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.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
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.
"Nature in the City" Chapter 2
This reading was a very different way for me to examine cities and the dynamic of the city system and structure. He begins by talking about our everyday connection with our surroundings and the importance of this connection. He believes that everything we use or have a connection with in our lives comes from our surroundings. I definitely agree with this and this is why we should look at our world and our lives as a system intsead of a series of static events.
He moves on to discuss the politics and structure surrounding the local state. He talks about the connection between the physical space and political awareness. It is said that political science literature often completely forgets about the space in which it exists in. I definitely agree with this i think that all too often the official and business side of poitics disconnect itself from the world in which it exists in. Next he talks about the importance of the civil society for the "constitution of the political and local state." This point is a bit confusing to me becuase i became confused about his definition of the civil society. To me the civil society is the common man, but i am worried that this is the simplifying concept to which he talks about. Next he says that the local state obtains a key position in the place of globalization in the way that they consider the urban as the place of conflict. I do not really agree with this idea about the local state i am confused as the the connection between conflict and world globalization i think that they are not productive in working together but mroe opposing factors. I could be misunderstanding the used definitions of conflict and globalization but to be they are not forces that work together. Finally he talks about the the local state is a policy arena and an active participant of a rescaling processes that has characterized the era in which we are living.
Overall he talks about discources in urban environmental policy making and makes it clear that he does not want to make either discourse nor political economy primacy more important than one another. He also breaks with common practice and does not make then either base or superstructure as many other people do.
He moves on to discuss the politics and structure surrounding the local state. He talks about the connection between the physical space and political awareness. It is said that political science literature often completely forgets about the space in which it exists in. I definitely agree with this i think that all too often the official and business side of poitics disconnect itself from the world in which it exists in. Next he talks about the importance of the civil society for the "constitution of the political and local state." This point is a bit confusing to me becuase i became confused about his definition of the civil society. To me the civil society is the common man, but i am worried that this is the simplifying concept to which he talks about. Next he says that the local state obtains a key position in the place of globalization in the way that they consider the urban as the place of conflict. I do not really agree with this idea about the local state i am confused as the the connection between conflict and world globalization i think that they are not productive in working together but mroe opposing factors. I could be misunderstanding the used definitions of conflict and globalization but to be they are not forces that work together. Finally he talks about the the local state is a policy arena and an active participant of a rescaling processes that has characterized the era in which we are living.
Overall he talks about discources in urban environmental policy making and makes it clear that he does not want to make either discourse nor political economy primacy more important than one another. He also breaks with common practice and does not make then either base or superstructure as many other people do.
Green Urbanism and Nature in the City
Green Urbanism - Chapter 7
Nature in the City - Chapter 2
9/2/07
The authors of both texts were most in concert around the fundamental idea that to increase sustainable practices in American cities it is essential to reassess the separation of "city" and "urban" from "nature" and "environment." By seeing our cities as seamless homes integrated into larger systems we are ultimately taking care of our own safety and welfare, yet we are also existing with the ecosystems that extend within our cities. This is paramount now that a majority of the world's population lives in an urban environment. Both authors also emphasize change at the local level as opposed to state or national. Defor & Keil are primarliy concerned with a theorectical approaches to how our local goverments function, using Tornorto and LA as examples. Beatley provides numerous case studies highlighting the successes of local projects and funding programs.
I was particulary engaged by the example in Defor and Keil regarding LA air quality and the personal restrictions put on city residents. Restrictions on personal freedoms instead of broader policy changes which would have long term effect does little to improve air quality and a lot to alienate people from becoming part of the solution of their own free will. I am reminded of growing up in California in the 80's during a major drought. City residents were discouraged and restricted from watering their lawns and gardens, bathwater was used to water plants, etc. When I contrast this example with the statistics of over 60% groundwater retention of green roofs (albeit in the drought-less Northwest) I am surprised that California did not implement a more long-term solution. However, at the local level, there have been cities such as Davis which have undertaken more "progressive" approaches.
I enjoyed being reminded in the Beatley article about the necessity of eco-bridges in the system of urban greenspaces. It was a good reminder for someone like myself who might laud a new park or greenspace without really thinking about how it connects to other habitats. We can nurture the ecosystems within which our cities live by creating these connections. I found the Defor and Keil piece a bit alienating in its theorectical approach, though the piece was very engaging and I liked the emphasis on local government. My question is about making and implementing these major changes, especially in American society. What other disciplines can we engage with to educate people not only on the importance of having fresh air and food but also on exercise and enjoyment of these green spaces we are creating?
