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?
Sunday, September 2, 2007
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.”
Post-neo-(post)modern (re)view
I read the Nature in the City chapter first, and found it way too abstract and verbose to even possibly relate the cities—you know, those things with BUILDINGS. And STREETS. And PEOPLE. And not a single citizen caring whether their “local state” is neo-Fordist or post-Weberian. But, I was pleasantly surprised to find that some of the more abstract notions actually translated to the lovely concrete examples given in Green Urbanism. Below are some particularly pithy ideas I pulled from Nature in the City as I was reading, and the instances where I thought these ideas reappeared in Green Urbanism:
“In this new state architecture, the local state occupies a space where the globalization process is regulated” through various policies. (32)
Regarding some of the “global policies affecting local place” discussions in the Beatley book, I was particularly inspired by some of the transcontinental policies and networks being established, where many members of the EU were working toward a common objective. I thought that really distilled the notion that it can’t just be one town, or city, or suburb, or region, or state, or country acting alone toward sustainability. Of course it is important to take initiative, be creative, and consider issues of nature, ecology, and sustainability at the micro level, but the biosphere doesn’t heed political boundaries, so working cooperatively—and thinking cooperatively—is imperative. I mean, we have an interstate transportation system, right? So what’s to stop the US from expanding the Appalachian Trail all the way to the Rockies (besides naming conventions)? Or, for that matter, a Pan-American Trail?
Furthermore—and perhaps this is reducing much of the discussion of “globalization”—one city’s (or state’s, or country’s) choices have implications on others. Ecologically this is a commonly accepted idea; we’ve all heard about emissions from smokestacks in Michigan causing acid rain in Maine (or wherever); but, in the larger sense of sustainability, particularly economic sustainability, the logic still follows: The decisions and policies of one place, whether economic, social, or ecological, effect other places both next door and across the globe.
”The city…creates ‘fragmented identities, instantaneous connections, and constant movement.’” (33)
To me, this notion of the city as both an agent of fragmentation and connection is captured fairly well in the concept of the green wedge/finger/belt versus the implementation of pocket parks, courtyards, and green roofs. Although the greenbelt in general can be seen as an element of connectivity in the city, the smaller, disconnected instances of nature can be just as instrumental in creating an overall ecological profile, and can create unstructured uses of space that facilitate connection, movement, and identification.
“[C]ities have become an important place where the ecological crisis can be both observed in its most pronounced form and addressed in an efficient way.” (37)
Particularly in regard to local ordinances regarding water contamination (Stockholm and Berlin), habitat degradation (The Hague, Utrecht) and the like, cities in a way conspire to create ecological imbalance, but intervention by local political structures can remediate problems speedily through policy and ordinance. Unlike rural areas where governance structures may not exist, or where few people live, urban environmental policy can effectively harness the dynamism and density of city life to promote change.
My main question, though, in these readings, is the extent to which policy changes or their applications can be coordinated on the regional or superregional scale, and if so, ought they come from the local level and coalesce into something larger, or begin as large-scale plans that, by virtue of semiautonomous execution by towns and cities, become tailored to the specific place?
“In this new state architecture, the local state occupies a space where the globalization process is regulated” through various policies. (32)
Regarding some of the “global policies affecting local place” discussions in the Beatley book, I was particularly inspired by some of the transcontinental policies and networks being established, where many members of the EU were working toward a common objective. I thought that really distilled the notion that it can’t just be one town, or city, or suburb, or region, or state, or country acting alone toward sustainability. Of course it is important to take initiative, be creative, and consider issues of nature, ecology, and sustainability at the micro level, but the biosphere doesn’t heed political boundaries, so working cooperatively—and thinking cooperatively—is imperative. I mean, we have an interstate transportation system, right? So what’s to stop the US from expanding the Appalachian Trail all the way to the Rockies (besides naming conventions)? Or, for that matter, a Pan-American Trail?
