“Ideally, closeness to other people is mirrored in a closeness to nature and integration of ecology into community living” (Roseland, 156).
During my time working at a transitional housing program for homeless families in Denver, I found myself constantly wondering what type of setting would facilitate community building between the families we were working with – to promote empowerment amongst the people as opposed to continued reliance on government assistance. I found it so unfortunate that the families who had gone through such similar turmoil and hardship in their lives, who could benefit from their empathy to build relationships and self-reliance, would often end up fighting, putting each other in danger, taking no responsibility for their shared housing, and choosing isolation over interaction. From my background in environmental design and architecture, I had a suspicion that much of the issue had to do with the poor design of their housing and surrounding neighborhoods, but I wasn’t sure what would help. (Although I remember thinking maybe they just needed more trees along their streets – but dismissed the thought thinking ‘too simple…but now I’m learning I was on to something!) When I came to the Design and Environmental Analysis program here at Cornell – my main hope was that I would learn about neighborhood-design-interventions that might facilitate the community-building processes that I had seen lacking in the mainly subsidized-housing neighborhoods I worked in. So… my thesis work has ended up focusing on Community Gardens and how they are a sort of “sanctuary” setting in a chaotic urban environment. My hope now is that after I graduate and move back to Denver that I will find a career where I am working with the community to solve the housing crisis as well as the community and social justice crises. So, needless to say, I found the Roseland “Housing and Community Development” chapter to be extremely meaningful and applicable to Denver city planning and policy!
I appreciate Roseland’s suggestion to design neighborhoods where residents can thrive. This statement really resonated for me: “To create a ‘sense of place’ and foster connection among people, the physical characteristics of neighborhoods must draw people together and encourage an atmosphere of peace, security, and pride among residents of a community” (156). Beatley mentions the community of Oikos (the Netherlands) where the physical design is intended to facilitate interaction between residents (297). These ideas from the readings are reminiscent of a statement from Jules Pretty, (professor of Environment and Society at the University of Essex) in an article titled “How nature contributes to mental and physical health,” where he suggests that policy makers and planners should focus efforts towards creating “healthy environments in which people can flourish rather than flounder” (Pretty, 2004, p. 69). It is so imperative that planners realize what an opportunity they have to create environments that not only “cause no harm” but go as far as to improve health and wellbeing.
As I’ve mentioned in a previous blog, but I think it’s worth mentioning again, energy efficient housing is extremely important, after seeing some of my former clients public service bills which were near $800.00 – 1,000.00 /month. The chapters of Habitat for Humanity that are building with energy efficiency as a priority are making a very necessary change.
In addition to my obsession with community gardens, I am beginning to become fascinated with other aspect of community-sharing that seem to have beneficial effects on community building. Roseland describes cooperatives and cohousing, where residents share cars, computers, laundry services, meal preparation, and childcare to reduce living expenses. While I believe this could work, I am a little skeptical without seeing the ideas in action. The single-mothers I worked with were extremely distrustful of almost everyone they came into contact with, (justifiably so) and I worry they would have a difficult time with the sharing and especially with the childcare, although it would be extremely helpful to them if it did work, as it seemed to be their biggest obstacle to finding and maintaining employment. If I were a policy-maker, I may be a little more inclined to opt for the Beyond Shelter model, which provides the childcare center (among many other important services) as part of the program services. If I were a citizen activist though I would argue that the problem with this is that it is not a sustainable or empowering as the community members providing their own childcare for themselves.
I thought that an aspect of Beatley’s example of Morra Park (Friesland region of the Netherlands) would probably work well in Denver; homes with 30% of the floor area “devoted to occupants’ primary economic livelihood” (294). Commuting in the Denver-metro area is a nightmare, and if there were a cultural shift towards more facilitation of working from home, I think many people would be thrilled.
I am a big fan of buildings that “learn,” (to refer to Stewart Brand’s book) and so if I were a Denver city planner I would definitely move to implement more buildings designed to adapt to changing needs and uses, by layout and ability to be dismantled and reconstructed, such as the examples Beatley gives of the school houses in Nieuwland, (Amersfoort) or the dismountable police station in Boxmeer, or the Dutch National Building (299-300).
Something that bothers me when I read about the need for density in cities is the fear of how this may reduce the natural light in the majority of spaces in densely built areas. So I was really excited to hear about some of the designs Beatley mentions that bring natural light into all areas of buildings. This is especially significant in the context of implementing these ideas in Denver, where sunlight is so plentiful, it would be detrimental to one’s wellbeing to sit in a windowless office all day – and unfortunately I know! (I tried to find an example of the “sun paintings” – the metal sculptures in the building that help to further bounce sunlight into the interior of the building, but I was unsuccessful. Too bad – I really want to see how it looks – I wonder if there’s a problem with glare?) The Queens Building at De Montfort University in Leicester is another example Beatley gives where bringing in natural light is a priority in the building-design.
I think that while many of these wonderful examples would be possible from a bottom-up approach, it would be so much easier with support or at least influence from the top. As Beatley says, “an important lesson … is the potentially powerful role government can play as a facilitator and catalyst for sustainable building” (318). I hope that the Denver city government will continue to move towards taking on this responsibility!
Showing posts with label Reading Reflections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading Reflections. Show all posts
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Application of readings (Roseland ch. 11 “Housing…” and Beatley Ch. 10 “Building Ecologically…”) to Denver, Colorado.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Community Economic Development – Building A Sustainable Economy
Roseland/Beatley – Week of November 4th
Roseland states that the main goal of community economic development (CED) is self-reliance, achieved through collaborative action, capacity building, and the return of local economic control to communities. While I feel collaborative action was something that could have been discussed further, I pulled out a few examples of tools and initiatives he suggests that I liked, followed by a few comments on Beatley’s chapter 12:
-Financing: Reinvestment policies: banks, insurance companies, and other depository institutions are required to reinvest significant portions of the capital they ‘extract’ from the community.
-Skills training and small business development: the idea of creating a “sheltered” place to train local residents, using already existing or easily obtainable space and equipment, allowing for people to gain career training and for start-up costs for those businesses to be lower.
-Interesting point made in the “Green Business” section: “More jobs will be created in energy efficiency, recycling, and public transportation than will be lost in the oil and coal industries, car manufacturing, and waste disposal.” It would be interesting to see projected number that correspond with that statement, since it seems that job loss is a huge point made in the debate over efficiency and transportation.
-Green maps and a Green Business Directory would be great in cities, where so many similar businesses may exist (ie. cafes) that it is difficult to know the details on them all. Having a directory with information on local businesses could be great for a city like Ithaca, which already shows interest in sustainability, and could help stimulate awareness in other cities.
-The idea of rideshare bucks, mentioned under ‘local currency,’ could be useful for Cornell in particular, as an incentive to increase carpooling by commuting employees and decrease campus car traffic.
-Buy Nothing Day: November 29th. Maybe this is something that could be started (if it hasn’t already?) in Ithaca and especially on the Cornell Campus. It seems like it could have a huge impact, especially because it’s during the major kickoff of the holiday shopping season.
-Industrial Symbiosis (Beatley): having wastes from one be inputs for another… A great step for creating closed-loop processes or industrial parks. To add another example, there is a waste processing facility (I believe in North Carolina), sited on an old dump, where the heat from the plant (which makes use of old infrastructure), is used to heat artists’ kilns, and ‘waste’ heat goes on from there to be used. This is a dump that is currently capped, and there are plans to expand to include a recycling/composting facility and recreational space.
-Landscape Recycling & Adaptive Reuse – There is a large segment of landscape architecture that is devoted to this type of work, where ‘brownfields’ are reclaimed for new uses. Their designs definitely incorporate ‘green’ technologies and restorative processes, while giving abandoned or underused spaces new roles to fulfill.
Roseland states that the main goal of community economic development (CED) is self-reliance, achieved through collaborative action, capacity building, and the return of local economic control to communities. While I feel collaborative action was something that could have been discussed further, I pulled out a few examples of tools and initiatives he suggests that I liked, followed by a few comments on Beatley’s chapter 12:
-Financing: Reinvestment policies: banks, insurance companies, and other depository institutions are required to reinvest significant portions of the capital they ‘extract’ from the community.
-Skills training and small business development: the idea of creating a “sheltered” place to train local residents, using already existing or easily obtainable space and equipment, allowing for people to gain career training and for start-up costs for those businesses to be lower.
-Interesting point made in the “Green Business” section: “More jobs will be created in energy efficiency, recycling, and public transportation than will be lost in the oil and coal industries, car manufacturing, and waste disposal.” It would be interesting to see projected number that correspond with that statement, since it seems that job loss is a huge point made in the debate over efficiency and transportation.
-Green maps and a Green Business Directory would be great in cities, where so many similar businesses may exist (ie. cafes) that it is difficult to know the details on them all. Having a directory with information on local businesses could be great for a city like Ithaca, which already shows interest in sustainability, and could help stimulate awareness in other cities.
-The idea of rideshare bucks, mentioned under ‘local currency,’ could be useful for Cornell in particular, as an incentive to increase carpooling by commuting employees and decrease campus car traffic.
-Buy Nothing Day: November 29th. Maybe this is something that could be started (if it hasn’t already?) in Ithaca and especially on the Cornell Campus. It seems like it could have a huge impact, especially because it’s during the major kickoff of the holiday shopping season.
-Industrial Symbiosis (Beatley): having wastes from one be inputs for another… A great step for creating closed-loop processes or industrial parks. To add another example, there is a waste processing facility (I believe in North Carolina), sited on an old dump, where the heat from the plant (which makes use of old infrastructure), is used to heat artists’ kilns, and ‘waste’ heat goes on from there to be used. This is a dump that is currently capped, and there are plans to expand to include a recycling/composting facility and recreational space.
-Landscape Recycling & Adaptive Reuse – There is a large segment of landscape architecture that is devoted to this type of work, where ‘brownfields’ are reclaimed for new uses. Their designs definitely incorporate ‘green’ technologies and restorative processes, while giving abandoned or underused spaces new roles to fulfill.
Community Economic Development and Green Jobs
Roseland brings up the concept of “non-monetary transactions,” (169) in his “Community Economic Development” chapter, promoting a cultural mindset shift away from traditional economic goals. He gives examples of bartering and non-material transactions such as child- or elder-care offered by friends and neighbors. I was reminded of a tactic used by Habitat for Humanity, which I learned on the job when I was working as a case manager with homeless families. At the Habitat orientation, the required hours of “sweat equity” seemed to make several of the potential applicants nervous. One of the women in the audience asked how she would possibly be able to find and afford additional child-care to what she already had during the week while she worked. The Habitat staff explained that they encourage the new residents to trade off watching each other’s children while putting in their hours in constructing their homes. And as an additional way to facilitate and encourage this “non-monetary transaction,” Habitat deducts the hours worked from both the family doing the construction and the family providing the child-care. I found this to be an extremely efficient and effective way of building sustainable community (although I did not know those terms at the time I learned about it!).
Roseland brings up some examples of the increasingly popular strategy of community economic development; “micro-enterprise loan programs” (170). Micro-lending is made possible by “financial intermediaries” who give small loans to low-income entrepreneurs who would not otherwise be eligible for such loans due to not having any collateral. These programs are generally organized as lending circles, where borrowers receive guidance from others who have successfully repaid loans and started their own businesses in the past. I am curious about the strategies of these “lending circles,” as an employee from Alternatives Credit Union who gave a presentation in a class I was in last semester mentioned that these types of lending circles are not as successful in the U.S. as they are in many foreign countries.
While Roseland admits that the transition process into a more sustainable economy will “produce many losers,” he asserts his confidence that this consequence will be far outweighed by the “winners” (174) when it comes to jobs. Something that worries me, however, is that it seems possible that order of events in this transition process will be first: losers lose, second: winners win. I’m definitely no economic genius, (by any means!) but I’m just thinking that in order for many of these new jobs to be created, the money has to be there to pay the salaries, and so something has to give… is it jobs from the losers? Meaning that; although the winners may have the potential to outnumber the losers, society’s sense of confidence would be severely dented by the decline in “brown” jobs. There’s a good chance I don’t know what I’m talking about here – please feel free to let me know!
In his “Rethinking Economic Development” section, Roseland provides some “tools” for how we can start changing things. He gives the example of “Buy Nothing Day,” (183) which is November 29th, and entails that if a critical mass of would-be-consumers choose not to buy anything on that day, this would reduce waste and output of pollution by staggering amounts. While I am a big fan of the idea, I have heard the argument that this strategy has proven to be ineffective, because unfortunately, the message of “consume less” is not what people take from it. The problem is, whatever people don’t by on November 29th, they will go out and buy on November 30th. Right?
I chose to read the “Community Jobs in the Green Economy” report as my second reading. I found the Foreword to be extremely inspiring, and to those of you who are the “commenters” this week, I would recommend reading at least that page. I am completely in love with the simplicity and poignancy of this statement:“The national effort to curb global warming and oil dependence can simultaneously create good jobs, safer streets, and healthier communities. That is the chief moral obligation in the 21st century: to build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty” (1).
Again, my brain refused to venture into the world of economics, so I may be missing something here, but I felt like there was an integral piece missing from the Green Economy report. The report provides numerous examples of green jobs that will be available with new green technologies; however, it is not clear where the financial backing will come from to employ all of these people. I think it’s semi-obvious that jobs in renewable energies will be paid for in the same fashion as energy is currently paid for – by the user to the energy companies. However; I am worried after hearing the example that (I think) Melanie gave in class of the energy company whose rates dropped so dramatically when they switched to renewable energies that they had to raise them again in order to sustain, and how the consumers were extremely angry about this. So my questions are (1) where will the money come from to pay these green workers: and (2) what sort of regulation would keep the capitalist mentality from negating the benefits?
In general, I feel that in the majority of what we are reading, as idealistic as it seems, is not idealistic enough when it comes to a much needed cultural shift regarding capitalism. The Green Economy report is structured around ways that “every city and community in the United States has some potential to capitalize on this new economy” (19). I’m just frustrated with the acceptance of money as the only driving force for change. I just wish there was more talk on how to start making people realize that money doesn’t equal happiness. Everything in this report is about how everyone can make more money – but there is nothing about how this will require some people who have been at the top of the spectrum of wealth to take a (big) pay cut.
I also appreciate the “cynicism is the problem, not the solution” comment from the Foreword. While being critical thinkers is of extreme importance, it is only helpful if it’s paired with the bravery to be a little idealistic, and take a chance on some unconventional ways of thought and practice.
Roseland brings up some examples of the increasingly popular strategy of community economic development; “micro-enterprise loan programs” (170). Micro-lending is made possible by “financial intermediaries” who give small loans to low-income entrepreneurs who would not otherwise be eligible for such loans due to not having any collateral. These programs are generally organized as lending circles, where borrowers receive guidance from others who have successfully repaid loans and started their own businesses in the past. I am curious about the strategies of these “lending circles,” as an employee from Alternatives Credit Union who gave a presentation in a class I was in last semester mentioned that these types of lending circles are not as successful in the U.S. as they are in many foreign countries.
