pretty sure some people do). That's not possible in Circle C. Commuting is probably the biggest single factor in carbon footprint. The second, at least around here, would be energy usage (primarily A/C). The newer, more energy efficient buildings are an excellent step forward but their benefits are wiped out in comparison by the fact that are so many more people per air-conditioned square foot in SoCo than in Circle C.

And beyond your Toyota-Prius driving example, I'd imagine if there were a metric of SUVs to total residents, it would be several times higher in Circle C than in SoCo.

Good thread topic.

[Trainwreck20]

it's possible to live with no car or just one car per family in SoCo (and I'm pretty sure some people do).

I would assume some people do, but everyone I know does have two cars (or more), although a couple of people I know live in brand new 'McMansions' (although they really aren't), so they are very energy efficient.

Hard to make a sweeping statement, though, about one place of the other, really. On a conscious level, I would say there is very little difference i nthe people in one place or the other.

[centralaustinite]

Well, I live in a three star green built home in Travis Heights! I so love my low electric bills.

Are most homes in Circle C green built? That would surprise me. Plus, what about the aquifer? To me Circle C forever has the taint of Gary Bradley. I remember the City Council meeting that went all night and spawned Save Our Springs. Really shouldn't most of SW been left undeveloped to protect the watershed? The flatter, less environmentally sensitive land towards the east is where Austin should have grown . . . but the east-west divide is powerful.

You are right that older homes are leaky and not "green" but in terms of carbon footprint, the best thing to do is to improve the energy efficiency of an old home not build a new green one. So after a few years, with the ordinance as incentive, SoCo could become even greener. I walk to the bus stop and take the bus downtown. We are a one car family, are there many one car families in Circle C?

I think that the greenest place to live is Manhattan! Seriously, the density and lack of cars, make for a small carbon footprint.

Sorta OT: but I was out on Hwy 71 and 281 over the weekend, out past Marble Falls. I rarely venture very far out of town but boy, so many developments out that way are so uninspiring! Gorgeous setting but all the homes look so ordinary, just like any other peaked roof, too much brick, arched windowed big box you would see in any suburb. No connection to their fabulous setting.

[ladylonghorn2]

Building new homes wastes so many resources. I don't have any hard stats but would guess that retrofitting an old home is almost always better for the environment than sourcing and shipping all the building material needed for new developments, no matter how green they are built.

[b. frank]

It was relatively inexpensive for me to rectify much of the energy-inefficiency of my small house in "East Congress" built in 1972. We replaced the entire HVAC system, attic insulation, and installed door seals as well as bringing with us newer, energy-efficient appliances and electronics. Sure, there are plenty of old clunkers all over the place but people are probably doing what I have done more and more. So examining the potential that each area has for efficiency is another way to answer the question.

[verybadgnome]

Who says you have to live in an older place for SoCo?

They have new condos both north and south of Ben White so really there is no comparison at all between it and Circle C goes on the environmental front.

Looking at the CapMetro map there are no bus routes at all on the west side of Mopac south of Convict Hill so you have no choice but to use some sort of personal transport. Meanwhile SoCo has three bus lines and bike lanes for part of it.

Sounds like a bit of greenwashing to me.......

[Trainwreck20]

Huh, haven't looked at the bus routes, but there is one that stops on Davis lane. Havent really paid that much attention to it, so no idea if it is a commuter line or what.

[TexasHorseLady]

As for older homes being inefficient, it depends on how old. I live in a 1930's home that could certainly use some insulating. However, we don't have central air or heat. We use window units, and most years we don't have to turn them on until late June/early July, simply because the house was built before air conditioning existed at all and thus is designed with that in mind. Ceiling fans, windows that open and are placed to allow the breeze to go through the house, and being placed on the lot to take advantage of the prevailing winds, allows us to do this. For that matter, when we lived in Barton Hills in a house built in 1959, while we did use central air, we turned it on later than many others because we could open the kitchen window and the sliding glass doors and the breeze would go through the house and cool us, due to where the house was placed.

So the "new versus old" energy efficiency issue needs to take into account our "need" for central air/heat (air conditioning being the primary issue in this part of the world).

[Trainwreck20]

Yeah, well, have a pregnant wife and see what happens to the "need" for AC .