Nature in the City - Chapter 2
9/2/07
The authors of both texts were most in concert around the fundamental idea that to increase sustainable practices in American cities it is essential to reassess the separation of "city" and "urban" from "nature" and "environment." By seeing our cities as seamless homes integrated into larger systems we are ultimately taking care of our own safety and welfare, yet we are also existing with the ecosystems that extend within our cities. This is paramount now that a majority of the world's population lives in an urban environment. Both authors also emphasize change at the local level as opposed to state or national. Defor & Keil are primarliy concerned with a theorectical approaches to how our local goverments function, using Tornorto and LA as examples. Beatley provides numerous case studies highlighting the successes of local projects and funding programs.
I was particulary engaged by the example in Defor and Keil regarding LA air quality and the personal restrictions put on city residents. Restrictions on personal freedoms instead of broader policy changes which would have long term effect does little to improve air quality and a lot to alienate people from becoming part of the solution of their own free will. I am reminded of growing up in California in the 80's during a major drought. City residents were discouraged and restricted from watering their lawns and gardens, bathwater was used to water plants, etc. When I contrast this example with the statistics of over 60% groundwater retention of green roofs (albeit in the drought-less Northwest) I am surprised that California did not implement a more long-term solution. However, at the local level, there have been cities such as Davis which have undertaken more "progressive" approaches.
I enjoyed being reminded in the Beatley article about the necessity of eco-bridges in the system of urban greenspaces. It was a good reminder for someone like myself who might laud a new park or greenspace without really thinking about how it connects to other habitats. We can nurture the ecosystems within which our cities live by creating these connections. I found the Defor and Keil piece a bit alienating in its theorectical approach, though the piece was very engaging and I liked the emphasis on local government. My question is about making and implementing these major changes, especially in American society. What other disciplines can we engage with to educate people not only on the importance of having fresh air and food but also on exercise and enjoyment of these green spaces we are creating?
Green Cities & Urban Ecology
Green Urbanism
Part IV: Green, Organic Cities
Chapter 7: Urban Ecologies and Strategies for Greening the Urban Environment
One of the first concepts that Beatley introduces is the idea of incorporating green or nature-enhancing features as a part of new, high density development projects that include natural areas in close proximity to residents and engage the public in the design process. He goes on to describe different methods of green building – roofs, walls, streets, courtyards, bridges, farms, parks, and drainage strategies. Later he describes how European cities have dealt with local climates and ecological restoration, restructuring, and conservation. One of the important things the author points out, when discussing the application of European practices to American cities, is that one of the biggest obstacles is going to be traditional ways of thinking, particularly in changing the perception Americans have of cities, and bridging the gap between what is urban and what is natural.
I think that greenroofs and natural drainage systems are among the easiest concepts to push in urban situations, particularly where there is new development occurring. New York State law requires in most situations that the runoff that leaves a site post-construction be no greater than that which left the site prior to construction. The ability of greenroofs to mitigate stormwater runoff and retain a large amount of water in the substrate greatly reduces the runoff that would be leaving a site. This combined with natural drainage systems – permeable paving, retention basins, bioswales, etc—can diminish any problems with stormwater runoff volumes. Both of the systems can also contribute to improved water quality, provide habitat and aesthetic enhancement, and be applied in urban, suburban, and rural contexts.
I found myself questioning Beatley in his claim that a national ecological network in the United States is “probably unlikely.” Although it may be challenging and require a major change in perception and attitudes toward nature and city, I don’t think it’s that impossible of an idea, especially if the network were to follow watersheds…
Part IV: Green, Organic Cities
Chapter 7: Urban Ecologies and Strategies for Greening the Urban Environment
One of the first concepts that Beatley introduces is the idea of incorporating green or nature-enhancing features as a part of new, high density development projects that include natural areas in close proximity to residents and engage the public in the design process. He goes on to describe different methods of green building – roofs, walls, streets, courtyards, bridges, farms, parks, and drainage strategies. Later he describes how European cities have dealt with local climates and ecological restoration, restructuring, and conservation. One of the important things the author points out, when discussing the application of European practices to American cities, is that one of the biggest obstacles is going to be traditional ways of thinking, particularly in changing the perception Americans have of cities, and bridging the gap between what is urban and what is natural.
I think that greenroofs and natural drainage systems are among the easiest concepts to push in urban situations, particularly where there is new development occurring. New York State law requires in most situations that the runoff that leaves a site post-construction be no greater than that which left the site prior to construction. The ability of greenroofs to mitigate stormwater runoff and retain a large amount of water in the substrate greatly reduces the runoff that would be leaving a site. This combined with natural drainage systems – permeable paving, retention basins, bioswales, etc—can diminish any problems with stormwater runoff volumes. Both of the systems can also contribute to improved water quality, provide habitat and aesthetic enhancement, and be applied in urban, suburban, and rural contexts.
I found myself questioning Beatley in his claim that a national ecological network in the United States is “probably unlikely.” Although it may be challenging and require a major change in perception and attitudes toward nature and city, I don’t think it’s that impossible of an idea, especially if the network were to follow watersheds…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)