While Roseland admits that the transition process into a more sustainable economy will “produce many losers,” he asserts his confidence that this consequence will be far outweighed by the “winners” (174) when it comes to jobs. Something that worries me, however, is that it seems possible that order of events in this transition process will be first: losers lose, second: winners win. I’m definitely no economic genius, (by any means!) but I’m just thinking that in order for many of these new jobs to be created, the money has to be there to pay the salaries, and so something has to give… is it jobs from the losers? Meaning that; although the winners may have the potential to outnumber the losers, society’s sense of confidence would be severely dented by the decline in “brown” jobs. There’s a good chance I don’t know what I’m talking about here – please feel free to let me know!
In his “Rethinking Economic Development” section, Roseland provides some “tools” for how we can start changing things. He gives the example of “Buy Nothing Day,” (183) which is November 29th, and entails that if a critical mass of would-be-consumers choose not to buy anything on that day, this would reduce waste and output of pollution by staggering amounts. While I am a big fan of the idea, I have heard the argument that this strategy has proven to be ineffective, because unfortunately, the message of “consume less” is not what people take from it. The problem is, whatever people don’t by on November 29th, they will go out and buy on November 30th. Right?
I chose to read the “Community Jobs in the Green Economy” report as my second reading. I found the Foreword to be extremely inspiring, and to those of you who are the “commenters” this week, I would recommend reading at least that page. I am completely in love with the simplicity and poignancy of this statement:“The national effort to curb global warming and oil dependence can simultaneously create good jobs, safer streets, and healthier communities. That is the chief moral obligation in the 21st century: to build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty” (1).
Again, my brain refused to venture into the world of economics, so I may be missing something here, but I felt like there was an integral piece missing from the Green Economy report. The report provides numerous examples of green jobs that will be available with new green technologies; however, it is not clear where the financial backing will come from to employ all of these people. I think it’s semi-obvious that jobs in renewable energies will be paid for in the same fashion as energy is currently paid for – by the user to the energy companies. However; I am worried after hearing the example that (I think) Melanie gave in class of the energy company whose rates dropped so dramatically when they switched to renewable energies that they had to raise them again in order to sustain, and how the consumers were extremely angry about this. So my questions are (1) where will the money come from to pay these green workers: and (2) what sort of regulation would keep the capitalist mentality from negating the benefits?
In general, I feel that in the majority of what we are reading, as idealistic as it seems, is not idealistic enough when it comes to a much needed cultural shift regarding capitalism. The Green Economy report is structured around ways that “every city and community in the United States has some potential to capitalize on this new economy” (19). I’m just frustrated with the acceptance of money as the only driving force for change. I just wish there was more talk on how to start making people realize that money doesn’t equal happiness. Everything in this report is about how everyone can make more money – but there is nothing about how this will require some people who have been at the top of the spectrum of wealth to take a (big) pay cut.
I also appreciate the “cynicism is the problem, not the solution” comment from the Foreword. While being critical thinkers is of extreme importance, it is only helpful if it’s paired with the bravery to be a little idealistic, and take a chance on some unconventional ways of thought and practice.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
most relevant
Getting the people inspired:
- behavior change, community participation: Providing the community with a symbol of environmental mission for the citizens to share (i.e.; architecturally striking power plant that gives the citizens of Viborg, Denmark a source of pride (Beatley 261).) In another class, I remember reading from the book (also website) “WorldChanging” about a river in Seoul, Korea, that had been completely paved over for decades, but he city had instituted a project to uncover the river and develop its banks as public spaces, and giving the people their river back. The symbol the water, a life source, being resurrected, was incredibly inspiring for the citizens of Seoul.
- behavior change, systems approach: Beatley’s example of the “political dynamic” in Germany that facilitates the implementation of renewable energies. This simultaneous top-down and bottom-up (there is also popular support from the German people) systems approach makes behavior change practically effortless.
Carrot and/or stick:
- behavior change: Beatley’s example of carbon tax (stick) in Sweden resulting in dramatic rise in use of biomass energy, which results in significant savings for the community (carrot).
Public-Private sector partnerships:
- systems approach, behavior change: Beatley’s example of the city of Heidelberg’s incentive-based contract with private companies which allows for the companies to keep a high percentage of the money saved from the energy-conservation measures, while a smaller percentage is reinvested in the city. (This is a similar strategy to the Case Presentation Carlos gave in class!) Roseland mentions this type of strategy as well; “economic multipliers”: monies that are saved on energy that are re-invested in the local economy and circulate several times over. This strategy is pure genius, it’s so frustrating that more U.S. cities haven’t realized the benefits of implementation.
Making the renewable energy technology accessible:
- systems approach, behavior change strategies, community participation: Beatley’s example of housekeepers and building managers put in charge of monitoring consumption meters.
- behavior change, community participation: Giving citizens free/affordable equipment (i.e., Beatley’s example of Leiden’s energy company giving customers water conserving package of equipment).
- justice/equity, behavior change, systems approach: Roseland’s several examples of “DSM” or “demand-side management” weatherization programs that improve energy-efficiency of homes and therefore affordability of energy costs for low-income people living in poorly constructed homes. This example is of particular importance to me, as I have worked with families living in transitional housing many of whom were dealing incredible debt just from energy bills near (no exaggeration) $1,000/month (!) because of the poor quality of their homes. I volunteered for the Tompkins County Healthy Homes Project and Weatherization Assistance Program over the summer and it was wonderful to see how the community’s investment in the homes turned into massive savings for the low-income residents.
- Biomimmicry: many designs that Beatley mentions provide more than one creative response to a need, just as organisms perform synergistically in nature, (i.e.; Beatley’s example of PVs integrated into road and highway noise barrier, and the various examples of cogeneration).
- systems approach, community participation: Beatley’s example of the school in Nieuwland with mirrors that project a view of the green roof into the classroom so that the energy of the school becomes integrated into the teaching curriculum.
Systems approach, biomimicry: Roseland talks about the six different areas of evaluation for the LEED Rating System. LEED is a systematic approach to ensuring a building’s sustainability, which, if successful, are often inherently designed in the likeness of a living organism.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
10 + 1
10 + 1 tools/strategies that could help shape a 10-year + plan for sustainably transforming the transportation (and land use) infrastructure in Denver, Colorado.
Initial conditions to acknowledge and accept as necessary for change to occur…
1.) First and foremost, continuous and dynamic education about how to break out of the “automobile-dominated mind-set” is absolutely critical. Change the planning language, for instance, “Improvements,” which people negatively associate with road work, becomes “modification” (Beatley, 163). Inform the citizens of Denver that “they are living in a special ecological project” that will over the next few years become increasingly “intentionally auto-limited” (Beatley, 145). In this way, the more residents are educated about the changes and how their lives will be affected and improved, they will feel more involved and ready to “sign-on,” (even literally, for example, to live in car-free developments).
2.) Secondly, adopt an incremental piecemeal approach. Much frustration seems to come from the “chicken-and-egg” conundrum; i.e., how can we do this without this already being in place, and this depends on this, and on and on… But if we can let go of our knee-jerk reaction to give up when the going gets too complex, and just do what we need to do, things will eventually start to come together with greater and greater ease. “No single strategy or approach will be successful on its own – it is, rather, a series of interlocking strategies that will have some effect” (Beatley, 140).
Steps within the next 10 years…
3.) Participatory planning. Take the decision-making power away from just the politicians whose opinions don’t represent the greater population consensus. Make sure many groups are represented, that their suggestions are sincerely considered, and that the community needs are met to as great an extent as is possible. One example I appreciated greatly from Beatley is giving local graffiti artists facades to paint without being persecuted, but instead, empowered through being celebrated for their talent and contribution. I can definitely see this working well in Denver.
4.) A-B-C policy. Connect the city center, “A,” to the Suburban areas, “B,” to the Rural areas, “C” with a variety of public transportation options. Provide affordable, safe, conveniently located park-and-ride lots at the edges of the city limits (at location “B”). An example of how this would greatly improve my life in Denver: In Coloraodo, one of the most popular activities for residents and tourists is to travel to the mountains, especially in the winter to go skiing/snowboarding. The traffic on Interstate-70 has becoming increasingly horrific over the years, to the point where what used to be a 45 minute drive, even in poor weather conditions, is easily a 4-5 hour bumper to bumper inch by inch creep and destruction of a perfectly wonderful experience of the mountains. If I could hop onto a bus from my home in downtown Denver at 8:00 AM to connect to a light rail that passes through a few major suburbs (which geographically, it would pass through 2 or 3) on the way to the ski resorts, I could have a nice cup of coffee while reading a book or take a nap and be at the top of the ski lift by 9:00 or 9:30, as opposed to 12:00 or later. And my “ride” home instead of my“drive” will be much appreciated as I am usually exhausted!
5.) Provide safe public transportation. For women, the elderly, and children, especially at nighttime, the sense and reality of crime can be a great deterrent to using public transportation. Over the two years that I worked at a non-profit for homeless families 30 minutes from my home, I contemplated taking the bus, but kept deciding against it after hearing stories of unpleasant-to-life-threatening-instances that occurred on the infamous “15” bus that would be my route to work. Poorly-lit park-and-rides are also notorious in the Denver ara for being dangerous to walk alone after dark or have your car at risk for a break-in.
6.) Provide accessible public transportation to intergenerational passengers with a variety of abilities. For elderly, disabled, youth, and persons with strollers or carts, getting on and off busses, subways, trams, lightrail, etc., can be difficult or impossible if poorly designed. Not to mention disempowering. Design floors of public transportation vehicles to be flush with platforms for boarding and unboarding.
7.) Single tickets/ single fair systems/ “eco-tickets”/ mobility smart cards (like a debit card) / “mobility packages/ etc. with access to an extensive network of transportation options; car-share, trams, buses, light rail, PRT. By purchasing one of the various options listed, commuters are able to let go of the stress of trying to figure out which transportation is the most affordable/ accessible/ comfortable/ reliable for their personal needs. The decision-making stress itself can be a deterrent to use. I have heard friends of mine in Denver talk about the inconvenience of switching from one bus to another with the ticket transfer time is up, which has discouraged their use of public transportation, not to mention if they were to need to transfer from one type of public transport to another.
8.) Provide affordable/incentivized transportation options. In order to insure equity, these fast, affordable, reliable transportation options must be available persons from all levels of the socio-economic strata. In the current state of things, many economically disadvantaged persons are discouraged from even considering certain jobs because they don’t have a way to get there, and can’t afford to pay for any type of transportation, even a bus pass. So, by encouraging employers to provide transportation-passes as part of employment-benefits, employment opportunities are broadened, and use of and access to public transportation is increased.
9.) Implement “Proximity Power” planning strategies. Build a diversity of activities all within close proximity to each other. Having choice and convenience is one of the most powerful methods of persuasion for change from current habits and making excuses to adopting new behavior. Within Denver’s city limits there are many areas that are already attempting to include employment, housing, “services, products, environments, people, and natural features close together,” (Register 167) however; the surrounding metro areas could greatly benefit from following the lead.
10.) Large corporations to decentralize. Companies should take advantage of the increasingly internet-based-business world to “break up their mega offices and centralized functions and scatter them to satellite offices in the suburbs and small cities” and even encourage employees to work from home as much as possible. The Denver “Tech Center” is the destination for the majority of commuter traffic in the Denver-metro-area every day. Luckily, a light rail system along Interstate-25 has just opened up to the great relief of many frustrated road-ragers that have to make this daily-trek. However, the internet could potentially eliminate the need to travel this great distance completely, and increase worker satisfaction by allowing them to work out of the comfort of their own home.
11.) Build/ convert apartment/condo buildings to be car-free. As Richard Register suggests, (p 170-171) new buildings can be built and thus sold at a much lower cost without having to provide parking areas, and parking areas in existing buildings can be converted over time into more apartments, and additional uses, such as art galleries or restaurants or shops. In Denver, I believe that offering owners (and subsequently residents) financial incentives to promote car-free-living would increase in popularity in tandem with the decline of the need for a car.
Initial conditions to acknowledge and accept as necessary for change to occur…
1.) First and foremost, continuous and dynamic education about how to break out of the “automobile-dominated mind-set” is absolutely critical. Change the planning language, for instance, “Improvements,” which people negatively associate with road work, becomes “modification” (Beatley, 163). Inform the citizens of Denver that “they are living in a special ecological project” that will over the next few years become increasingly “intentionally auto-limited” (Beatley, 145). In this way, the more residents are educated about the changes and how their lives will be affected and improved, they will feel more involved and ready to “sign-on,” (even literally, for example, to live in car-free developments).
2.) Secondly, adopt an incremental piecemeal approach. Much frustration seems to come from the “chicken-and-egg” conundrum; i.e., how can we do this without this already being in place, and this depends on this, and on and on… But if we can let go of our knee-jerk reaction to give up when the going gets too complex, and just do what we need to do, things will eventually start to come together with greater and greater ease. “No single strategy or approach will be successful on its own – it is, rather, a series of interlocking strategies that will have some effect” (Beatley, 140).
Steps within the next 10 years…
3.) Participatory planning. Take the decision-making power away from just the politicians whose opinions don’t represent the greater population consensus. Make sure many groups are represented, that their suggestions are sincerely considered, and that the community needs are met to as great an extent as is possible. One example I appreciated greatly from Beatley is giving local graffiti artists facades to paint without being persecuted, but instead, empowered through being celebrated for their talent and contribution. I can definitely see this working well in Denver.
4.) A-B-C policy. Connect the city center, “A,” to the Suburban areas, “B,” to the Rural areas, “C” with a variety of public transportation options. Provide affordable, safe, conveniently located park-and-ride lots at the edges of the city limits (at location “B”). An example of how this would greatly improve my life in Denver: In Coloraodo, one of the most popular activities for residents and tourists is to travel to the mountains, especially in the winter to go skiing/snowboarding. The traffic on Interstate-70 has becoming increasingly horrific over the years, to the point where what used to be a 45 minute drive, even in poor weather conditions, is easily a 4-5 hour bumper to bumper inch by inch creep and destruction of a perfectly wonderful experience of the mountains. If I could hop onto a bus from my home in downtown Denver at 8:00 AM to connect to a light rail that passes through a few major suburbs (which geographically, it would pass through 2 or 3) on the way to the ski resorts, I could have a nice cup of coffee while reading a book or take a nap and be at the top of the ski lift by 9:00 or 9:30, as opposed to 12:00 or later. And my “ride” home instead of my“drive” will be much appreciated as I am usually exhausted!
