In an ever-expanding Los Angeles we look to the outer regions to develop, thus moving into dryer lands with very little precipitation; taking agriculture out of production and/or consuming open space, habitat, and watersheds; exposing communities to potentially catastrophic wildfires; and adding distance and volume to existing commutes. Sprawl puts an increasing strain on our dwindling (imported) water resources and inhibits the health of our local water resources, as well as strains energy supplies, land use, air quality, and commute times. Residential developments on the outskirts that are rapidly constructed and conventionally lit, heated, ventilated, and plumbed offer affordability up front, with longterm costs hidden in their planning and construction.

Can architecture offer intelligently planned and designed communities that are both economically within reach of middle-class home-buyers and pragmatically attuned to their surroundings? If sprawl is accepted as an inevitable outcome of a growing population, can it be reconsidered as potentially less destructive, even beneficial?

I propose a sustainable community, planned according to principals of watershed management; open space protection; and low-carbon infrastructures. The architecture of individual single-family dwellings is comprised of several components that can be recombined to form multiple housing alternatives affordably. While buildings will be constructed with equal or slightly higher upfront costs, their design and construction will reduce long term costs for the occupants, and for the environment and society at large, in the following ways:

​

• Fire resistant construction

• Localized water treatment

• Localized water supply + distribution

• Energy self-sufficiency

• Passive heating + cooling

• Shared courtyards

• Private courtyards

• Community parks

• Accessible trails to public

• Limited parking

• Residences share one vehicle

• Firebreaks between clusters

• Farm space

• Horse stables