Furthermore—and perhaps this is reducing much of the discussion of “globalization”—one city’s (or state’s, or country’s) choices have implications on others. Ecologically this is a commonly accepted idea; we’ve all heard about emissions from smokestacks in Michigan causing acid rain in Maine (or wherever); but, in the larger sense of sustainability, particularly economic sustainability, the logic still follows: The decisions and policies of one place, whether economic, social, or ecological, effect other places both next door and across the globe.
”The city…creates ‘fragmented identities, instantaneous connections, and constant movement.’” (33)
To me, this notion of the city as both an agent of fragmentation and connection is captured fairly well in the concept of the green wedge/finger/belt versus the implementation of pocket parks, courtyards, and green roofs. Although the greenbelt in general can be seen as an element of connectivity in the city, the smaller, disconnected instances of nature can be just as instrumental in creating an overall ecological profile, and can create unstructured uses of space that facilitate connection, movement, and identification.
“[C]ities have become an important place where the ecological crisis can be both observed in its most pronounced form and addressed in an efficient way.” (37)
Particularly in regard to local ordinances regarding water contamination (Stockholm and Berlin), habitat degradation (The Hague, Utrecht) and the like, cities in a way conspire to create ecological imbalance, but intervention by local political structures can remediate problems speedily through policy and ordinance. Unlike rural areas where governance structures may not exist, or where few people live, urban environmental policy can effectively harness the dynamism and density of city life to promote change.
My main question, though, in these readings, is the extent to which policy changes or their applications can be coordinated on the regional or superregional scale, and if so, ought they come from the local level and coalesce into something larger, or begin as large-scale plans that, by virtue of semiautonomous execution by towns and cities, become tailored to the specific place?
Ch.7-Green Urbanism
The main point of this chapter was to show examples of how cities in Europe have been implementing projects to make them more natural. Beatley draws on a variety of devices such as greenroofs, ecoparks, and greenwalls. This chapter made me think a lot about how these things could be done where I'm from (Fresno, CA). I know growing up I could have done with a bit more nature, and less cement. The idea of greenwalls really caught my attention since I can feel the effect they have here in Ithaca. Lots of buildings here are overrun with ivy, on campus, downtown, and even my own apartment. I suppose this example was even more impacting for me because Beatley brought up the fact that greenwalls also help reduce graffiti and this is definitely a problem in the neighborhood I grew up in. Fresno is a very hot place, only increased by the amount of roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings. I think a place like this could benefit a lot from these European examples, I only wonder how in a place where it is so hot and water is already primarily used for agriculture we would find water to implement these ideas. I feel Beatley did not address the problems the US faces in trying to make such programs here a success, he merely comments on that we should mimic the Europeans.
Nature in the City chapter 2 was not my favorite reading. I'm still trying to figure out what was said that was new. Perhaps I'll figure this out by class, or during class. For now, the only topic I found interesting was the section where discrimination upon minorities was discussed.
Nature in the City chapter 2 was not my favorite reading. I'm still trying to figure out what was said that was new. Perhaps I'll figure this out by class, or during class. For now, the only topic I found interesting was the section where discrimination upon minorities was discussed.
Reflection #3: Chapter 7 (Green Urbanism) and Chapter 2 (Nature in the City)
Chapter 7 of Green Urbanism; Learning from European Cities echoed a number of ideas that we, as a class, have explored in the last week. In this chapter, the author suggests that, although built urban environments have in the past been set in contrast to the natural ecological environment, cities can be reenvisioned such that the natural and the built not only peacefully coexist but also the built mirrors systems found in nature. As the title suggests, the author uses examples from European cities in order to prove that these types of sustainable relationships are not only feasible, but they are being created across the globe. The simplicity of the ideas and real examples that the author provides begs the question “why can’t we?”. This chapter provided examples of practical application in which European cities were able to incorporate green space within the city center as well as between centers. Also, by greening structures of the built environment, these cities were able to create a connection between the built and natural environment. In the chapter, the author provided examples of simple things that European cities were doing to make their cities more sustainable, including planting more trees, planting rooftop gardens, planting balcony gardens, creating green walls with ivy and evergreen, creating ecobridges, and nestboxes. Beyond the greening of urban structures in the built environment, the author highlighted the practice of European cities that incorporate small ecological spaces in their built environments. These include city farms, ecological parks, community gardens and green schools with green play areas.