5.) Provide safe public transportation. For women, the elderly, and children, especially at nighttime, the sense and reality of crime can be a great deterrent to using public transportation. Over the two years that I worked at a non-profit for homeless families 30 minutes from my home, I contemplated taking the bus, but kept deciding against it after hearing stories of unpleasant-to-life-threatening-instances that occurred on the infamous “15” bus that would be my route to work. Poorly-lit park-and-rides are also notorious in the Denver ara for being dangerous to walk alone after dark or have your car at risk for a break-in.
6.) Provide accessible public transportation to intergenerational passengers with a variety of abilities. For elderly, disabled, youth, and persons with strollers or carts, getting on and off busses, subways, trams, lightrail, etc., can be difficult or impossible if poorly designed. Not to mention disempowering. Design floors of public transportation vehicles to be flush with platforms for boarding and unboarding.
7.) Single tickets/ single fair systems/ “eco-tickets”/ mobility smart cards (like a debit card) / “mobility packages/ etc. with access to an extensive network of transportation options; car-share, trams, buses, light rail, PRT. By purchasing one of the various options listed, commuters are able to let go of the stress of trying to figure out which transportation is the most affordable/ accessible/ comfortable/ reliable for their personal needs. The decision-making stress itself can be a deterrent to use. I have heard friends of mine in Denver talk about the inconvenience of switching from one bus to another with the ticket transfer time is up, which has discouraged their use of public transportation, not to mention if they were to need to transfer from one type of public transport to another.
8.) Provide affordable/incentivized transportation options. In order to insure equity, these fast, affordable, reliable transportation options must be available persons from all levels of the socio-economic strata. In the current state of things, many economically disadvantaged persons are discouraged from even considering certain jobs because they don’t have a way to get there, and can’t afford to pay for any type of transportation, even a bus pass. So, by encouraging employers to provide transportation-passes as part of employment-benefits, employment opportunities are broadened, and use of and access to public transportation is increased.
9.) Implement “Proximity Power” planning strategies. Build a diversity of activities all within close proximity to each other. Having choice and convenience is one of the most powerful methods of persuasion for change from current habits and making excuses to adopting new behavior. Within Denver’s city limits there are many areas that are already attempting to include employment, housing, “services, products, environments, people, and natural features close together,” (Register 167) however; the surrounding metro areas could greatly benefit from following the lead.
10.) Large corporations to decentralize. Companies should take advantage of the increasingly internet-based-business world to “break up their mega offices and centralized functions and scatter them to satellite offices in the suburbs and small cities” and even encourage employees to work from home as much as possible. The Denver “Tech Center” is the destination for the majority of commuter traffic in the Denver-metro-area every day. Luckily, a light rail system along Interstate-25 has just opened up to the great relief of many frustrated road-ragers that have to make this daily-trek. However, the internet could potentially eliminate the need to travel this great distance completely, and increase worker satisfaction by allowing them to work out of the comfort of their own home.
11.) Build/ convert apartment/condo buildings to be car-free. As Richard Register suggests, (p 170-171) new buildings can be built and thus sold at a much lower cost without having to provide parking areas, and parking areas in existing buildings can be converted over time into more apartments, and additional uses, such as art galleries or restaurants or shops. In Denver, I believe that offering owners (and subsequently residents) financial incentives to promote car-free-living would increase in popularity in tandem with the decline of the need for a car.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Tools and Strategies
1. Expanded TCAT bus system. Having buses that run to and from the Cornell campus during class times is great. Having buses only come every hour, or even not having buses to many places from campus on weekends and nights is not so great. Not having a direct bus to Ithaca College cuts off a lot of potential connections as well. Weekends and nights are the times when people are free – yet they are the times that bus service is currently limited.
2. Car restriction zones. With the current level of car traffic within Ithaca, enforcing restriction zones, maybe starting with school areas, major pedestrian shopping areas, parks, etc, would be a great start to creating a safer and more pedestrian friendly city. No one wants to wait to cross 3 lanes of traffic, and crossing 13 near the Farmer’s Market is like playing chicken!
3. Community taxi/car share. This seems like it would be a perfect option in Ithaca, especially considering the large number of college students! Even if Cornell were to start with one – over 13,000 undergraduate students would be a great test population, and would help to expand the university’s commitment to restricting cars on campus. I personally do not own a car, but would love to be able to borrow one for the occasional weekend or errand (say, at a time when the buses weren’t running on the weekend!).
4. Single ticket. The idea of a single ticket for car share rentals, a bus, a taxi is a great idea. Being able to arrange multiple forms of transportation ahead of time, or even being able to decide as you go without the hassle of cash, cards, and plan-ahead reservations would do wonders for lessening the hassle of travel.
5. Transit-oriented development. As we’ve seen in most of our readings, and with the ConnectIthaca plan, transit-oriented development makes tons of sense, especially in an urban environment. The ABC plan explained in Green Urbanism is a model that Ithaca could use, especially in light of the new planned development behind WalMart. That portion of 13 could become a pedestrian hub, with the expansion of bus routes, and possibly a train service running down 13 in the future.
6. Package deals for new developments. Along the lines of #5, transit could be “part of the deal” for the new Southside developments. If there were a car share program, a train system, expanded bus system, and discounts for residents to use public transit (and maybe even an agreement not to own cars), perhaps the WalMart parking lot could be converted to a park area for the residents in the new development?
7. Small electric trucks for distributing goods. This makes a lot of sense for a place like Ithaca, with many small restaurants, grocery stores, shopping malls, and already crowded streets, the use of small, electric trucks would mean easier navigation for the truck drivers, and quieter streets with less congestion for Ithaca residents.
8. Electric carts. During much of the bicycle/pedestrian walkable city sections, I would find myself wondering about the elderly or disabled – how could we expect them to walk everywhere or ride bikes? The idea of golf-cart like, small electric vehicles could be a perfect way to solve the problem. They would not only be useful for getting from point A to point B easily, but for hauling groceries and other goods to and from home.
9. Street narrowing. I thought of State Street when reading about narrowing the streets. On our walk, I noticed the nonexistence of seating areas or places to socialize, along with areas for kids to play (and right near the Commons would be a great place for small green spaces!). If State Street were to be narrowed, or even made one lane, and sidewalk areas were widened, there could be streetside cafes and pedestrian spaces galore, along with some benches to sit in the shade of the street trees, great assets for revitalizing some business and nightlife.
10. Trams and planting. Restoring the historic tram (trolley) service to the Cornell campus would, I’m sure, please many Cornellians, especially if it were to extend down to the Commons and then perhaps down State Street and down 13. (Right along the proposed ConnectIthaca routes?) Planting along the tram routes would be nice as well, and keep them from being an eyesore to people living along them, in addition to helping to quiet the noise of a tram.
2. Car restriction zones. With the current level of car traffic within Ithaca, enforcing restriction zones, maybe starting with school areas, major pedestrian shopping areas, parks, etc, would be a great start to creating a safer and more pedestrian friendly city. No one wants to wait to cross 3 lanes of traffic, and crossing 13 near the Farmer’s Market is like playing chicken!
3. Community taxi/car share. This seems like it would be a perfect option in Ithaca, especially considering the large number of college students! Even if Cornell were to start with one – over 13,000 undergraduate students would be a great test population, and would help to expand the university’s commitment to restricting cars on campus. I personally do not own a car, but would love to be able to borrow one for the occasional weekend or errand (say, at a time when the buses weren’t running on the weekend!).
4. Single ticket. The idea of a single ticket for car share rentals, a bus, a taxi is a great idea. Being able to arrange multiple forms of transportation ahead of time, or even being able to decide as you go without the hassle of cash, cards, and plan-ahead reservations would do wonders for lessening the hassle of travel.
5. Transit-oriented development. As we’ve seen in most of our readings, and with the ConnectIthaca plan, transit-oriented development makes tons of sense, especially in an urban environment. The ABC plan explained in Green Urbanism is a model that Ithaca could use, especially in light of the new planned development behind WalMart. That portion of 13 could become a pedestrian hub, with the expansion of bus routes, and possibly a train service running down 13 in the future.
6. Package deals for new developments. Along the lines of #5, transit could be “part of the deal” for the new Southside developments. If there were a car share program, a train system, expanded bus system, and discounts for residents to use public transit (and maybe even an agreement not to own cars), perhaps the WalMart parking lot could be converted to a park area for the residents in the new development?
7. Small electric trucks for distributing goods. This makes a lot of sense for a place like Ithaca, with many small restaurants, grocery stores, shopping malls, and already crowded streets, the use of small, electric trucks would mean easier navigation for the truck drivers, and quieter streets with less congestion for Ithaca residents.
8. Electric carts. During much of the bicycle/pedestrian walkable city sections, I would find myself wondering about the elderly or disabled – how could we expect them to walk everywhere or ride bikes? The idea of golf-cart like, small electric vehicles could be a perfect way to solve the problem. They would not only be useful for getting from point A to point B easily, but for hauling groceries and other goods to and from home.
9. Street narrowing. I thought of State Street when reading about narrowing the streets. On our walk, I noticed the nonexistence of seating areas or places to socialize, along with areas for kids to play (and right near the Commons would be a great place for small green spaces!). If State Street were to be narrowed, or even made one lane, and sidewalk areas were widened, there could be streetside cafes and pedestrian spaces galore, along with some benches to sit in the shade of the street trees, great assets for revitalizing some business and nightlife.
10. Trams and planting. Restoring the historic tram (trolley) service to the Cornell campus would, I’m sure, please many Cornellians, especially if it were to extend down to the Commons and then perhaps down State Street and down 13. (Right along the proposed ConnectIthaca routes?) Planting along the tram routes would be nice as well, and keep them from being an eyesore to people living along them, in addition to helping to quiet the noise of a tram.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Ecocities, Preserving Community in the Face of PRTs: Case Study - State Street
I had several experiences this weekend that combined nicely with the assignment. I chose to read Ch. 8 in Ecocities because I felt that reading Register's summary of Joan's work would help to prime me for the second part of the project. I also attended the Apple Festival, which several people have mentioned for its community togetherness (and delicious funnel cakes). And lastly, with my Urban Co-op block group I attended the Ecovillage free community tour on Saturday afternoon. It was interesting to contrast the peace and quiet of a trip to Ecovillage with the hubbub of the Commons on the busiest day of the year. Taking into account Elan's questions and directions for the assignment I decided to focus on the block of State Street directly before the Commons as my space and to look at the viability of incorporating PRT's from a preservation stand-point. Rob offered some renderings of the space as it could look in the future, and made several important observations about the area.
The buildings on this portion of State Street have a maximum height of 3 stories. There are about half and half historic buildings and "new" construction. There is a vacant lot, as well as the State Theater, a historic resource the community has put significant effort into restoring. There is an Ithaca Downtown Historic District, which does encompass this portion of State Street and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Districts are often seen as a hindrance to new development as well as some of our sustainability ideals such as density. However, preservation is undertaken to protect the quality of our built environment. The Urban Renewal of the 50's and 60's destroyed thousands and thousands of buildings - and through that - thousands of neighborhoods. It also displaced many thousands of people, many of whom where low-income minorities. I think it is important to bring up here because what is paramount to remember when talking about city transformation is that the planners and politicians who designed and implemented Urban Renewal projects believed passionately that they were transforming cities which were no longer functioning as healthy environments for their inhabitants. I bring this up because many Urban Renewal projects did little to help the people they displaced and additionally provided high density public housing built on green-space: a Corbusian design which I am not alone in contending simply does not work in addressing affordable housing issues.
To return to my project space, I will say that I would not want more than 3-story buildings on this pleasant "Main Street" type area. And to be honest, I'm not sure I want to see Bladerunner-type PRTs whizzing above my head. I do believe that public transportation is a huge concern for the city but it is important not to rush into something under the guise of sustainability that will drastically alter people's environment without other factors being considered. While standing along State Street I thought a lot about underground transportation systems. Of course, I would imagine this would be prohibitively expensive in Ithaca. Additionally, it seems to me that some of the benefits of an above ground system would be increased safety and visibility. My conclusion is that it will likely be extremely difficult to get a PRT system supported by preservationists, but it is clear that the automobile is also detrimental to our neighborhood character. So I don't really have any answer, as usual I see my preservationist self grapple with my sustainability self and I still don't think those passions have to be exclusive.
The buildings on this portion of State Street have a maximum height of 3 stories. There are about half and half historic buildings and "new" construction. There is a vacant lot, as well as the State Theater, a historic resource the community has put significant effort into restoring. There is an Ithaca Downtown Historic District, which does encompass this portion of State Street and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Districts are often seen as a hindrance to new development as well as some of our sustainability ideals such as density. However, preservation is undertaken to protect the quality of our built environment. The Urban Renewal of the 50's and 60's destroyed thousands and thousands of buildings - and through that - thousands of neighborhoods. It also displaced many thousands of people, many of whom where low-income minorities. I think it is important to bring up here because what is paramount to remember when talking about city transformation is that the planners and politicians who designed and implemented Urban Renewal projects believed passionately that they were transforming cities which were no longer functioning as healthy environments for their inhabitants. I bring this up because many Urban Renewal projects did little to help the people they displaced and additionally provided high density public housing built on green-space: a Corbusian design which I am not alone in contending simply does not work in addressing affordable housing issues.
To return to my project space, I will say that I would not want more than 3-story buildings on this pleasant "Main Street" type area. And to be honest, I'm not sure I want to see Bladerunner-type PRTs whizzing above my head. I do believe that public transportation is a huge concern for the city but it is important not to rush into something under the guise of sustainability that will drastically alter people's environment without other factors being considered. While standing along State Street I thought a lot about underground transportation systems. Of course, I would imagine this would be prohibitively expensive in Ithaca. Additionally, it seems to me that some of the benefits of an above ground system would be increased safety and visibility. My conclusion is that it will likely be extremely difficult to get a PRT system supported by preservationists, but it is clear that the automobile is also detrimental to our neighborhood character. So I don't really have any answer, as usual I see my preservationist self grapple with my sustainability self and I still don't think those passions have to be exclusive.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Beatley and Register Reading Reflections
summary
I chose to read Chapter 2, “The City in Evolution” in Ecocities. Register describes the state of our planet with a sense of urgency and apocalyptic dose of reality at times, while maintaining a hopeful outlook; presenting the plausibility that we are not entering the “Ecozoic era.” He makes mention of the architect Paolo Soleri throughout the chapter, beginning with Soleri’s concept of “neomatter,” which is basically all this human-made stuff we have brought into this world and now have the responsibility to find a way deal with.
Register gives a thorough explanation of how the city can and should be designed as an organism (38-39) in order to be sustainable. He gives a very poetic description of Soleri’s concept of “miniaturization … a fundamental rule of evolution, (28)” which I found a little confusing, but will do my best to describe here. Basically, it seems to me, miniaturization (also termed “complexification” and/or “quickening”) occurs, as a universal law of nature, after things fall apart and come (or are brought) back together, and through the process of renewal and revitalization become more intricate and complex systems within systems. An additional factor is that the complexifying intertia “remain[s] on go: they move toward further miniplexion (29).” Register goes so far as to say that “Nothing exists separate from it (29).” To sum up, it seems that this is the process of things coming (back) to life on and exponentially and infinitely smaller and smaller scale.
