Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Greening the City comments and some catching up with The Key To Sustainable Cities by Gwendolyn Hallsmith
On Greening the City:
This chapter addresses urban sustainability from an ecological perspective. I had never heard of "bioregional practice" before, but strives to restore and promote natural systems. Since I have been working in horticulture for several years, this chapter was useful because it contained a lot of relevant landscape planning guidance and critiques. One of the first was the popular notion that many urban parks have little value beyond ornamentation. Having worked in several parks over the years, I couldn't agree more with this statement. It is often very difficult to get governments and the general population to consider real healthy green spaces to be a priority on their budgets and agenda. I do think that aesthetics can be a vital component in creating healthy cities, but it is certainly not the only benefit to greening. It is a shame that when municipal budget cuts are required, parks and open spaces funds usually get cut first.
In the same paragraph, the author decries the fact that most parks are designed and maintained by people with no experience in ecology. As a parks supervisor, I can also attest to that. I have many years of training in ornamental horticulture, but not much education in ecology- and I know this is true of many others like myself. However, this is something that I am trying to change because I don't see how anyone can be expected to manage urban landscapes without having more knowledge of ecology and natural systems. Otherwise, you are just fighting a ridiculous battle based mostly on short-term aesthetics.
I joined the class late and am finally catching up here with some comments on Hallsmith's systems thinking:
Chapter 2: Perceiving the Community as a Whole System:
Hallsmith names four types of community needs as social, governance, economic and physical, and names the three primary community stakeholders as individuals/households, government and organizations. She shows how each major need and every part of the community can have an effect on the others, and argues that such interconnectedness may be better understood as a whole system. Hallsmith discusses the major community need categories and reveals how physical needs have previously been given priority by Mazlo and Max- Neef over other needs. However, she sees all needs as integral to community fulfillment, and argues that social needs must be met in order to fulfill economic, governance and even physical needs.
With all Hallsmith wrote about Maslow, Max-Neef and her own ideas about how needs fit together, I wished that she had included more diagrams of these need hierarchies or frameworks to help illustrate her points. I have studied Maslow’s hierarchy of needs before, but I couldn’t remember all of its levels and which needs were built upon the others. I understand that she is trying to move forward into new realm of thinking about needs, but sometimes it is nice to know where we have been before we take off on a new direction. When I looked up Maslow’s original pyramid of needs, self-actualization is at the top of the triangle and social needs is in the middle. It seems like Hallsmith is arguing that social needs should be take much more seriously than they have been in the past. Her community needs diagrams show social needs and fulfillment in several areas and she looks at individual needs as a balance to the needs of government and organizations.
Chapter 3 : Community Capacity and Sustainability
In this chapter, Gwendolyn Hallsmith discusses community agency and how populations can try to satisfy their own requirements for sustainability. She calls the qualities or things that enable a sustainable community “assets”, and looks at examples of economic, environmental, governance, and social capacity. The author explains community social cycles in terms of assets and processes that affect each other in ways that can either meet needs or create them. Much of the chapter is devoted to examples of “vicious social cycles” and negative cycles that are currently ubiquitous in North America. However, she ends on a more positive note by listing some benchmarks to help communities determine whether their decisions are helping to build holistic equity or are endangering community capacity.
In Chapter 3’s section on needs, cycles and systems, the author recognizes that many of the elements of community systems are difficult to quantify. If you cannot easily measure the components of certain social systems, then how are systems diagrams useful? It is easy to see how systems thinking can be used to reframe economics and other measurable disciplines, but I am interested in knowing more about how to measure social needs, or if this is even something that can be measured in a traditional way.
Chapter 4: Systems Thinking for Communities
This chapter attempts to explain basic systems analysis and applies it to theories of sustainable community development. Systems thinking is revealed as a language of symbols that can help reveal the way living, dynamic, extraordinary communities operate. The essence of systems thinking is that “the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts, and the whole forms a coherent entity that can exhibit behavior that is very different from the parts would lead you to expect.” (p.82) Cause and effect diagrams, feedback loops, flows, delays are shown using systems diagrams, and community systems archetypes were uncovered in common urban problems like traffic congestion, education and sprawl. Hallsmith points out that equilibrium plays an important role in systems thinking because closed systems are often resistant to change. That being said, she also says that small changes to the components of a system can lead to huge changes in the outcome of a system.
