Chapter 7 in Green Urbanism by Timothy Beatley provides some interesting examples of how European Cities are implementing and promoting green values in their urban environments.
Key Concepts
· Cities are like forests and other natural systems. It’s important to stop separating an urban environment from a natural one. Instead treat them as one in the same where elements of both can exist.
· Asset building. The concept of building and protecting a city’s assets is a reoccurring theme in the books we have surveyed. An example in Green Urbanism is on page 199. The city of Stockholm realized how valuable their water was after they began to see its quality deteriorate. They ended up developing a comprehensive plan that treated and protected the water source from further damage. Any further development would have to fit into the plan that reflected the value of water to the city.
· Ecological Networks. Several European cities have set up ecological networks functioning at the national, state and local governmental levels. The national level provides the resources and a framework for the lower levels to work from. The higher governmental levels identify areas of interest, provide background studies, and map out the areas of ecological importance and potential. It is then up to the local areas to work out the details of the conservation plans loosely defined on the “ecological network map.”
An interesting and do-able application toward greening cities is the planting of trees in parking lots. Parking lots are often large spans of cement which contribute to storm water runoff and sewer overflows. They are aesthetically unappealing, often hot, uncomfortable places. Adding regulations that would require a tree for every three parking spaces would contribute greatly to a greener streetscape and could be a springboard toward other green projects.
When attempting to implement green projects in many small rural towns and cities, the biggest challenge is counteracting the mantra “but we can’t afford it.” Questions such as “how will we pay for the maintenance?”, “how can we afford a park when we need development that will add to the tax base?” The town where I live has about 1/3 of the property as tax exempt, and yet the city is expected to provide a full array of services such as lights, garbage and snow removal, etc. How can struggling towns and cities afford to pay for and maintain green spaces?
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Across the pond
I believe one of the most apparent similarities between the two readings is the emphasis on the responsibility of local governments to take action with regards to sustainable practices. In Green Urbanism, the author was able to highlight several examples of European cities taking the initiative to institute green policy measures, such as green roofs, community gardens and reconstructing the urban environment to include more open space and wildlife. In “Making Nature in the City”, the modern city is portrayed as a place with extremely fluid borders, where the decisions it makes are affected by and affect global processes. The city becomes responsible for its own ecological future, however these decisions are often influenced by civil society (while usually further marginalizing those at the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder). A more subtle commonality I noticed between the two readings is the assertion that the way in which we market sustainable practices influences how receptive the public is to adopting them. “Making Nature in the City” states that, “we can posit that the accessibility to and reach of one’s narratives into hegemonic, strong publics in the policy process depends primarily on the framing of one’s argument.” Green Urbanism, for example, talks about the rhetorical power of speaking in terms of “green infrastructure”, rather than simply proposing green space protection. Finally, and to show a point of contrast between the two, “Nature” emphasizes the danger of couching environmental reform in the context of progressiveness while Green Urbanism points to the many successes of governments being able to solve more than one problem through the application of sustainable practices.
One of the sustainability strategies cited in Green Urbanism that I found to be very innovative is the use of green walls. Not only do they provide insulation to a building, but they also add a certain aesthetic quality and they deter graffiti artists. I would have loved to been able to look out of my office window this summer and see a greener Baltimore. I think as long as we can argue for these changes by stressing the multiple benefits for the city rather than just saying “it’s good for the environment,” we will able to be a lot more successful.
A concern I had as I was reading Green Urbanism is how well the American culture will be able to accept current European practices as practical solutions. As beneficial as natural drainage systems would be, I don’t see people in suburban America getting excited about having a swamp in their carefully manicured back yards. The author seems very confidant that the “reconceptualizing of the traditional aesthetic of the American lawn or yard [is]…certainly possible.” I don’t know if I can share his optimism. And suburbia aside, is a city resident with a minimal backyard going to want to devote what precious green space they have to a muddy mess? Many of the other practices cited by the author I believe definitely have a shot, especially the green roofs, but the less pleasant of them not so much.