Another term Register brings up in this chapter is “noosphere,” or sphere of knowledge. True to his description of “complexification” as being part of everything, he describes “noosphere” with Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s argument that “cities brought together concentrations of people and their technologies as nodes of consciousness – nodes of intense complexity and enormous leverage for further evolution – in the evolving noosphere (31).”
Register goes into a description of the inevitable consequences of extinction of various species, from a micro level up, and calls for a need to understand “the relationship between extinctions and evolution … and to explore ways of reversing the process (35).”
synthesis/application
Many smart growth policy examples given in Beatley reminded me of the city of Boulder, CO. (Beatley mentions Boulder as a city to have adopted growth containment programs on page 67.) I grew up 20 miles south of Boulder and went to undergrad at the University of Colorado at the School of Architecture and Planning, and so I was exposed to the pride of the city’s minimal growth laws not only within the city limits, but efforts to extend their influence to other parts of Colorado. For example, over the past several years, I remember hearing about Boulder buying up several hundred acres of land from a neighboring county (Jefferson) that would have surely sold the land to developers relinquishing the beautiful prarie to the sprawl that is creeping across the rest of the state. I just looked it up and found a recent article, Sept. 3rd from the Daily Camera:
“The city of Boulder is nearing completion of a $10 million deal it has sought for two decades to keep nearly 300 homes from being built on ranchland in a neighboring county. … The city has wanted to buy the land from the family for more than 20 years, in part, because Jefferson County has zoned the property to allow for up to 295 homes and commercial uses … The chance that a developer could purchase the huge parcel so close to Boulder's interests has prompted city officials to negotiate a conservation easement … "Residents will have the benefit of looking over a beautiful piece of property, rather than 300 homes," she said. "A lot of people are really pleased this keystone piece of property will be available to be preserved."
critique/inquiry
Beatley describes how contrary to popular belief, European cities illustrate that density and compactness are not antithetical to economic productivity, but actually may enhance it. I was confused as to why most people would assume that cities are antithetical to economic productivity, as I tend to think of cities as just that. Is it because most people assume agriculture in wide open spaces to be the most economically productive?
Beatley gives a few examples of “ideal sustainable” cities, but then admits that these places are not all economically self-sufficient. (Almere, Lelystad, Houten…) I am not saying that they are not worth mentioning unless they are, in fact, ideal, but it just seems like economic self-sufficiency is a key-stone in sustainability of a city. Just like many other components of a holistic system; without enough jobs in a city, the prospect of sustainability falls apart. These sections would have benefited from some examples of cities finding creative ways to develop economic stability, perhaps with “green-jobs”!
Overall, I was impressed with Beatley’s ability to tie up many issues he brought up. Throughout the beginning of the chapter, I found myself feeling very critical of Beatley for giving these examples of European cities, for although they were inspiring, I failed to see how they would work in the current culture in the United States. Especially when it comes to changing the average U.S.-American’s consuming habits. When he mentioned how in Norway “the government, by royal degree, banned new shopping malls located outside of city-centers for a period of five years (p 56)” I laughed at the thought of how this would go over in the U.S. Unfortunately, Americans love their malls. But as I said, Beatley didn’t fail to address this; he brings up American culture with its “American Dream (62)” and “strong anti-city bias (59).” He points out though, that the main objection for Americans of the urban renaissances is “founded in the fear about what he visual implications or ramifications (65)” of density will be. He suggests that the “incorporation of trees, sidewalks, on-street parking, varied rooflines, and so on would substantially improve the attractiveness of higher-density forms of housing (65).” He also asserts that “successful approaches to compact urban form in the United States must consist of making it more difficult to build in the wrong places and making it attractive and desirable to grow in the right places (69).” And finally, he advocates for an “Urban Containment Movement (73)” to get the “process of norm-changing” underway. Although I appreciate that he has made some helpful suggestions, I think the chapter would have been bolstered by more concrete examples of existing successful implementation in the U.S. But the chapter is extremely useful as a thorough examination.
I do worry that there is an underlying assumption that the historical infrastructure in the U.S. is similar enough to that of the European city to implement similar sustainable designs. I am not familiar with what elements exactly of the European infrastructure might facilitate sustainable planning today, but I have a feeling that they are different than those in the U.S.
I love Beatley’s term (and hate the existence of) “soulless sprawl.” I just appreciate (and am saddened by) the name on the face of the endless rows of cookie-cutter houses and big-box stores and endless desecration of open space that has infiltrated this country.
In both of the Beatley and Register readings I was continually bothered by the thought that there seems to be an underlying assumption that people will think that reversing the process of global warming is a) their responsibility and b) possible. Unfortunately, and to our demise, in much of this country especially, I don’t think this is the case.
Something that kept coming to mind in both the Beatley and the Register readings but was not delved into by either author was the issue of the social connections today that exist more and more frequently in cyberspace. The ways our cities are designed seem to push us farther and farther from pedestrian-interaction, and more to our computers for social networking. This is not a criticism that it was not brought up, but I would be interested in a discussion of how the role of the internet has become both constructive and destructive to social capital, and what should be done about it.
I chose to read Chapter 2, “The City in Evolution” in Ecocities. Register describes the state of our planet with a sense of urgency and apocalyptic dose of reality at times, while maintaining a hopeful outlook; presenting the plausibility that we are not entering the “Ecozoic era.” He makes mention of the architect Paolo Soleri throughout the chapter, beginning with Soleri’s concept of “neomatter,” which is basically all this human-made stuff we have brought into this world and now have the responsibility to find a way deal with.
Register gives a thorough explanation of how the city can and should be designed as an organism (38-39) in order to be sustainable. He gives a very poetic description of Soleri’s concept of “miniaturization … a fundamental rule of evolution, (28)” which I found a little confusing, but will do my best to describe here. Basically, it seems to me, miniaturization (also termed “complexification” and/or “quickening”) occurs, as a universal law of nature, after things fall apart and come (or are brought) back together, and through the process of renewal and revitalization become more intricate and complex systems within systems. An additional factor is that the complexifying intertia “remain[s] on go: they move toward further miniplexion (29).” Register goes so far as to say that “Nothing exists separate from it (29).” To sum up, it seems that this is the process of things coming (back) to life on and exponentially and infinitely smaller and smaller scale.
Another term Register brings up in this chapter is “noosphere,” or sphere of knowledge. True to his description of “complexification” as being part of everything, he describes “noosphere” with Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s argument that “cities brought together concentrations of people and their technologies as nodes of consciousness – nodes of intense complexity and enormous leverage for further evolution – in the evolving noosphere (31).”
Register goes into a description of the inevitable consequences of extinction of various species, from a micro level up, and calls for a need to understand “the relationship between extinctions and evolution … and to explore ways of reversing the process (35).”
synthesis/application
Many smart growth policy examples given in Beatley reminded me of the city of Boulder, CO. (Beatley mentions Boulder as a city to have adopted growth containment programs on page 67.) I grew up 20 miles south of Boulder and went to undergrad at the University of Colorado at the School of Architecture and Planning, and so I was exposed to the pride of the city’s minimal growth laws not only within the city limits, but efforts to extend their influence to other parts of Colorado. For example, over the past several years, I remember hearing about Boulder buying up several hundred acres of land from a neighboring county (Jefferson) that would have surely sold the land to developers relinquishing the beautiful prarie to the sprawl that is creeping across the rest of the state. I just looked it up and found a recent article, Sept. 3rd from the Daily Camera:“The city of Boulder is nearing completion of a $10 million deal it has sought for two decades to keep nearly 300 homes from being built on ranchland in a neighboring county. … The city has wanted to buy the land from the family for more than 20 years, in part, because Jefferson County has zoned the property to allow for up to 295 homes and commercial uses … The chance that a developer could purchase the huge parcel so close to Boulder's interests has prompted city officials to negotiate a conservation easement … "Residents will have the benefit of looking over a beautiful piece of property, rather than 300 homes," she said. "A lot of people are really pleased this keystone piece of property will be available to be preserved."
critique/inquiry
Beatley describes how contrary to popular belief, European cities illustrate that density and compactness are not antithetical to economic productivity, but actually may enhance it. I was confused as to why most people would assume that cities are antithetical to economic productivity, as I tend to think of cities as just that. Is it because most people assume agriculture in wide open spaces to be the most economically productive?
Beatley gives a few examples of “ideal sustainable” cities, but then admits that these places are not all economically self-sufficient. (Almere, Lelystad, Houten…) I am not saying that they are not worth mentioning unless they are, in fact, ideal, but it just seems like economic self-sufficiency is a key-stone in sustainability of a city. Just like many other components of a holistic system; without enough jobs in a city, the prospect of sustainability falls apart. These sections would have benefited from some examples of cities finding creative ways to develop economic stability, perhaps with “green-jobs”!
Overall, I was impressed with Beatley’s ability to tie up many issues he brought up. Throughout the beginning of the chapter, I found myself feeling very critical of Beatley for giving these examples of European cities, for although they were inspiring, I failed to see how they would work in the current culture in the United States. Especially when it comes to changing the average U.S.-American’s consuming habits. When he mentioned how in Norway “the government, by royal degree, banned new shopping malls located outside of city-centers for a period of five years (p 56)” I laughed at the thought of how this would go over in the U.S. Unfortunately, Americans love their malls. But as I said, Beatley didn’t fail to address this; he brings up American culture with its “American Dream (62)” and “strong anti-city bias (59).” He points out though, that the main objection for Americans of the urban renaissances is “founded in the fear about what he visual implications or ramifications (65)” of density will be. He suggests that the “incorporation of trees, sidewalks, on-street parking, varied rooflines, and so on would substantially improve the attractiveness of higher-density forms of housing (65).” He also asserts that “successful approaches to compact urban form in the United States must consist of making it more difficult to build in the wrong places and making it attractive and desirable to grow in the right places (69).” And finally, he advocates for an “Urban Containment Movement (73)” to get the “process of norm-changing” underway. Although I appreciate that he has made some helpful suggestions, I think the chapter would have been bolstered by more concrete examples of existing successful implementation in the U.S. But the chapter is extremely useful as a thorough examination.
I do worry that there is an underlying assumption that the historical infrastructure in the U.S. is similar enough to that of the European city to implement similar sustainable designs. I am not familiar with what elements exactly of the European infrastructure might facilitate sustainable planning today, but I have a feeling that they are different than those in the U.S.
I love Beatley’s term (and hate the existence of) “soulless sprawl.” I just appreciate (and am saddened by) the name on the face of the endless rows of cookie-cutter houses and big-box stores and endless desecration of open space that has infiltrated this country.
In both of the Beatley and Register readings I was continually bothered by the thought that there seems to be an underlying assumption that people will think that reversing the process of global warming is a) their responsibility and b) possible. Unfortunately, and to our demise, in much of this country especially, I don’t think this is the case.
Something that kept coming to mind in both the Beatley and the Register readings but was not delved into by either author was the issue of the social connections today that exist more and more frequently in cyberspace. The ways our cities are designed seem to push us farther and farther from pedestrian-interaction, and more to our computers for social networking. This is not a criticism that it was not brought up, but I would be interested in a discussion of how the role of the internet has become both constructive and destructive to social capital, and what should be done about it.
Ecocities and Green Urbanism
I chose to read Chapter 2: The City in Evolution because I wanted to learn more about the belief structure within which Richard Register understands cities. Speaking about time and evolution, both as it has transpired and in predictions for the future, Register creates pseudoscientific arguments for understanding the form of cities and how they relate to the natural environment. As important biological forces, cities currently interact with nature in a way that impoverishes the Earth. To move beyond marginalization of natural resources and biodiversity, cities must be rebuilt to better serve humans and therefore the natural world as a whole.
Throughout Ecocities chapters 1 and 2, Register speaks adamantly about the changing shape and role of the city over time. His idealizations for what cities could be bear surprising resemblance to Clarence Stein’s regional city plan. With many villages, towns, and cities dotting the landscape, of which size restrictions preclude the megalopolis, Stein envisioned a more dispersed, easily traversable landscape of interconnected nodes. So too does Register plan the cities of the future as compact, but dispersed developments: “millions of contiguous acres of the metropolis will have been broken up into smaller, more compact settlements” (19), with “major downtown and smaller neighborhood centers … small enough for most people to easily traverse them on foot” (21). All of these new centers would be surrounded by ribbons of green space. But, the impact on the landscape of such decentralization is questionable, and whether such a regional pattern would produce more or less urbanized land was not calculated by Register, only asserted.
In Green Urbanism, Timothy Beatley describes numerous European cities that have combined high levels of density with green space preservation successfully. All of these cities rely not on the dispersion of urban cores, but on their intensification. Through increased density and continued agglomeration, green space is preserved at the urban edge, and the chopping up of nature so feared by Register – but possibly promoted by his ecocites plan – is actually prevented by this alternate route to city design.
Register fails to note the effects of intense top-down planning exercised by European countries in the shape of modern cities; he instead resorts to an old is good, new is bad rhetoric. Granted, idealizing history makes it easier to point a righteous finger at the problems of the modern world, but it is ultimately a useless charade. The modern city symbols of “money, security, consumerism, and control” (16) are readily apparent in the cities of yore, even as described by Register. Money and consumerism manifest in the “imposing residences” and “fancier administrative building,” security in the city’s wall, while control is undoubtedly the “church, or cathedral spire, spear-like” (15). Was this habit of existence an ecocity? I would argue that the form of the historical city was a function of necessity rather than a reflection of the attitudes of the residents, and that their cities were not ecocities at all, but the best they could do to survive a banal existence.
Ecocities: Chapter 4 The City in History
I chose this chapter because of my belief that to get anywhere you need to understand where you are and where you have been (though someone has probably said that more eloquently). While providing a history of city development, Register's history is also about reminding the reader that "the quest for the city in balance with nature has almost certainly been part of a dream of human fulfillment since cities first emerged." (first sentence). Register says, in essence, that because cities worked so well, production became over-production and inhabitants became consumers first and foremost. Register believes that by looking at rural village delvelopment and urban history we can understand where cities should be going - that the Ecocity of today pulls elements from both into its design. What can be learned from villages is the importance of folkway tradition, interconnectivity, and limited production. Villages tend to only produce what the inhabitants need, whereas cities are now centered on over-consumption of resources.