The most relevant point that stood out in the reading was the commitment that these city governments had to creating more sustainable cities. In these examples taken from European cities, local political leaders were exercising good government and enforcing ecofriendly policy. Furthermore, these cities furthered their commitments to the natural environment by preserving and protecting green space. In some examples, these city governments were requiring residents to plant rooftop gardens. This article really highlighted the importance of good local government and political leaders, which ties into the idea of locality introduced in chapter 2 of Nature in the City. In this chapter, Desfor and Keil outline how dynamic the local state truly is. The authors define the local state as the political space which encompasses the municipal government and they argue that this space is where policy making concerning the urban environment should take place. The reality is that Americas largely live in urban environments where environmental concerns are real and city residents are really affected by these environmental issues. As a result, cities are the most ideal places to address these issues. Furthermore, the authors argue that citizens should look to municipal and local state governments in order to find solutions to their environmental problems.
The most practical application of these two readings is to seek reform within local government. Citizens should demand that their representatives in local government be committed to protecting and preserving the city’s ecological assets and well as ensuring that the city is a sustainable system that incorporates nature into the built environment.
A number of critical concerns and questions arose while I was reading for Tuesday’s discussion. While reading Chapter of Nature in the City, I did not understand the connection that the author was making between the local state as a medium for urban environmental policy making and globalization. It seems to me that the authors were trying to argue that the local state was the ideal place to discuss one’s relationship to nature, because of globalization, which to me makes no sense. The local state is important in the discussion concerning urban environmental policy making and the relationship between nature, citizens and the built environment simply because it’s local and closest to those who are most affected by these relationships and policy making.
The most relevant point that stood out in the reading was the commitment that these city governments had to creating more sustainable cities. In these examples taken from European cities, local political leaders were exercising good government and enforcing ecofriendly policy. Furthermore, these cities furthered their commitments to the natural environment by preserving and protecting green space. In some examples, these city governments were requiring residents to plant rooftop gardens. This article really highlighted the importance of good local government and political leaders, which ties into the idea of locality introduced in chapter 2 of Nature in the City. In this chapter, Desfor and Keil outline how dynamic the local state truly is. The authors define the local state as the political space which encompasses the municipal government and they argue that this space is where policy making concerning the urban environment should take place. The reality is that Americas largely live in urban environments where environmental concerns are real and city residents are really affected by these environmental issues. As a result, cities are the most ideal places to address these issues. Furthermore, the authors argue that citizens should look to municipal and local state governments in order to find solutions to their environmental problems.
The most practical application of these two readings is to seek reform within local government. Citizens should demand that their representatives in local government be committed to protecting and preserving the city’s ecological assets and well as ensuring that the city is a sustainable system that incorporates nature into the built environment.
A number of critical concerns and questions arose while I was reading for Tuesday’s discussion. While reading Chapter of Nature in the City, I did not understand the connection that the author was making between the local state as a medium for urban environmental policy making and globalization. It seems to me that the authors were trying to argue that the local state was the ideal place to discuss one’s relationship to nature, because of globalization, which to me makes no sense. The local state is important in the discussion concerning urban environmental policy making and the relationship between nature, citizens and the built environment simply because it’s local and closest to those who are most affected by these relationships and policy making.
Nature in the City: Reaction to Readings
Desfor & Keil’s chapter on making nature in the city offers a process-oriented overview of various approaches to city environmental planning, while Beatley takes a more accessible stand on these issues. The difference in these two approaches gave the North American-centered Nature in the City a certain distance from the subject while Beatley seemed to be more focused on actual living European-based strategies for incorporating nature in the city.