One of the sustainability strategies cited in Green Urbanism that I found to be very innovative is the use of green walls. Not only do they provide insulation to a building, but they also add a certain aesthetic quality and they deter graffiti artists. I would have loved to been able to look out of my office window this summer and see a greener Baltimore. I think as long as we can argue for these changes by stressing the multiple benefits for the city rather than just saying “it’s good for the environment,” we will able to be a lot more successful.
A concern I had as I was reading Green Urbanism is how well the American culture will be able to accept current European practices as practical solutions. As beneficial as natural drainage systems would be, I don’t see people in suburban America getting excited about having a swamp in their carefully manicured back yards. The author seems very confidant that the “reconceptualizing of the traditional aesthetic of the American lawn or yard [is]…certainly possible.” I don’t know if I can share his optimism. And suburbia aside, is a city resident with a minimal backyard going to want to devote what precious green space they have to a muddy mess? Many of the other practices cited by the author I believe definitely have a shot, especially the green roofs, but the less pleasant of them not so much.
Green Urbanism
A) In the chapter "Urban Ecology and Strategies for Greening the Urban Environment," Beatley describes, through many examples, the ways in which the city and nature can and should be incorporated. Rather than explaining it as a complete phenomenon however, he show writes fro the basic idea that the city and nature are fundamentally connected. Rather than showing that the greening of schools or bridges, for example, is something brand new, it is in a sense a return to the natural (the essential) relationship.
In the section called "Ecological Networks:National and Urban," the author describes the process and uses of creating mappings of ecological systems. It is something that doesn't immediately seem useful, but one can see that it is in fact quite important in making visual what already exists and what is possible. It seems important to be able to show people that there is actually a vision and a plan-- one that is feasible, also economically.
He goes on to describe some of Hundertwasser's work. It seems a central theme that it is our duty, our obligation, to replace the nature we cover with unnatural surfaces. Beatley also describes green roofs, green walls, green streets, green schools, and on. All of these things are possible, because the do already exist in the world.
B) There were a few things the author described or posed as new ideas that I thought were quite useful, both in a practical sense, and also for re-imagining the way we perceive and think about cities and nature.
The first, and most important of these, is in the first paragraph: "...cities are fundamentally embedded in a natural environment." (197) If we can begin to see the cities we live in as something more or other than an entity that is separate from the natural environment, than we can really begin to think holistically about the decisions we make. We might have a new imagination of the way cities are situated in nature. They are not city vs. countryside, but each part of something more.
Another was in the description of Hundertwasser's work and ideas. Namely that we are obligated to be in a two-way street relationship with nature. I especially enjoyed his idea that tenants in a house should have the right to do what they want with the facade of a building as far as they can reach out their window. Not only is the city not so separate from nature as we want to believe, but humans are not so separate from the built environment as we think.
We are active participants, whether we choose to do something or not.
C) My major criticism is that I'm not sure how practical it is to say American cities can learn form European. It is rather my impression that we can become inspired by the parts of European cities that are working well, but then address American cities for what they are. They evolved in different ways, especially in the last 100 years.
So he gives us example after example of these idealistic European cities that have done truly incredible things. I have been there and experienced it myself. But it might not be as simple as he says. Or is it?
Let's take the inspiration, and then live up to the best qualities of what it means to be an American-- to be innovative and brave-- and really try something new.
In the section called "Ecological Networks:National and Urban," the author describes the process and uses of creating mappings of ecological systems. It is something that doesn't immediately seem useful, but one can see that it is in fact quite important in making visual what already exists and what is possible. It seems important to be able to show people that there is actually a vision and a plan-- one that is feasible, also economically.
He goes on to describe some of Hundertwasser's work. It seems a central theme that it is our duty, our obligation, to replace the nature we cover with unnatural surfaces. Beatley also describes green roofs, green walls, green streets, green schools, and on. All of these things are possible, because the do already exist in the world.