Beatley and Register are in agreement that land use planning is both an ill and a solution in the modern city. Beatley does a good job of comparing American and European zoning and showing how the European is more adapted to sustainable development. One criticism I would level at Beatley is his seemingly random use of statitical data to make some of his key arguements. This first jumped out at me on the second page with table 2.1. Beatley is using this data to compare density figures between European and American cities. Although he is drawing on someone else's research he gives no framework as to why these particular cities are to be compared. His list of American cities includes some of the worst offenders with regard to density (Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas) and compares them to European cities that he is lauding as being the greatest models of density. What about San Francisco, St. Paul, or Burlington? I needed some more information as to how these cities made the cut. This chart made me immediately suspicious of Beatley, but I especially liked that he included in the chapter sections hypotheses on why European cities have historically developed more sustainably than American cities. I'll add that with my antenna already raised I thought his comparison of handgun deaths in the UK to those in the entire US a bit overdramatic. Still, Beatley does point out that European cities still face decentralization. It is and will be interesting to learn from how these cities will deal and are dealing with this problem.
Beatley and Register are in agreement that land use planning is both an ill and a solution in the modern city. Beatley does a good job of comparing American and European zoning and showing how the European is more adapted to sustainable development. One criticism I would level at Beatley is his seemingly random use of statitical data to make some of his key arguements. This first jumped out at me on the second page with table 2.1. Beatley is using this data to compare density figures between European and American cities. Although he is drawing on someone else's research he gives no framework as to why these particular cities are to be compared. His list of American cities includes some of the worst offenders with regard to density (Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas) and compares them to European cities that he is lauding as being the greatest models of density. What about San Francisco, St. Paul, or Burlington? I needed some more information as to how these cities made the cut. This chart made me immediately suspicious of Beatley, but I especially liked that he included in the chapter sections hypotheses on why European cities have historically developed more sustainably than American cities. I'll add that with my antenna already raised I thought his comparison of handgun deaths in the UK to those in the entire US a bit overdramatic. Still, Beatley does point out that European cities still face decentralization. It is and will be interesting to learn from how these cities will deal and are dealing with this problem.
Tools to Fit the Task (Ecocities, Chapter 10)
Chapter 10 presents several action-oriented tools to begin envisioning and implementing the ecological city. To summarize, they are:
1. Ecocity Zoning (EZ) Map: In contrast to a traditional zoning map, the EZ map attempts to overlay a city’s ecological, historical, agricultural, nodal, and transit-oriented features in order to determine the most logical and desirable ways to guide development. When the base layer of the EZ map is complete, the urban centers are identified and concentric circles of declining density are drawn around them. The centers, or bullseyes, get upzoned (targeted for increased density), and the very outermost ring gets completely downzoned (targeted for eventual return to wilderness). In the next iteration, the rings begin to deform, either flattening or bulging in response to the incursion of nature—waterways, green zones, etc. The result is a map that shows the potential links between high-density centers and the desired discontinuities where nature can be reintroduced.
2. Transferral of Development Rights (TDR): A practice already activated in some communities, TDR allows real estate owners in areas where development is permitted but not desirable (according to an EZ map or some other planning tool) to sell their development rights to a developer who will use them to get a density bonus in a highly-desirable development location. An example would be a farmer in a designated greenbelt selling his or her rights to an apartment developer in the city center who would like to build eight stories instead of six. In this way, individuals are not stripped of their land rights or values, but can sell them at a profit and maintain or restore the natural integrity of their land.
3. Ecological General (EG) Plan: As opposed to the commonly seen, plain-vanilla comprehensive or general plan evinced by many cities today, the EG plan seeks to adopt the above policies (and other ecocity practices) into the city-planning rhetoric. Armed with the above tools and other ideas, citizens petition the government to formally espouse and adhere to a plan that is long-range and integrates city and nature.
My response: Richard Register does come off as a bit wacky at times (what was that about the roller-skate powered ambulance gurneys?), but this chapter was chock-full of solid ideas that actually stand a chance of getting implemented. The Leopold Bloom-like (a Ulysses ref for all you Joyce fans out there) mental wanderings described in the act of creating the EZ map seemed a little hokey, but the gist of it was to become super well-informed about the natural and economic forces that have shaped your town, and how they might be used to re-envision it. I dig it.
The most polemical idea was that in the outer rings, unfill development (as opposed to infill) would occur—meaning depaving, removing infrastructure, and razing buildings. This notion is of course all tied in with densifying the city, evil cars, peak oil, and the like—and I think most rural homeowners would reach for their shotguns if anyone propositioned them with the idea—but I personally found it very compelling. (And come to think of it, I am a rural homeowner.) Still, if peak oil occurs at a time before any viable alternatives have been implemented, it’s hard to say what people will be willing to do. I don’t see my out-of-shape neighbors embracing the idea of biking five hilly miles to town: they very well could be convinced to move their trailer within walking distance and–who knows?—in a few years rent an apartment in town.
Moving on, TDR is by far my favorite idea. I have only ever seen government-sponsored sale of development rights, where the state or municipality essentially pays a landowner to amend their deed in order to prohibit any future non-agricultural uses, but I really loved Register’s private-market conception of this. It is increasingly difficult for developers to build very dense projects in a city, due to zoning fights and the cost of construction. A taller building means more leasable area, ergo a more profitable project which can offer better amenities like green roofs, graywater recycling, non-VOC materials, etc. I thought it was a pretty damn good idea.
Finally, the need to codify these measures and set the parameters for change is essential, but perhaps the greatest challenge. Simply working on the Caroline project has opened my eyes to the deep-seated resistance to change felt by so many citizens. To wit, Caroline has a comprehensive plan that call for walkable communities, preservation of farmland, and so on, but if the town council started trying to adopt policies that were construed as freedom-limiting, the people would flip out; they can’t even get a noise ordinance passed. I can only imagine the hysterics that most ecocity recommendations would engender if they were raised in most towns and cities across the country.
One last thought: Register’s descriptions of progress are incredibly dynamic, filled with lots of goings on and hustle-bustle. But unless you are in a pretty large metropolitan area, growth is moderate to slow, which also means opportunities for change are moderate to slow. Unless there’s a lot of building activity and/or population growth, eight-story buildings are not going to be dotting the city skyline anytime soon. The City of Ithaca issued less than 60 building permits in 2004, and most of those were for renovation, not new construction. Register recognizes the challenges of effecting this sort of dramatic transformation in a short period, but nonetheless says we should pursue it aggressively. I wonder, what is truly a realistic timeframe for this sort of reimagining?
1. Ecocity Zoning (EZ) Map: In contrast to a traditional zoning map, the EZ map attempts to overlay a city’s ecological, historical, agricultural, nodal, and transit-oriented features in order to determine the most logical and desirable ways to guide development. When the base layer of the EZ map is complete, the urban centers are identified and concentric circles of declining density are drawn around them. The centers, or bullseyes, get upzoned (targeted for increased density), and the very outermost ring gets completely downzoned (targeted for eventual return to wilderness). In the next iteration, the rings begin to deform, either flattening or bulging in response to the incursion of nature—waterways, green zones, etc. The result is a map that shows the potential links between high-density centers and the desired discontinuities where nature can be reintroduced.
2. Transferral of Development Rights (TDR): A practice already activated in some communities, TDR allows real estate owners in areas where development is permitted but not desirable (according to an EZ map or some other planning tool) to sell their development rights to a developer who will use them to get a density bonus in a highly-desirable development location. An example would be a farmer in a designated greenbelt selling his or her rights to an apartment developer in the city center who would like to build eight stories instead of six. In this way, individuals are not stripped of their land rights or values, but can sell them at a profit and maintain or restore the natural integrity of their land.
3. Ecological General (EG) Plan: As opposed to the commonly seen, plain-vanilla comprehensive or general plan evinced by many cities today, the EG plan seeks to adopt the above policies (and other ecocity practices) into the city-planning rhetoric. Armed with the above tools and other ideas, citizens petition the government to formally espouse and adhere to a plan that is long-range and integrates city and nature.
My response: Richard Register does come off as a bit wacky at times (what was that about the roller-skate powered ambulance gurneys?), but this chapter was chock-full of solid ideas that actually stand a chance of getting implemented. The Leopold Bloom-like (a Ulysses ref for all you Joyce fans out there) mental wanderings described in the act of creating the EZ map seemed a little hokey, but the gist of it was to become super well-informed about the natural and economic forces that have shaped your town, and how they might be used to re-envision it. I dig it.
The most polemical idea was that in the outer rings, unfill development (as opposed to infill) would occur—meaning depaving, removing infrastructure, and razing buildings. This notion is of course all tied in with densifying the city, evil cars, peak oil, and the like—and I think most rural homeowners would reach for their shotguns if anyone propositioned them with the idea—but I personally found it very compelling. (And come to think of it, I am a rural homeowner.) Still, if peak oil occurs at a time before any viable alternatives have been implemented, it’s hard to say what people will be willing to do. I don’t see my out-of-shape neighbors embracing the idea of biking five hilly miles to town: they very well could be convinced to move their trailer within walking distance and–who knows?—in a few years rent an apartment in town.
Moving on, TDR is by far my favorite idea. I have only ever seen government-sponsored sale of development rights, where the state or municipality essentially pays a landowner to amend their deed in order to prohibit any future non-agricultural uses, but I really loved Register’s private-market conception of this. It is increasingly difficult for developers to build very dense projects in a city, due to zoning fights and the cost of construction. A taller building means more leasable area, ergo a more profitable project which can offer better amenities like green roofs, graywater recycling, non-VOC materials, etc. I thought it was a pretty damn good idea.
Finally, the need to codify these measures and set the parameters for change is essential, but perhaps the greatest challenge. Simply working on the Caroline project has opened my eyes to the deep-seated resistance to change felt by so many citizens. To wit, Caroline has a comprehensive plan that call for walkable communities, preservation of farmland, and so on, but if the town council started trying to adopt policies that were construed as freedom-limiting, the people would flip out; they can’t even get a noise ordinance passed. I can only imagine the hysterics that most ecocity recommendations would engender if they were raised in most towns and cities across the country.
One last thought: Register’s descriptions of progress are incredibly dynamic, filled with lots of goings on and hustle-bustle. But unless you are in a pretty large metropolitan area, growth is moderate to slow, which also means opportunities for change are moderate to slow. Unless there’s a lot of building activity and/or population growth, eight-story buildings are not going to be dotting the city skyline anytime soon. The City of Ithaca issued less than 60 building permits in 2004, and most of those were for renovation, not new construction. Register recognizes the challenges of effecting this sort of dramatic transformation in a short period, but nonetheless says we should pursue it aggressively. I wonder, what is truly a realistic timeframe for this sort of reimagining?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Agyeman Ch 4: Just Sustainability in Practice and Greening the City
Reading Agyeman's Chapter 4 andthe Greening the City article and resource sheets supplied by Elan ensured that I spent much of my recent time reading about case studies, exemplary organizations, and best practices.
Additional resources:
saveourenvironment.org (from Agyeman)
fingerlakesbuygreen.org (from the Trumansburg State Fair)
Summary of Agyeman:
In this chapter Agyeman uses a methodological approach he calls the Just Sustainability Index to measure organization's commitment to justice. Agyeman then looks at Land Use Planning, Solid Waste Management, Toxic Chemical Use, Residential Energy Use, and Transportation Planning and identifies organizations throughout the US that have a high rating on the JSI that are addressing these urban hazards. For example, Residential Energy Use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable." (p. 124). What can organizations do to help low-income residents of cities improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The National Center for Appropriate Technology In Butte, MO, The Massachusetts Energy Consumer's Alliance in Boston, MA, and Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, CA all run programs, work to institute policy, and create funding for efficient residential energy use for all.
Synthesis/Application
To build on the example I have just offered of residential energy use... as a preservationist our field is criticized for lauding a building stock that no longer allows for ease of heating and cooling and other environmental factors. Efficient residential energy use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable" and I would say affordable is often seen as incompatible with preservation. While the reality is more complex, I was particularly interested in this example because we should be able to give people efficient, low-cost housing, and I believe that using our existing building stock can help us achieve this goal. Agyeman points out, correctly, that a "filtering principle" often gets applied to the generation of affordable housing stock in cities. This filtering principle is that older, less-efficient homes become occupied by lower income residents. As preservationists, proponents of green architecture and sustainability it is imperative we keep this at the forefront as we move forward.
Websites and other Resources:
Elan's list of resources includes links to all of the organizations evaluated in Agyeman's Chapter 4. I took a look at some of these during my reading. When looking into further resources included in the handout I concentrated on those that provided tools and data for policy implementation. I found policylink.org to contain information, and toolkits which could be used in a myriad of ways as advocacy tools. I encourage everyone to visit.
Additional resources:
saveourenvironment.org (from Agyeman)
fingerlakesbuygreen.org (from the Trumansburg State Fair)
Summary of Agyeman:
In this chapter Agyeman uses a methodological approach he calls the Just Sustainability Index to measure organization's commitment to justice. Agyeman then looks at Land Use Planning, Solid Waste Management, Toxic Chemical Use, Residential Energy Use, and Transportation Planning and identifies organizations throughout the US that have a high rating on the JSI that are addressing these urban hazards. For example, Residential Energy Use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable." (p. 124). What can organizations do to help low-income residents of cities improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The National Center for Appropriate Technology In Butte, MO, The Massachusetts Energy Consumer's Alliance in Boston, MA, and Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, CA all run programs, work to institute policy, and create funding for efficient residential energy use for all.
Synthesis/Application
To build on the example I have just offered of residential energy use... as a preservationist our field is criticized for lauding a building stock that no longer allows for ease of heating and cooling and other environmental factors. Efficient residential energy use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable" and I would say affordable is often seen as incompatible with preservation. While the reality is more complex, I was particularly interested in this example because we should be able to give people efficient, low-cost housing, and I believe that using our existing building stock can help us achieve this goal. Agyeman points out, correctly, that a "filtering principle" often gets applied to the generation of affordable housing stock in cities. This filtering principle is that older, less-efficient homes become occupied by lower income residents. As preservationists, proponents of green architecture and sustainability it is imperative we keep this at the forefront as we move forward.
Websites and other Resources:
Elan's list of resources includes links to all of the organizations evaluated in Agyeman's Chapter 4. I took a look at some of these during my reading. When looking into further resources included in the handout I concentrated on those that provided tools and data for policy implementation. I found policylink.org to contain information, and toolkits which could be used in a myriad of ways as advocacy tools. I encourage everyone to visit.
What motivates...
Chapter 6 “From Confrontation to Implementation” by Agyeman
and
Chapter 4 “Greening the City” by Mark Roseland
synthesis/application
For this section of my blog, I am going to refer to something from the Roseland Ch. 4 (optional) reading. Roseland explains that the “enlightenment” to “go green” for many developers and landscape architects came out of a recognition of a growing market in environmental responsibility. I have been both excited and frustrated in the past couple of years with this movement. It is exciting in that it is initiating positive environmental change, however; it seems that if the main inspiration for “going green” is profit, then calling it environmental responsibility is a paradox. Developers who have chosen to follow this trend are not taking the responsibility to do so, but taking advantage of a lucrative opportunity.