Both readings make a case for the existence of nature within the city, instead of nature being in opposition to city life. With the overall increase of populations living in urban areas worldwide, both texts indicate that cities have no choice but to start considering themselves to be a part of natural systems or even to function as natural systems themselves. Page 38 in the chapter on Urban Environmental Policy says that, “paradoxically, it seems, urbanization is offered as the solution to the ills it is said to cause.” Beatley suggests that properly planned cities can function as beneficial, restorative systems in much the same ways as wetland and forests.
I found it interesting that the chapter from Urban Environmental Policy identified local states as traditionally not taken seriously in the political realm. Of course, the reality of modern urban environments indicates just the opposite: grass roots and local initiatives are often what touch our lives the most on a frequent basis. For example, Desfor & Keil discuss how air-quality management decisions affect the citizens of Los Angeles. Beatley promotes optimistic local initiatives such as green roofs, ecological networks and nature policy plans that can have wide-reaching effects on both the people and the environments around cities.
Desfor & Keil also pointed out the growing trend in municipal bylaws governing environmental and public health issues and shows that cities often feel the need to create their own specific rules. Such bylaw regulations are even frequently in direct contradiction to federal and/or provincial and state regulations. While the contradictions of municipal regulations vs provincial/state/federal regulations often leads to conflict and confusion, problems can also arise when municipal organizations enact bylaws despite the fact that they often lack the expertise to make informed decisions. Conversely, the increase in local, grass-roots political action also means that issues that would not regularly be considered in the federal or state political sphere are able to be brought to light.
Although the chapter on making nature in the city was an interesting analysis of past and current political processes of urban environmentalism, I found Beatley’s chapter more inspirational and relevant because it offered concrete solutions to city problems. Overall, I appreciate a positive and solution-oriented approach and find that Beatley offered real living examples with a more applied approach to urban environmental initiatives.
One potential application of the readings to urban environments could be a local green roofing mandate where all new buildings must be built with this in mind. I know that there have been highly successful green roof initiatives in Europe, and I hope that North American cities can start to make similar strides to make use of wasted roof spaces.
Since I am from Toronto, I was engaged by Desfor & Keil’s overview of Toronto and L.A. municipal environmental policies, but I found this text was too filled with jargon and outside references to be properly digested and completely relevant to my life. Perhaps I might find the chapter on Urban Environmental Policy more relevant if I could better understand the concept of “spatial amnesia” (p.35). I am also interested in discussing who forms local environmental policies and how democracy and public opinion (Desfor & Keil’s “weak publics”) are balanced with environmental research and planning expertise in local decision-making processes.
Both readings make a case for the existence of nature within the city, instead of nature being in opposition to city life. With the overall increase of populations living in urban areas worldwide, both texts indicate that cities have no choice but to start considering themselves to be a part of natural systems or even to function as natural systems themselves. Page 38 in the chapter on Urban Environmental Policy says that, “paradoxically, it seems, urbanization is offered as the solution to the ills it is said to cause.” Beatley suggests that properly planned cities can function as beneficial, restorative systems in much the same ways as wetland and forests.
I found it interesting that the chapter from Urban Environmental Policy identified local states as traditionally not taken seriously in the political realm. Of course, the reality of modern urban environments indicates just the opposite: grass roots and local initiatives are often what touch our lives the most on a frequent basis. For example, Desfor & Keil discuss how air-quality management decisions affect the citizens of Los Angeles. Beatley promotes optimistic local initiatives such as green roofs, ecological networks and nature policy plans that can have wide-reaching effects on both the people and the environments around cities.