B) There were a few things the author described or posed as new ideas that I thought were quite useful, both in a practical sense, and also for re-imagining the way we perceive and think about cities and nature.
The first, and most important of these, is in the first paragraph: "...cities are fundamentally embedded in a natural environment." (197) If we can begin to see the cities we live in as something more or other than an entity that is separate from the natural environment, than we can really begin to think holistically about the decisions we make. We might have a new imagination of the way cities are situated in nature. They are not city vs. countryside, but each part of something more.
Another was in the description of Hundertwasser's work and ideas. Namely that we are obligated to be in a two-way street relationship with nature. I especially enjoyed his idea that tenants in a house should have the right to do what they want with the facade of a building as far as they can reach out their window. Not only is the city not so separate from nature as we want to believe, but humans are not so separate from the built environment as we think.
We are active participants, whether we choose to do something or not.
C) My major criticism is that I'm not sure how practical it is to say American cities can learn form European. It is rather my impression that we can become inspired by the parts of European cities that are working well, but then address American cities for what they are. They evolved in different ways, especially in the last 100 years.
So he gives us example after example of these idealistic European cities that have done truly incredible things. I have been there and experienced it myself. But it might not be as simple as he says. Or is it?
Let's take the inspiration, and then live up to the best qualities of what it means to be an American-- to be innovative and brave-- and really try something new.
Nature City Thoughts- A Summary, Idea and Question
About 75% of the population in major industrial countries such as the US and Canada live in cities. This makes a city the natural breeding ground for filth, waste and pollution. The very nature of a city results in the destruction of natural habitats and the environment which the population density and industrial stance make inevitable. This problem has become more widely recognized as more and more environmental issues such as global warming and the holes in the ozone layer spring up. As the technological age forges forward issues such as these continue to appear which calls for the need to reform and regulate. Girarder calls the human race an “urban species” yet this does not necessarily mean a destructive one.
Nature in the City has a major focus on the current age being one as a “period of crisis of the societal relationship with nature”. The advancement of globalization and new mass accumulation production techniques have been the primary culprits of this prevalent issue. Mankind is not about to reverse its way of doing things in order to save the environment, but there are many individuals who seek to alter the way they run their life to help protect the environment from further destruction. One way that people in cities have begun to do this is through rooftop garden, community gardens and wall gardens. Also, some have gone as far as creating wild animal “sanctuaries” in the city by providing food and shade for particular species of birds that are moving out of urban areas for protective reasons.
Gardens prove to be an inexpensive way to assist the greening of cities. Often though, it is not entirely economically feasible. There have been more and more grants given each year to purposes such as these environmentally friendly ideas. Zoning laws restrict many ideas that are environmentally sustainable. An example of this is a building in Manhattan that was built next to the AOL Time Warner building. It was the first building in the area to have solar panels. This was a very large issue for many years because people did not like the aesthetics of the solar cells. This is one of many barriers politically.
One very economically and politically feasible idea I have for Nature in the City is to begin something like an indoor forest. Nature in the City does not only have to be limited to outside building doors. People should start having plants in their home. It will make indoor air quality significantly better and it adds an aesthetic, socially responsible, environmental touch to an office or home. The idea would be free of political and social issues as it is your own space and not public property. Also, many great reformers have said that change begins with you. It is difficult to take on a huge task that would affect a city before you yourself try the change.
A question that resonates in my mind from the reading is that if there is a difference of opinions on nature in the city based on background. Do people who grew up in the city feel more strongly about the concept of nature in the city or do people who grew up in and around nature feel there is a need for it? Answering this question would assist in looking for ways of going about this city greening reform.
Urban Greening in Europe
The overview of urban greening examples from Europe showed the distinct nature of thinking when designing cities in that continent. Whereas in most U.S. cities extreme green features are rare and many are just starting to emerge, European cities are designed to look as green as possible, both within the city, in its surroundings, and in its structures. One of the most important characteristics that make European cities green is high density. Due to improved inner-city transportation and the connectedness of buildings, these cities can free up a lot of space for open spaces and woodlots. In some of these cities, more than half of the city area can be a mix of agricultural land and forestland. This is very different from the United States, where just some major cities have significant green spaces, and has much to do with city planning and design.