At an architecture firm that I worked at, about 6 years ago, I remember talking to a fellow project-manager about some design ideas she had for a client who had said they were open to using to hay-bale construction in their home. This was a high-end residential architecture firm, and this sort of idea was highly unconventional, however; she thought since the client seemed interested, that the architect at our firm might be willing to look into it. My coworker brought the idea up at a staff meeting, and everyone else at the firm laughed (literally) at her suggestion. She realized that they thought she must be joking, and so she reverted back to convention. I would love to see how this scenario would play out today, given the prospect to do something “cutting edge” in high end design, promising of exposure to potential clients looking for this type of “environmentally-responsible” firm.
critique/inquiry
Agyeman mentions “the short term marriage of convenience” between groups with different agendas coming together when an issue becomes painful enough for both of them. I was left wondering if Agyeman believes that the scenario of equally-sensed urgency from opposing groups is the only time they would be willing to put down their differences to work together? Unfortunately, I think it is. And this could be extremely disastrous, because it seems that there is an urgency that is somehow lurking under the radar of extreme urgency, and we need the collaboration to start now. So my question becomes, what would inspire collaboration between the various types of groups, before it gets to the point where it is a forced partnership, or more importantly, before it is too late? I think Agyeman makes several great arguments in the two chapters I’ve read (3 & 6) for why the JSP is a good solution for both the NEP and the EJP reaching their goals, but I didn’t see him talking anywhere about the nuts and bolts of what leads them to finally making that JSP commitment.
Summary
In the final chapter of Agyeman presents ideas that he hopes will lead to implementation of sustainability practices through synergistic efforts from the EJP and the NEP movements.
First he discusses the debate about sustainable efforts from organizations with different ideological differences being more likely to mesh at a local or national level. He shows that when an issue creates a sense of urgency for both types of groups, that it has an overriding effect on any differences within the coalition.
Second he argues that ironically, the bridge between the EJP and NEP will not come from a collaboration between the two, but from EJ groups working with JS groups. He brings up an interesting point; that the JSP group “may not have experienced injustice in the personal and visceral way that many neighborhood-based EJ groups have” (179).
Third he examines the problem of unfulfilled policy rhetoric. He confirms that there is more action, implementation, and general follow through at the local level. He also alludes to the tendency of the NEP’s policies to be far less explicit and quantifiable than those of the JSP and the EJP policy promises. He calls for a general need, on local, national, and international levels, to have wider policy discussions on clarifying how progress, success, need, sufficiency, and efficiency are measured.
Fourth he shows the promise of utilization of tools such as environmental space. However; he mentions the point of view that given the current U.S. political climate, it may be too late to institutionalize environmental space. He brings up a hopeful point to counter though, that no other country in the world has such an advanced EJ infrastructure to base this environmental space implementation on.
And lastly, he looks at his definition of the JSP vs. the EJP and examines where certain groups fit in. He makes sure to clarify that the “JSP is not rigid, single, and universal…. It is flexible and contingent, with overlapping discourses that come from recognition of the validity of a variety of issues…”
and
Chapter 4 “Greening the City” by Mark Roseland
synthesis/application
For this section of my blog, I am going to refer to something from the Roseland Ch. 4 (optional) reading. Roseland explains that the “enlightenment” to “go green” for many developers and landscape architects came out of a recognition of a growing market in environmental responsibility. I have been both excited and frustrated in the past couple of years with this movement. It is exciting in that it is initiating positive environmental change, however; it seems that if the main inspiration for “going green” is profit, then calling it environmental responsibility is a paradox. Developers who have chosen to follow this trend are not taking the responsibility to do so, but taking advantage of a lucrative opportunity.
At an architecture firm that I worked at, about 6 years ago, I remember talking to a fellow project-manager about some design ideas she had for a client who had said they were open to using to hay-bale construction in their home. This was a high-end residential architecture firm, and this sort of idea was highly unconventional, however; she thought since the client seemed interested, that the architect at our firm might be willing to look into it. My coworker brought the idea up at a staff meeting, and everyone else at the firm laughed (literally) at her suggestion. She realized that they thought she must be joking, and so she reverted back to convention. I would love to see how this scenario would play out today, given the prospect to do something “cutting edge” in high end design, promising of exposure to potential clients looking for this type of “environmentally-responsible” firm.
critique/inquiry
Agyeman mentions “the short term marriage of convenience” between groups with different agendas coming together when an issue becomes painful enough for both of them. I was left wondering if Agyeman believes that the scenario of equally-sensed urgency from opposing groups is the only time they would be willing to put down their differences to work together? Unfortunately, I think it is. And this could be extremely disastrous, because it seems that there is an urgency that is somehow lurking under the radar of extreme urgency, and we need the collaboration to start now. So my question becomes, what would inspire collaboration between the various types of groups, before it gets to the point where it is a forced partnership, or more importantly, before it is too late? I think Agyeman makes several great arguments in the two chapters I’ve read (3 & 6) for why the JSP is a good solution for both the NEP and the EJP reaching their goals, but I didn’t see him talking anywhere about the nuts and bolts of what leads them to finally making that JSP commitment.
Summary
In the final chapter of Agyeman presents ideas that he hopes will lead to implementation of sustainability practices through synergistic efforts from the EJP and the NEP movements.
First he discusses the debate about sustainable efforts from organizations with different ideological differences being more likely to mesh at a local or national level. He shows that when an issue creates a sense of urgency for both types of groups, that it has an overriding effect on any differences within the coalition.
Second he argues that ironically, the bridge between the EJP and NEP will not come from a collaboration between the two, but from EJ groups working with JS groups. He brings up an interesting point; that the JSP group “may not have experienced injustice in the personal and visceral way that many neighborhood-based EJ groups have” (179).
Third he examines the problem of unfulfilled policy rhetoric. He confirms that there is more action, implementation, and general follow through at the local level. He also alludes to the tendency of the NEP’s policies to be far less explicit and quantifiable than those of the JSP and the EJP policy promises. He calls for a general need, on local, national, and international levels, to have wider policy discussions on clarifying how progress, success, need, sufficiency, and efficiency are measured.
Fourth he shows the promise of utilization of tools such as environmental space. However; he mentions the point of view that given the current U.S. political climate, it may be too late to institutionalize environmental space. He brings up a hopeful point to counter though, that no other country in the world has such an advanced EJ infrastructure to base this environmental space implementation on.
And lastly, he looks at his definition of the JSP vs. the EJP and examines where certain groups fit in. He makes sure to clarify that the “JSP is not rigid, single, and universal…. It is flexible and contingent, with overlapping discourses that come from recognition of the validity of a variety of issues…”
Agyeman, Chapter 5: Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE)
(Critique in blue. Comments and/or insights desired.)
In this chapter, Agyeman employs a case-study approach of an organization to determine whether it is aligned primarily with EJP or JSP, how the two paradigms overlap in actual practice, and why an organization may evolve over time to become more oriented towards JS. The subject is ACE, a non-profit founded in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood in 1993 with a mission of mobilizing the community (and identified Environmental Justice Population) to take charge of their own urban environment. ACE received a rating of 3 on Agyeman’s Just Sustainability Index.
Agyeman argues that in the 10 years between ACE’s founding and the time of the case study, ACE evolved from an EJP-identified organization to a JSP-identified one. The four criteria that signaled the shift are:
1) Widening the geographic area of focus from a local habitat (Roxbury) to a regional one (New England). ACE was originally formed to respond to issues affecting the residents of Roxbury, such as air-quality and bus-fare increases, but has expanded its scope and plans to become even more involved in regional action.
2) Growing from a reactive, “one crisis at a time” organization to a proactive, community-visioning and empowerment support system that uses participatory processes to identify problems that the community currently faces or is likely to face in the future.
3) Building coalitions that persist across unique campaigns and that create greater capacity in the entire system. ACE’s institutional and informal partnerships aren’t dissolved as issues are put to rest; instead, they nurture long-term relationships that are grounded in a sense of common purpose.
4) Employing increasingly sophisticated operational tactics (lobbying, legal, etc.) that help to distinguish ACE from more parochial organizations by emphasizing its ability to marshal resources and ensure its longevity.
ACE’s modus operandi is rooted in a platform of popular education and empowerment-practice. Popular education seeks to increase a community’s capacity for self-determination through education and outreach; empowerment-practice attempts to harness individuals’ competencies and skills to envision and implement a stronger community.
Without going into a full recap ACE’s history and campaigns, I will say that I was duly impressed by ACE’s ability to grow and stay true to its mission, as well as the clearly deliberate ways they have chosen to express their mission in everything that they do, from staff hiring to program selection. I was also interested in ACE’s timeline, which charted its “critical moments” since its inception and did a nice job of really showing how such an organization gains strength and momentum over time. Much like Ken Reardon’s explanation of the East St. Louis project, ACE’s timeline illustrates that even the most complex, best-organized grassroots movements are really a series of smaller moves that build-up and help to define and grow the organization.
Agyeman concludes that ACE began as an EJ organization and has since become a JS organization. I agree, and I agree with his reasons for making that assessment; I just kind of feel like, “so what?” I mean, ACE is what it is, and I don’t know how much value is added by definitively stating that it’s part of one paradigm or another: Whether it is identified with EJP or JSP doesn’t change its mission. I suppose it’s useful to make the distinction for outsiders who want to be able to point to a JS organization because they’re learning about JS (like we are), or to create a rubric for determining whether other orgs are JS, et cetera, but overall I feel like it’s a lot mental acrobatics, splitting of hairs, labored articulation—call it what you will—to arrive at the foregone conclusion that they are a great organization doing important work. Like so much of what we have read about thus far, I don’t question that the intentions are good or that the logic behind it isn’t solid, but I do feel that there is an incredibly prolific body of work out there that merely seeks to define, to categorize, and to theorize, without much overture toward real action. Does anybody else feel this way, as well? I’m actually quite torn about it, like maybe I’m only seeing half of the picture, and if I could see the other half then I would somehow feel more satisfied, or be able to at least connect the inputs with some outputs.
In this chapter, Agyeman employs a case-study approach of an organization to determine whether it is aligned primarily with EJP or JSP, how the two paradigms overlap in actual practice, and why an organization may evolve over time to become more oriented towards JS. The subject is ACE, a non-profit founded in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood in 1993 with a mission of mobilizing the community (and identified Environmental Justice Population) to take charge of their own urban environment. ACE received a rating of 3 on Agyeman’s Just Sustainability Index.
Agyeman argues that in the 10 years between ACE’s founding and the time of the case study, ACE evolved from an EJP-identified organization to a JSP-identified one. The four criteria that signaled the shift are:
1) Widening the geographic area of focus from a local habitat (Roxbury) to a regional one (New England). ACE was originally formed to respond to issues affecting the residents of Roxbury, such as air-quality and bus-fare increases, but has expanded its scope and plans to become even more involved in regional action.
2) Growing from a reactive, “one crisis at a time” organization to a proactive, community-visioning and empowerment support system that uses participatory processes to identify problems that the community currently faces or is likely to face in the future.
3) Building coalitions that persist across unique campaigns and that create greater capacity in the entire system. ACE’s institutional and informal partnerships aren’t dissolved as issues are put to rest; instead, they nurture long-term relationships that are grounded in a sense of common purpose.
4) Employing increasingly sophisticated operational tactics (lobbying, legal, etc.) that help to distinguish ACE from more parochial organizations by emphasizing its ability to marshal resources and ensure its longevity.
ACE’s modus operandi is rooted in a platform of popular education and empowerment-practice. Popular education seeks to increase a community’s capacity for self-determination through education and outreach; empowerment-practice attempts to harness individuals’ competencies and skills to envision and implement a stronger community.
Without going into a full recap ACE’s history and campaigns, I will say that I was duly impressed by ACE’s ability to grow and stay true to its mission, as well as the clearly deliberate ways they have chosen to express their mission in everything that they do, from staff hiring to program selection. I was also interested in ACE’s timeline, which charted its “critical moments” since its inception and did a nice job of really showing how such an organization gains strength and momentum over time. Much like Ken Reardon’s explanation of the East St. Louis project, ACE’s timeline illustrates that even the most complex, best-organized grassroots movements are really a series of smaller moves that build-up and help to define and grow the organization.
Agyeman concludes that ACE began as an EJ organization and has since become a JS organization. I agree, and I agree with his reasons for making that assessment; I just kind of feel like, “so what?” I mean, ACE is what it is, and I don’t know how much value is added by definitively stating that it’s part of one paradigm or another: Whether it is identified with EJP or JSP doesn’t change its mission. I suppose it’s useful to make the distinction for outsiders who want to be able to point to a JS organization because they’re learning about JS (like we are), or to create a rubric for determining whether other orgs are JS, et cetera, but overall I feel like it’s a lot mental acrobatics, splitting of hairs, labored articulation—call it what you will—to arrive at the foregone conclusion that they are a great organization doing important work. Like so much of what we have read about thus far, I don’t question that the intentions are good or that the logic behind it isn’t solid, but I do feel that there is an incredibly prolific body of work out there that merely seeks to define, to categorize, and to theorize, without much overture toward real action. Does anybody else feel this way, as well? I’m actually quite torn about it, like maybe I’m only seeing half of the picture, and if I could see the other half then I would somehow feel more satisfied, or be able to at least connect the inputs with some outputs.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice, Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities
Reaction to Readings-
Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice by Julian Agyeman
Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities
As suggested, I tried to start reading Chapter 3: Just Sustainability in Theory, but I found the acronyms so confusing that I had to go back and read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities first. In fact, in order to get through the readings I had to make myself a chart of frequently-used acronyms. Once I was comfortable with Agyeman’s terminology, I was happy that I had decided to read Chapter 2 because it was an informative and interesting treatment of historic and current strategies for environmental sustainability (NEP), environmental justice (EJP) and the emergence of just sustainability (JSP).
Summary:
Julian Agyeman used this chapter to discuss how sustainability initiatives must go beyond environmentalism to include social justice. With a particular focus on recent US federal government sustainability policies, he discussed how institutions are learning how to become sustainable. Political processes are informing sustainability ventures both in America and abroad, but the author was highly critical of the current Bush administration’s backwards, hypocritical approach to sustainability. In contrast to the Clinton administration’s action-based and collaborative recommendations published in the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) report from 1996, the 2002 Working for a Sustainable World (WSSD) report spoke only of throwing money toward sustainable programs outside the United States. Agyeman used this and many other American social customs to show that there is an “equity deficit” in many US sustainability initiatives.
The vast majority of local American sustainability policies do not even mention, let alone properly address just sustainability. While Agyeman was often critical of American attempts (or lack thereof) of environmental justice, he also mentioned several useful tools for informing local just sustainability policies. Sustainability inventories, the Dutch “environmental space” concept, San Francisco’s Sustainability Plan and ecological footprints were suggested because they all incorporate some concepts of resource allocation and community empowerment.