Desfor & Keil also pointed out the growing trend in municipal bylaws governing environmental and public health issues and shows that cities often feel the need to create their own specific rules. Such bylaw regulations are even frequently in direct contradiction to federal and/or provincial and state regulations. While the contradictions of municipal regulations vs provincial/state/federal regulations often leads to conflict and confusion, problems can also arise when municipal organizations enact bylaws despite the fact that they often lack the expertise to make informed decisions. Conversely, the increase in local, grass-roots political action also means that issues that would not regularly be considered in the federal or state political sphere are able to be brought to light.
Although the chapter on making nature in the city was an interesting analysis of past and current political processes of urban environmentalism, I found Beatley’s chapter more inspirational and relevant because it offered concrete solutions to city problems. Overall, I appreciate a positive and solution-oriented approach and find that Beatley offered real living examples with a more applied approach to urban environmental initiatives.
One potential application of the readings to urban environments could be a local green roofing mandate where all new buildings must be built with this in mind. I know that there have been highly successful green roof initiatives in Europe, and I hope that North American cities can start to make similar strides to make use of wasted roof spaces.
Since I am from Toronto, I was engaged by Desfor & Keil’s overview of Toronto and L.A. municipal environmental policies, but I found this text was too filled with jargon and outside references to be properly digested and completely relevant to my life. Perhaps I might find the chapter on Urban Environmental Policy more relevant if I could better understand the concept of “spatial amnesia” (p.35). I am also interested in discussing who forms local environmental policies and how democracy and public opinion (Desfor & Keil’s “weak publics”) are balanced with environmental research and planning expertise in local decision-making processes.
Key Concepts: Think Local, Think Alternative, THINK
Joan Bokaer’s powerpoint shown on the first day of class did well to illustrate the design principles discussed in Tim Beatley’s chapter on urban ecology. His discussion of the natural capital cities have which make designs like greenroofs, green walls, ecological living spaces, eco-bridges and other environmentally friendly designs possible were well illustrated in Joan’s powerpoint. This chapter offers some hope for American cities and even provides specific suggestions for modifications to our cities. Beatley draws from many other designers to describe how the city must be understood as a living environment for all species and therefore efforts must be made to make living in a city optimal for all species. Beatley also discusses the interaction between the design and the inhabitants of these cities. He mentioned that birds cannot tell that they are nesting on a tree that lives in and around a building and how children love the undulating floor of the winter garden space. The benefits of green roofs, both traditional and ecological, seem unlimited. The environmental, economical and social benefits of this type of urban design are what make these practices sustainable. Cities can evolve into sustainable places by taking slow but radical steps to metamorphose from what they are today. This is hopeful for the
The Chapter on urban environmental policy first described the current political philosophies involved in the conversation on the issues before it went on to discuss specific recommendations on making nature in the city. The primary issue addressed in this reading was that our interactions occur on a local level, regardless of the fact that our government is divided into local, state and federal governments. Many of the policy issues we see to day developed from ignoring this fact. As we become a more and more urbanized people, environmental issues are of greater concern. The authors use the regime theory to discuss the evolution of urbanization and its effect on environmental policy. Regime theory is part of a body of work “called urban political economy and is used to describe urban development policies in urban centers of
Tim Beatly’s chapter was an interesting read, but it seemed to start off vaguely. Furthermore, the design alternatives described were interesting but did were not always completely discussed. For example, I did not quite understand what eco bridges are. Do they function like a green throughway from one natural area to another or where they simply bridges necessary for urban function that had bee outfitted to cater to cyclists and pedestrians?
The chapter on urban environmental policies had some really interesting, progressive ideas, but seemed too focused on the differing philosophies on policy in general.
Each of these readings brought some new insights and supported many of the ideals already in circulation about sustainability. Each depend heavily on local decision makers using alternatives to the thoughtless capitalistic traditions this society holds so dear. Beatley’s chapter especially opened my eyes to specific modifications I can make to the house I live in to make it more sustainable. The urban policy analysis chapter challenged me to act on my beliefs, rather than just think radical thoughts and hope that the government will change. Overall, i believe that the argument for both authors is that people need to think about their role in society and in the ecosystem and draw from that role to make decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)