Drevograd

Feasibility

What needs to be tested?

Every proposition below is untested. This page makes the uncertainty explicit and gives potential research partners a shared starting point for deciding what should be examined first.

Current statusNo Drevograd hypothesis has yet been validated.

01 · Demand and human experience

Would people want to live there?

Whether different people and institutions would value, choose and support this kind of place.

4 hypotheses · All untested
  1. H-EXP

    Living in Drevograd can feel more pleasant than a conventional city—closer to a park or forest while retaining urban convenience.

    Untested
  2. H-LK

    People like the lived experience and spatial character of Drevograd.

    Untested
  3. H-WTP

    A sufficient number of people would pay to live in Drevograd.

    Untested
  4. H-HD

    Affluent households find the proposition desirable.

    Untested

02 · Structural systems and materials

How much building could living trees safely support?

How buildings, trees, connections and modular components could form a safe, adaptable system.

4 hypotheses · All untested
  1. H-SS

    A tree-integrated building system is structurally sound in defined configurations.

    Untested
  2. H-LT

    Local timber can be used appropriately in the modular construction system.

    Untested
  3. H-GS[G,N]

    Tree genus G can support integration with N storeys of development.

    Untested
  4. H-LA[LA]

    The system is structurally sound on lattice arrangement LA.

    Untested

03 · Delivery and economics

Could it be built and maintained affordably?

Whether a viable development model could be assembled around land, production, regulation and deployment.

4 hypotheses · All untested
  1. H-LU

    The development model can preserve useful land for cultivation.

    Untested
  2. H-LV

    Drevograd can increase the long-term value of its host land.

    Untested
  3. H-MD

    Modularity can enable faster deployment and reduce construction cost in defined contexts.

    Untested
  4. H-MU

    Municipalities find the proposition valuable and supportable.

    Untested

04 · Ecology, climate and resource cycles

Can buildings and productive ecosystems thrive together?

How settlement, forestry, food, water, nutrients and energy might coexist without degrading living systems.

7 hypotheses · All untested
  1. H-WC

    A short local water cycle can safely reuse treated greywater to irrigate trees or food crops.

    Untested
  2. H-NC

    A short local nutrient cycle can safely process human waste into nutrients for trees or food crops.

    Untested
  3. H-FP

    The settlement can support meaningful local food production.

    Untested
  4. H-WE

    The site and building system can make useful local wind generation possible.

    Untested
  5. H-MS

    Mixed-species plantations can host Drevograd while maintaining ecological function.

    Untested
  6. H-CL[C]

    Drevograd can be viable in climate C.

    Untested
  7. H-CT

    A tree canopy can moderate dwelling temperatures through summer shade and seasonally available winter sunlight.

    Untested