Agyeman briefly discussed a need for a radical change to American economic thinking, but spent more time in this chapter on other applied policies that could help communities move toward just sustainability. Some of the suggestions include better transit systems, community agriculture, eco-taxes, affordable housing, and Local Exchange Trading Schemes (LETS) such as the “Ithaca Hours” program. It was interesting to note that it seems that smaller communities are embracing such policies much more easily than large ones and that it is often the cities that are most polluted and full of disenfranchised populations that do not take sustainability seriously.
Synthesis/Application:
While I found the entire second chapter to be fascinating. I was most engaged by the section toward the end of the chapter that compared narrow and broad-focused environmentalism. This section was highly applicable to some of my most recent work with the Downsview Park project in Toronto. Having just stepped out of a job where I was helping to build a sustainable community, I was able to critically examine some the policies and institutional attitudes that were informing that project. I have been struggling to see where some of the friction within that project has been coming from, and this chapter showed the need for many such projects to break through into a new kind of “third generation environmentalism.” I now know that some of the major tensions that Downsview has been experiencing could be attributed to its presently narrow focus land restoration without a true balance of community cooperation.
Granted, massive projects take a long time to implement, but perhaps Downsview is wrong in aiming toward land restoration before attempting to address some major community-based hurtles. It appears that Kenneth Reardon will be addressing such issues of community cynicism toward government-led projects and so I hope to learn more strategies for dealing with this.
Inquiry/Critique:
Should all sustainable initiatives look first toward community justice in order to be successful? This question also ties in with the community garden project that we are working on with Keith. Do grass-roots sustainability projects (gardens and otherwise) have a higher level of success because they are initially informed and powered by a broad-focused community approach?
I was interested in the author’s mention of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) as a new and more appropriate measure economic stability. I will have to read further chapters of the book in order to learn more about this Index. I am hoping to get some more information on this topic because I would like to compare it to other alternative economic tools. In fact, I was surprised that no mention was given to Howard T. Odum’s concept of Emergy accounting, which is another alternative systems evaluation tool that combines ecological and economic thinking. Emergy accounting and the idea of “embodied energy” is currently being used to inform permaculture design principles and practices around the world, but is it applicable here?
Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice by Julian Agyeman
Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities
As suggested, I tried to start reading Chapter 3: Just Sustainability in Theory, but I found the acronyms so confusing that I had to go back and read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities first. In fact, in order to get through the readings I had to make myself a chart of frequently-used acronyms. Once I was comfortable with Agyeman’s terminology, I was happy that I had decided to read Chapter 2 because it was an informative and interesting treatment of historic and current strategies for environmental sustainability (NEP), environmental justice (EJP) and the emergence of just sustainability (JSP).
Summary:
Julian Agyeman used this chapter to discuss how sustainability initiatives must go beyond environmentalism to include social justice. With a particular focus on recent US federal government sustainability policies, he discussed how institutions are learning how to become sustainable. Political processes are informing sustainability ventures both in America and abroad, but the author was highly critical of the current Bush administration’s backwards, hypocritical approach to sustainability. In contrast to the Clinton administration’s action-based and collaborative recommendations published in the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) report from 1996, the 2002 Working for a Sustainable World (WSSD) report spoke only of throwing money toward sustainable programs outside the United States. Agyeman used this and many other American social customs to show that there is an “equity deficit” in many US sustainability initiatives.
The vast majority of local American sustainability policies do not even mention, let alone properly address just sustainability. While Agyeman was often critical of American attempts (or lack thereof) of environmental justice, he also mentioned several useful tools for informing local just sustainability policies. Sustainability inventories, the Dutch “environmental space” concept, San Francisco’s Sustainability Plan and ecological footprints were suggested because they all incorporate some concepts of resource allocation and community empowerment.
Agyeman briefly discussed a need for a radical change to American economic thinking, but spent more time in this chapter on other applied policies that could help communities move toward just sustainability. Some of the suggestions include better transit systems, community agriculture, eco-taxes, affordable housing, and Local Exchange Trading Schemes (LETS) such as the “Ithaca Hours” program. It was interesting to note that it seems that smaller communities are embracing such policies much more easily than large ones and that it is often the cities that are most polluted and full of disenfranchised populations that do not take sustainability seriously.
Synthesis/Application:
While I found the entire second chapter to be fascinating. I was most engaged by the section toward the end of the chapter that compared narrow and broad-focused environmentalism. This section was highly applicable to some of my most recent work with the Downsview Park project in Toronto. Having just stepped out of a job where I was helping to build a sustainable community, I was able to critically examine some the policies and institutional attitudes that were informing that project. I have been struggling to see where some of the friction within that project has been coming from, and this chapter showed the need for many such projects to break through into a new kind of “third generation environmentalism.” I now know that some of the major tensions that Downsview has been experiencing could be attributed to its presently narrow focus land restoration without a true balance of community cooperation.
Granted, massive projects take a long time to implement, but perhaps Downsview is wrong in aiming toward land restoration before attempting to address some major community-based hurtles. It appears that Kenneth Reardon will be addressing such issues of community cynicism toward government-led projects and so I hope to learn more strategies for dealing with this.
Inquiry/Critique:
Should all sustainable initiatives look first toward community justice in order to be successful? This question also ties in with the community garden project that we are working on with Keith. Do grass-roots sustainability projects (gardens and otherwise) have a higher level of success because they are initially informed and powered by a broad-focused community approach?
I was interested in the author’s mention of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) as a new and more appropriate measure economic stability. I will have to read further chapters of the book in order to learn more about this Index. I am hoping to get some more information on this topic because I would like to compare it to other alternative economic tools. In fact, I was surprised that no mention was given to Howard T. Odum’s concept of Emergy accounting, which is another alternative systems evaluation tool that combines ecological and economic thinking. Emergy accounting and the idea of “embodied energy” is currently being used to inform permaculture design principles and practices around the world, but is it applicable here?
Environmental Justice Intro & Chap 4
Introduction and Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Theory
In the introduction, Agyeman gives a brief history of the relationship between environmental justice and sustainability. Environmental justice is characterized as a grassroots “bottom-up” approach, while sustainability is a “top-down” approach. This dichotomy creates the void which separates the two movements. Agyeman then introduces Just Sustainability as the bridge that can unite these two movements, which are in actuality not as dissimilar as many think.
Agyeman Chapter 3 & Reardon Community Development Outline
Summary: Chapter 3 “Just Sustainability in Theory” by Agyeman
NEP – New Environmental Paradigm – “sets out an environmental stewardship and sustainability agenda that currently influences the work of most environmental and sustainability organizations but has little to say about equity or justice.”
EJP – Environmental Justice Paradigm – “framework for integrating class, race, gender, environment, and social justice concerns.”
JSP – Just Sustainability Paradigm – “ ‘the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems.’” “Prioritizes justice and equity but does not downplay the environment, our life support system.”
In Chapter 3 of "Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice," Julian Agyeman emphasizes that he is not offering the JSP as a cure-all solution to the problems of environmental destruction and humanitarian injustices in the world, but instead as a bridge between the NEP and EJP. He proposes that “we simply have to bridge the gap with frank and open discussion, if we are to move toward a just and sustainable communities together.” The JSP is put forth as a framework with a foundation in overlapping discourses among movements.
Agyeman explores the reasoning for the gap between the NEP and the EJP, and to sum up (including what seems to be his bias), he suspects that the NEP efforts give primacy to “natural resources, wilderness, endangered species,” etc, instead of “toxics, public health and unjust distribution of environmental risk” because the NEP group is not comprised of people who are not affected by the latter problems. The following table lists some of the corresponding polarizing issues and characteristics Agyeman mentions between the groups.
Although at first glance above table may make it seem that the joining of forces of the two groups would be a solution to the problem of the EJP needing the NEP to mobilize Aggyman’s JSP, in actuality; the two groups need each other equally. “Fundamentally, at global, national, regional, and local scales, the JSP means ‘acknowledging the interdependence of social justice, economic well-being and environmental stewardship. The social dimension is critical since the unjust society is unlikely to be sustainable in environmental or economic terms in the long run (Haughton 1999).”
Agyman describes the GPI, Gross Progress Indicator, which (as opposed to the GDP) uses more than 20 aspects of human life to evaluate the economy that most people actually experience.
Agyeman discusses Community Based Social marketing, and mentions the Ecological Footprint tool, which is popular in the U.S. because it tells us that we are living unsustainable lifestyles by showing us the land area required to sustain our lifestyles. But he explains that the Environmental Space (calculator) is a much better, more powerful policy tool, because it shows specifically how much less we should consume of any given source.
synthesis/application
Ken Reardon’s Participatory Neighborhood Planning Outline appears to be the framework of an example of DIPS (Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes and Procedures) that Agyeman mentioned.
In Reardon’s list of “Steps in the Process,” number 7, “Monitoring, Evaluating, and Modifying Neighborhood Plans” is expressed as monitoring and evaluation of project implementation, impact, and effectiveness, and the alteration of projects as necessary. I am again reminded of the work I did with the Cornell Division of Nutritional Sciences Community Nutrition Program over this past summer, where at one point our research team worked on evaluation of a Cooperative Extension program; “Cooking Up Fun.” (“Cooking Up Fun” is an integrated nutrition, youth development program designed to help youth aged 9 to 14 acquire independent food skills.) The CNP is very committed to an assets-based participatory approach, and when we had to use a Logic Model to evaluate “Cooking Up Fun,” we realized that it was not an appropriate evaluation tool. Towards the end of my work with DNS, we realized that we would have to develop a new evaluation tool, that would participatory itself, just like the planning. I was not involved long enough to see the new tool come to fruition, but I was there for a meeting where we discussed that we needed to get the community on board to create it; because the idea of success and/or failure of the program should come from the community, not Cornell.
critique/inquiry
There is really no mention in either of the readings of the process of selection/recruitment/identification for the citizens who are brought on board in the description of the initial stages in the participatory planning process. In many communities, there may be a problem of self-selection when it comes to community participation. Meaning; that the type of citizens who are acting in a way that is seen as counterproductive to progress in a community are not likely to be the same people who volunteer or are selected to participate in community planning. However; perhaps they are the very people whose opinion and perspective needs to be expressed and heard in order to establish a more equitable, sustainable change in a community. Their seemingly destructive behavior may in fact be the best method they know to show their discontent with their community and frustration at their inability to know what changes need to be made, so instead they just choose to be destructive to see things change in some way. I’m reminding myself of a quote from the movie “Donnie Darko,” where Donnie explains his take on Gram Green’s “The Destructors”: “They say right when they flood the house and they tear it to shreds that... ‘destruction is a form of creation,’ so the fact that they burn the money is ironic. They just want to see what happens when they tear the world apart. They want to change things.”
NEP – New Environmental Paradigm – “sets out an environmental stewardship and sustainability agenda that currently influences the work of most environmental and sustainability organizations but has little to say about equity or justice.”
EJP – Environmental Justice Paradigm – “framework for integrating class, race, gender, environment, and social justice concerns.”
JSP – Just Sustainability Paradigm – “ ‘the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems.’” “Prioritizes justice and equity but does not downplay the environment, our life support system.”
In Chapter 3 of "Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice," Julian Agyeman emphasizes that he is not offering the JSP as a cure-all solution to the problems of environmental destruction and humanitarian injustices in the world, but instead as a bridge between the NEP and EJP. He proposes that “we simply have to bridge the gap with frank and open discussion, if we are to move toward a just and sustainable communities together.” The JSP is put forth as a framework with a foundation in overlapping discourses among movements.
Agyeman explores the reasoning for the gap between the NEP and the EJP, and to sum up (including what seems to be his bias), he suspects that the NEP efforts give primacy to “natural resources, wilderness, endangered species,” etc, instead of “toxics, public health and unjust distribution of environmental risk” because the NEP group is not comprised of people who are not affected by the latter problems. The following table lists some of the corresponding polarizing issues and characteristics Agyeman mentions between the groups.
Although at first glance above table may make it seem that the joining of forces of the two groups would be a solution to the problem of the EJP needing the NEP to mobilize Aggyman’s JSP, in actuality; the two groups need each other equally. “Fundamentally, at global, national, regional, and local scales, the JSP means ‘acknowledging the interdependence of social justice, economic well-being and environmental stewardship. The social dimension is critical since the unjust society is unlikely to be sustainable in environmental or economic terms in the long run (Haughton 1999).”
Agyman describes the GPI, Gross Progress Indicator, which (as opposed to the GDP) uses more than 20 aspects of human life to evaluate the economy that most people actually experience.Agyeman discusses Community Based Social marketing, and mentions the Ecological Footprint tool, which is popular in the U.S. because it tells us that we are living unsustainable lifestyles by showing us the land area required to sustain our lifestyles. But he explains that the Environmental Space (calculator) is a much better, more powerful policy tool, because it shows specifically how much less we should consume of any given source.
synthesis/application
Ken Reardon’s Participatory Neighborhood Planning Outline appears to be the framework of an example of DIPS (Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes and Procedures) that Agyeman mentioned.
In Reardon’s list of “Steps in the Process,” number 7, “Monitoring, Evaluating, and Modifying Neighborhood Plans” is expressed as monitoring and evaluation of project implementation, impact, and effectiveness, and the alteration of projects as necessary. I am again reminded of the work I did with the Cornell Division of Nutritional Sciences Community Nutrition Program over this past summer, where at one point our research team worked on evaluation of a Cooperative Extension program; “Cooking Up Fun.” (“Cooking Up Fun” is an integrated nutrition, youth development program designed to help youth aged 9 to 14 acquire independent food skills.) The CNP is very committed to an assets-based participatory approach, and when we had to use a Logic Model to evaluate “Cooking Up Fun,” we realized that it was not an appropriate evaluation tool. Towards the end of my work with DNS, we realized that we would have to develop a new evaluation tool, that would participatory itself, just like the planning. I was not involved long enough to see the new tool come to fruition, but I was there for a meeting where we discussed that we needed to get the community on board to create it; because the idea of success and/or failure of the program should come from the community, not Cornell.
critique/inquiry
There is really no mention in either of the readings of the process of selection/recruitment/identification for the citizens who are brought on board in the description of the initial stages in the participatory planning process. In many communities, there may be a problem of self-selection when it comes to community participation. Meaning; that the type of citizens who are acting in a way that is seen as counterproductive to progress in a community are not likely to be the same people who volunteer or are selected to participate in community planning. However; perhaps they are the very people whose opinion and perspective needs to be expressed and heard in order to establish a more equitable, sustainable change in a community. Their seemingly destructive behavior may in fact be the best method they know to show their discontent with their community and frustration at their inability to know what changes need to be made, so instead they just choose to be destructive to see things change in some way. I’m reminding myself of a quote from the movie “Donnie Darko,” where Donnie explains his take on Gram Green’s “The Destructors”: “They say right when they flood the house and they tear it to shreds that... ‘destruction is a form of creation,’ so the fact that they burn the money is ironic. They just want to see what happens when they tear the world apart. They want to change things.”