Another great feature has to do with buildings. Greenroofs and greenwalls are excellent examples of how the inner city can be greened up. Not only do these reduce energy costs, but they also prolong the life of buildings and refresh the city air. In most cities, local governments subsidize much of the cost of these green features, not because of political image, as many may think in the United States, but because of economic and aesthetic reasons. In the U.S., Chicago and New York City have been promoting the installation of rooftop gardens, but greenwalls have not yet made it into our cities.
One of the most important aspects of green European cities is that they emphasize ecological regeneration. At a time when human society is rapidly overshooting the Earth’s biological capacity to produce natural resources, it is important to work on ecological regeneration. Many European cities have taken abandoned industry sites and turned them into green spaces. In some cities, the government pays for the complete removal of pavements and the incorporation of trees. Degraded areas within the city are typically cleaned up and made green, providing great health and aesthetic benefits to city members and attracting wildlife to the city.
One can think about how greenroofs, for example, can be paid for in cities using the savings generated from reduced energy use. In rapidly developing urban areas of the developing world, for example, local governments can set local mandates (separate from any weaker national mandate) to place greenroofs in all new houses or buildings and greenwalls in every existing and new public building. They can subsidize the initial cost and then increase the user’s energy bill by whatever percentage in energy savings the greenroof would make. In this way, the city takes into account the long-term vision of making the city green.
The reading raises many concerns. For once, it isn’t clear what mechanisms local governments use to raise the necessary funds to subsidize green projects in cities. It also paints a very extreme picture, especially with the idea of having “trees coming out of windows.” But something that I think is really useful is the idea of incentives that local governments place to discourage, for example, car use and to encourage the greening of the urban environment.
Another great feature has to do with buildings. Greenroofs and greenwalls are excellent examples of how the inner city can be greened up. Not only do these reduce energy costs, but they also prolong the life of buildings and refresh the city air. In most cities, local governments subsidize much of the cost of these green features, not because of political image, as many may think in the United States, but because of economic and aesthetic reasons. In the U.S., Chicago and New York City have been promoting the installation of rooftop gardens, but greenwalls have not yet made it into our cities.
One of the most important aspects of green European cities is that they emphasize ecological regeneration. At a time when human society is rapidly overshooting the Earth’s biological capacity to produce natural resources, it is important to work on ecological regeneration. Many European cities have taken abandoned industry sites and turned them into green spaces. In some cities, the government pays for the complete removal of pavements and the incorporation of trees. Degraded areas within the city are typically cleaned up and made green, providing great health and aesthetic benefits to city members and attracting wildlife to the city.
One can think about how greenroofs, for example, can be paid for in cities using the savings generated from reduced energy use. In rapidly developing urban areas of the developing world, for example, local governments can set local mandates (separate from any weaker national mandate) to place greenroofs in all new houses or buildings and greenwalls in every existing and new public building. They can subsidize the initial cost and then increase the user’s energy bill by whatever percentage in energy savings the greenroof would make. In this way, the city takes into account the long-term vision of making the city green.
The reading raises many concerns. For once, it isn’t clear what mechanisms local governments use to raise the necessary funds to subsidize green projects in cities. It also paints a very extreme picture, especially with the idea of having “trees coming out of windows.” But something that I think is really useful is the idea of incentives that local governments place to discourage, for example, car use and to encourage the greening of the urban environment.
Celebrating Assets, Creating a Vision
In this chapter, Hallsmith discusses two very important aspects of creating sustainable communities. On one hand, she emphasizes the fact that, as social beings, we need to celebrate together things that make us proud of our communities. Not only do inspiring assets bring us together, they show us what's possible and motivate us to work towards improvement. On the other hand, she notes that in order for the positive to come out of our assets, communities must have a vision. Without a vision, communities don't see the road ahead, and are unlikely to follow something they can't picture becoming true in the future.