Friday, September 7, 2007
Agyeman, Chapter 3 – Just Sustainability In Theory
Application:
Agyeman’s views and conclusions push for a view of the whole system. He emphasizes a global view, of economics, resources, ideas, and policies. His views seem to complement those in The Key to Sustainable Cities, in that by looking at the community as a whole, we are able to see all of the interactions within the system and evaluate its capacity to meet all of our needs. He also advocates for the improvement of social networks (democracy, inclusiveness, empowerment, responsibility), equitable resource distribution, economic security, and, ultimately, human and environmental health – all of which are described in the Key’s Community Systems Dynamics discussion.
Critique:
Overall, I felt that Agyeman’s writing would have been much clearer had he written out his abbreviations more often, and used footnotes rather than citing every author, date, page, and conference in his paragraphs – which required the reader to navigate a sea of parenthesis to follow a sentence. I also wish he had expanded a bit on his discussion of cited authors’ equation of “ecological” with “nonhuman.” The widespread idea of humans as being something other than nature, something outside of it, and often as having a managerial or stewardship role (which is perhaps exploited), plays an important role in our use of resources and in shaping the discourse that surrounds environmental policy.
Summary:
Agyeman sees the “just sustainability” paradigm (JSP) as a bridge between the current environmental sustainability paradigm (NEP) and the environmental justice paradigm (EJP). He defines JSP as including the consideration of both present and future generations, quality of life, the concept of justice and equity, and living within ecosystem limits. He attributes the NEP-EJP divide to the paradigms’ origin and history, demographic differences, reluctance toward engagement, and individual vs. communitarian approaches. The author describes the divide between the rich, Northern, environment-based “green” agenda – focused on ecological sustainability (No Humanity Without Nature), and the poor, Southern, equity-based, “brown” agenda – focused on environmental health (No Nature without Social Justice). Agyeman brings up the Earth Charter, which is discussed at length in Chapter 6 of The Key to Sustainable Cities - “Envisioning a Beautiful World,” and emphasizes its focus on a global partnership and universal responsibility. Agyeman states that we simply require open discussion and a fusion of the movements, enabling the creation of proactive and progressive policies, a “new economics,” and local to global thinking.
Agyeman’s views and conclusions push for a view of the whole system. He emphasizes a global view, of economics, resources, ideas, and policies. His views seem to complement those in The Key to Sustainable Cities, in that by looking at the community as a whole, we are able to see all of the interactions within the system and evaluate its capacity to meet all of our needs. He also advocates for the improvement of social networks (democracy, inclusiveness, empowerment, responsibility), equitable resource distribution, economic security, and, ultimately, human and environmental health – all of which are described in the Key’s Community Systems Dynamics discussion.
Critique:
Overall, I felt that Agyeman’s writing would have been much clearer had he written out his abbreviations more often, and used footnotes rather than citing every author, date, page, and conference in his paragraphs – which required the reader to navigate a sea of parenthesis to follow a sentence. I also wish he had expanded a bit on his discussion of cited authors’ equation of “ecological” with “nonhuman.” The widespread idea of humans as being something other than nature, something outside of it, and often as having a managerial or stewardship role (which is perhaps exploited), plays an important role in our use of resources and in shaping the discourse that surrounds environmental policy.
Summary:
Agyeman sees the “just sustainability” paradigm (JSP) as a bridge between the current environmental sustainability paradigm (NEP) and the environmental justice paradigm (EJP). He defines JSP as including the consideration of both present and future generations, quality of life, the concept of justice and equity, and living within ecosystem limits. He attributes the NEP-EJP divide to the paradigms’ origin and history, demographic differences, reluctance toward engagement, and individual vs. communitarian approaches. The author describes the divide between the rich, Northern, environment-based “green” agenda – focused on ecological sustainability (No Humanity Without Nature), and the poor, Southern, equity-based, “brown” agenda – focused on environmental health (No Nature without Social Justice). Agyeman brings up the Earth Charter, which is discussed at length in Chapter 6 of The Key to Sustainable Cities - “Envisioning a Beautiful World,” and emphasizes its focus on a global partnership and universal responsibility. Agyeman states that we simply require open discussion and a fusion of the movements, enabling the creation of proactive and progressive policies, a “new economics,” and local to global thinking.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Chapter 7 (Beatley) and Chapter 2 (Desfor and Keil)
Chapter two from Nature in the City (Desfor and Keil) and Chapter seven from Green Urbanism (Beatley) share several elements in common. Specifically, both readings address the interaction between government and sustainable development within urban centers—urban centers that the authors claim are “central space[s] of global environmental policy making” (Desfor and Keil 38). Ironically, the readings not only highlight the many possibilities that such urban centers contain for sustainable growth, but they also discuss the role of urban centers as major sources of environmental degradation. Desfor and Keil begin this discussion by addressing the challenges of implementing ecologically friendly policies in an age where many powerful local governments show more interest in economic growth and global politics than they do in sustainable growth. Although this notion seems rather grim, the authors also claim that urban growth can very realistically promote ecological living if monitored properly. If we compare this idea to Beatley’s chapter on urban ecology, we see that urban centers truly can promote sustainable development.
In chapter seven, Beatley enthusiastically springs from one case study to the next in an effort to demonstrate many of the green practices that are shaping European cities. Interestingly enough, much of the green development within these urban centers happens under the guidance of strong central governments that are dedicated to the sustainable urban growth. The Dutch national ecological network, for example, is not merely a local endeavor, but an endeavor that engages an entire nation and its people.
As I read through these pieces, I thought of my home in Orlando, Florida where the automobile has completely overtaken the urban environment. I can only imagine how powerful some of the projects mentioned in chapter seven could be within this city. Specifically, I like the idea of Eco Bridges and green highways. Although I am not necessarily sure that Eco Bridges could be used to connect wildlife habitats across the built environment in Central Florida, I love the idea of embellishing our highways and overpasses with natural plant life. There are so many transportation corridors in the Orlando metropolitan area that could easily be transformed into models of ecologically friendly design (or at least a version of it). And although Beatley did not mention mass transit within chapter seven, I found myself pondering the idea of a light rail system that could parallel many of these corridors in Orlando.
In the end, I do have one question about the Desfor and Keil reading. On page 50, the authors claim that most environmental movements are counter regulatory at their core, yet this notion makes little sense to me considering the politically charged nature of the piece. It seems to me that government regulation plays a major role in promoting sustainable growth in urban centers. Am I misunderstanding the author?
In chapter seven, Beatley enthusiastically springs from one case study to the next in an effort to demonstrate many of the green practices that are shaping European cities. Interestingly enough, much of the green development within these urban centers happens under the guidance of strong central governments that are dedicated to the sustainable urban growth. The Dutch national ecological network, for example, is not merely a local endeavor, but an endeavor that engages an entire nation and its people.
As I read through these pieces, I thought of my home in Orlando, Florida where the automobile has completely overtaken the urban environment. I can only imagine how powerful some of the projects mentioned in chapter seven could be within this city. Specifically, I like the idea of Eco Bridges and green highways. Although I am not necessarily sure that Eco Bridges could be used to connect wildlife habitats across the built environment in Central Florida, I love the idea of embellishing our highways and overpasses with natural plant life. There are so many transportation corridors in the Orlando metropolitan area that could easily be transformed into models of ecologically friendly design (or at least a version of it). And although Beatley did not mention mass transit within chapter seven, I found myself pondering the idea of a light rail system that could parallel many of these corridors in Orlando.
In the end, I do have one question about the Desfor and Keil reading. On page 50, the authors claim that most environmental movements are counter regulatory at their core, yet this notion makes little sense to me considering the politically charged nature of the piece. It seems to me that government regulation plays a major role in promoting sustainable growth in urban centers. Am I misunderstanding the author?
Nature in the City & Urban Ecology
Summary
Breaking down the polarity in perception between nature/environment and city/urban
In Urban Ecology… Beatley acknowledges that “Americans clearly have a long way to go to begin viewing cities and urban environments as ecosystems and places of nature,” but argues that “[c]ities are fundamentally embedded in a natural environment.” Similarly, in Nature in the City, Desfor & Keil assert that humans are “an ‘urban species.’ Increasingly, the common conceptual separation of ‘city’ or ‘urban’ from ‘nature’ or ‘environment’ has to be reassessed.”
Urbanization as the solution to the problem it has created
Urban Ecology: (Hundertwasser’s basic belief that) there exists an obligation to replace every bit of nature taken in the process of construction and city building.
Nature in the City: “[C]ities and urbanity are being offered as solutions to the environmental problems found in and around them…urbanization is offered as the solution to the ills it is said to cause.” These two perspectives compliment each other in looking at the city as a solution as not only an obligation but an opportunity.
Realistic hegemony of the capitalist economy AND realistic possibilities of economic benefits of environmentalism
Urban Ecology: “The American context may require clear description of economic benefits associated with greening strategies.” (i.e.: the short-term cost of a green roof is high, but the “first-costs” are outweighed by added life of the roof.)
Nature in the City: “the rational, realist point of view that…seeks the compatibility of economic development and environmental quality by way of ‘integrated policies implemented through tangible incentives, backed by solid research, and sure and equitable enforcement,” and “there is often a fundamental, or radical, disjuncture between the goals of urban and regional economic development and environmental goals.”
Simply identifying problems does not solve them
In Nature in the City: “Strong publics are ‘publics whose discourse encompasses both opinion formation and decision making.”
Urban Ecology…: Utilization of tools such as ecological network maps “that presents a clear offensive strategy with not only problems but solutions.”
significant differences in perspective
In Urban Ecology…, Beatley mentions Ambrey’s (1994) declaration that “[p]eople are starved from greenery.” The entire chapter seems to be based on this underlying assumption; that people will have a natural inclination to implement the design ideas that are explored in order to satisfy their general biophilia. In contrast, Desfor & Keil give a much more anthropocentric perspective, and suggest that the necessary shift in global mindset, especially in the U.S., will only occur as a result of economic punitive measures and/or incentives.
Creative Application
I was surprised and excited by the explanation of the potential for retrofitting buildings for rooftop gardens in the Urban Ecology chapter. In another Cornell class I took, which focused on sustainability and building design, the professor had explained that there are intense load-bearing structural requirements for green roofs. So I felt like many new design possibilities had opened up again (perhaps for my future career) when I read that there are two kinds of green roofs, and that one of them does not require that the structure be designed to bear the immense load of soil. I especially appreciated Beatley’s suggestion to undertake one or more pilot rooftop retrofits to be studied, as my field of study is specifically focused on research and the built environment.
Concerns/Questions
I am curious about the mention in Urban Ecology of the ability of roof gardens to extend the life of a roof. Beatley mentions this on more than one occasions but never explains how. Also, after taking a class were we studied problems with moisture in buildings causing poor indoor air quality (I.A.Q.) I was suspicious of all these plant-covered-buildings not creating some of the health-problems they hoped to solve.
I found this quote from Nature in the City extremely interesting and would like to discuss it further: “Ironically, the draconian measures of government are directly traceable to earlier government indifference to or encouragement of the people’s half-century-long pursuit of one of the American Century’s leading goals: unrestricted individual mobility.”
Breaking down the polarity in perception between nature/environment and city/urban
In Urban Ecology… Beatley acknowledges that “Americans clearly have a long way to go to begin viewing cities and urban environments as ecosystems and places of nature,” but argues that “[c]ities are fundamentally embedded in a natural environment.” Similarly, in Nature in the City, Desfor & Keil assert that humans are “an ‘urban species.’ Increasingly, the common conceptual separation of ‘city’ or ‘urban’ from ‘nature’ or ‘environment’ has to be reassessed.”
Urbanization as the solution to the problem it has created
Urban Ecology: (Hundertwasser’s basic belief that) there exists an obligation to replace every bit of nature taken in the process of construction and city building.
Nature in the City: “[C]ities and urbanity are being offered as solutions to the environmental problems found in and around them…urbanization is offered as the solution to the ills it is said to cause.” These two perspectives compliment each other in looking at the city as a solution as not only an obligation but an opportunity.
Realistic hegemony of the capitalist economy AND realistic possibilities of economic benefits of environmentalism
Urban Ecology: “The American context may require clear description of economic benefits associated with greening strategies.” (i.e.: the short-term cost of a green roof is high, but the “first-costs” are outweighed by added life of the roof.)
Nature in the City: “the rational, realist point of view that…seeks the compatibility of economic development and environmental quality by way of ‘integrated policies implemented through tangible incentives, backed by solid research, and sure and equitable enforcement,” and “there is often a fundamental, or radical, disjuncture between the goals of urban and regional economic development and environmental goals.”
Simply identifying problems does not solve them
In Nature in the City: “Strong publics are ‘publics whose discourse encompasses both opinion formation and decision making.”
Urban Ecology…: Utilization of tools such as ecological network maps “that presents a clear offensive strategy with not only problems but solutions.”
significant differences in perspective
In Urban Ecology…, Beatley mentions Ambrey’s (1994) declaration that “[p]eople are starved from greenery.” The entire chapter seems to be based on this underlying assumption; that people will have a natural inclination to implement the design ideas that are explored in order to satisfy their general biophilia. In contrast, Desfor & Keil give a much more anthropocentric perspective, and suggest that the necessary shift in global mindset, especially in the U.S., will only occur as a result of economic punitive measures and/or incentives.
Creative Application
I was surprised and excited by the explanation of the potential for retrofitting buildings for rooftop gardens in the Urban Ecology chapter. In another Cornell class I took, which focused on sustainability and building design, the professor had explained that there are intense load-bearing structural requirements for green roofs. So I felt like many new design possibilities had opened up again (perhaps for my future career) when I read that there are two kinds of green roofs, and that one of them does not require that the structure be designed to bear the immense load of soil. I especially appreciated Beatley’s suggestion to undertake one or more pilot rooftop retrofits to be studied, as my field of study is specifically focused on research and the built environment.
Concerns/Questions
I am curious about the mention in Urban Ecology of the ability of roof gardens to extend the life of a roof. Beatley mentions this on more than one occasions but never explains how. Also, after taking a class were we studied problems with moisture in buildings causing poor indoor air quality (I.A.Q.) I was suspicious of all these plant-covered-buildings not creating some of the health-problems they hoped to solve.
I found this quote from Nature in the City extremely interesting and would like to discuss it further: “Ironically, the draconian measures of government are directly traceable to earlier government indifference to or encouragement of the people’s half-century-long pursuit of one of the American Century’s leading goals: unrestricted individual mobility.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)