One important tool that she details is an asset inventory. These inventories allow communities to figure out what assets exist within it and how they can be best used to make the community sustainable. Schools, natural resources, infrastructure, etc. are things that are valuable to the community and help sustain it. Knowing these assets and how they are being used gives a preliminary idea about whether the community is sustainable. For example, sustainable communities must know how many resources they use and how much of those go to waste. If a community uses more than what it can generate and has to depend on declining resources elsewhere, then the community may not be sustainable. Similarly, if problems within the community worsen human capital, then the ability of the community members to help sustain the community over the long-term may disappear.
Finally, communities must get together to create a vision, something they can stand by and work for. As Hallsmith explains, a vision is the roadmap to the future, a point where members want to see their community go. The examples given, such as that of Burlington, VT and Geneva, NY, show what this means. It's a clear picture of what community members want to see in their communities. This usually means a strong local economy with good jobs and businesses, an excellent transportation system, great education, green spaces, renewable energy use, and local food resources. This kind of vision is what motivates people to work as a community to achieve a medium- to long-term goal.
One important tool that she details is an asset inventory. These inventories allow communities to figure out what assets exist within it and how they can be best used to make the community sustainable. Schools, natural resources, infrastructure, etc. are things that are valuable to the community and help sustain it. Knowing these assets and how they are being used gives a preliminary idea about whether the community is sustainable. For example, sustainable communities must know how many resources they use and how much of those go to waste. If a community uses more than what it can generate and has to depend on declining resources elsewhere, then the community may not be sustainable. Similarly, if problems within the community worsen human capital, then the ability of the community members to help sustain the community over the long-term may disappear.
Finally, communities must get together to create a vision, something they can stand by and work for. As Hallsmith explains, a vision is the roadmap to the future, a point where members want to see their community go. The examples given, such as that of Burlington, VT and Geneva, NY, show what this means. It's a clear picture of what community members want to see in their communities. This usually means a strong local economy with good jobs and businesses, an excellent transportation system, great education, green spaces, renewable energy use, and local food resources. This kind of vision is what motivates people to work as a community to achieve a medium- to long-term goal.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Chapter 10: Initiating Action
I chose to read Chapter 10, “Initiating Action”, which outlines the steps involved in implementing a successful plan. The first part of a systems strategy is “outlining action for change.” When creating a plan, Hallsmtih asserts that leaders must take into account all aspects of a community when envisioning an action. The underlying principle of all this is that “Actors combined with Resources produce Change.” Next comes the actual action plan, and the author points out that planners need to realize that the original form of a project is likely to evolve over time, and therefore needs to be flexible and possible outcomes need to be incorporated from the start. Once the plan goes into effect, an open flow of information becomes critical in indicating the success of a plan. Finally, the author concludes the chapter by reminding the reader that the actors must have integrity and what they want in the future directs how they must behave in the present.
What struck me most during this reading was the last item I mentioned above, how we must have integrity when creating an action plan for the future. For instance, if a city is in the process of creating a new recycling plan as part of their goal to produce less waste, then they have to apply those goals to the way they behave at that moment. So, the office in charge of carrying out this plan should practice recycling themselves and be vigilant in this- otherwise, in what position are they to tell everyone else in the city to recycle? Taking the small, first steps towards a grander goal and building on those initial successes is key, and furthermore, it gives momentum to the system so that other initiatives are possible.
What struck me most during this reading was the last item I mentioned above, how we must have integrity when creating an action plan for the future. For instance, if a city is in the process of creating a new recycling plan as part of their goal to produce less waste, then they have to apply those goals to the way they behave at that moment. So, the office in charge of carrying out this plan should practice recycling themselves and be vigilant in this- otherwise, in what position are they to tell everyone else in the city to recycle? Taking the small, first steps towards a grander goal and building on those initial successes is key, and furthermore, it gives momentum to the system so that other initiatives are possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)