I found it very interesting that Hallsmith’s study of human systems thinking “indicates that for complex human systems, this critical state of being on the edge of chaos is perhaps a relatively normal condition.” (p. 83) This is a hefty statement that is hidden toward the back of chapter four and seems to have very deep implications when it comes to planning for sustainable communities. Hallsmith later points out that complex natural systems often teeter on the edge of chaos, but are also self-organizing. Perhaps this “property” of self-organization is part of the urban planning process, but it often seems to work against it. This dubiousness ties in with one of the central questions of our Community Garden project, which is whether or not spontaneous community gardens are more successful than government planned community garden projects.
Chapter 12: The Living, Learning, Caring Community
I chose to read the final chapter of The Key to Sustainable Cities because I was hoping to be left with a clear conclusion to the book. I was somewhat rewarded with Hallsmith’s final plea for life-long community education and an increase in urban policies that actually care for the people. The author also included recreation, spiritual outlets, arts, a clean environment, safety, cross-generational and cross-cultural support, civic involvement, economic development, equity, access, housing, energy, transportation, conflict resolution, waste disposal, water and self-determination as key ingredients in a sustainable community.
I agree with many of Hallsmith’s final recommendations for building sustainable cities. I was particularly impressed by her call to “give up the sacred cows of Western society.” (p.246) She makes a clear declaration about the unsustainable nature of the American dream. Is this obsession with isolation, fortess-like homes, taking up space and using up our resources just a sick extension of Manifest Destiny and American expansionism? I hope that we can indeed halt the incessant quest to acquire more useless things and end our impulse to consume more than we need. It seems our feet are just too big for our shoes, but this time, we can’t buy bigger shoes.
This chapter addresses urban sustainability from an ecological perspective. I had never heard of "bioregional practice" before, but strives to restore and promote natural systems. Since I have been working in horticulture for several years, this chapter was useful because it contained a lot of relevant landscape planning guidance and critiques. One of the first was the popular notion that many urban parks have little value beyond ornamentation. Having worked in several parks over the years, I couldn't agree more with this statement. It is often very difficult to get governments and the general population to consider real healthy green spaces to be a priority on their budgets and agenda. I do think that aesthetics can be a vital component in creating healthy cities, but it is certainly not the only benefit to greening. It is a shame that when municipal budget cuts are required, parks and open spaces funds usually get cut first.
In the same paragraph, the author decries the fact that most parks are designed and maintained by people with no experience in ecology. As a parks supervisor, I can also attest to that. I have many years of training in ornamental horticulture, but not much education in ecology- and I know this is true of many others like myself. However, this is something that I am trying to change because I don't see how anyone can be expected to manage urban landscapes without having more knowledge of ecology and natural systems. Otherwise, you are just fighting a ridiculous battle based mostly on short-term aesthetics.
I joined the class late and am finally catching up here with some comments on Hallsmith's systems thinking:
Chapter 2: Perceiving the Community as a Whole System:
Hallsmith names four types of community needs as social, governance, economic and physical, and names the three primary community stakeholders as individuals/households, government and organizations. She shows how each major need and every part of the community can have an effect on the others, and argues that such interconnectedness may be better understood as a whole system. Hallsmith discusses the major community need categories and reveals how physical needs have previously been given priority by Mazlo and Max- Neef over other needs. However, she sees all needs as integral to community fulfillment, and argues that social needs must be met in order to fulfill economic, governance and even physical needs.
With all Hallsmith wrote about Maslow, Max-Neef and her own ideas about how needs fit together, I wished that she had included more diagrams of these need hierarchies or frameworks to help illustrate her points. I have studied Maslow’s hierarchy of needs before, but I couldn’t remember all of its levels and which needs were built upon the others. I understand that she is trying to move forward into new realm of thinking about needs, but sometimes it is nice to know where we have been before we take off on a new direction. When I looked up Maslow’s original pyramid of needs, self-actualization is at the top of the triangle and social needs is in the middle. It seems like Hallsmith is arguing that social needs should be take much more seriously than they have been in the past. Her community needs diagrams show social needs and fulfillment in several areas and she looks at individual needs as a balance to the needs of government and organizations.
Chapter 3 : Community Capacity and Sustainability
In this chapter, Gwendolyn Hallsmith discusses community agency and how populations can try to satisfy their own requirements for sustainability. She calls the qualities or things that enable a sustainable community “assets”, and looks at examples of economic, environmental, governance, and social capacity. The author explains community social cycles in terms of assets and processes that affect each other in ways that can either meet needs or create them. Much of the chapter is devoted to examples of “vicious social cycles” and negative cycles that are currently ubiquitous in North America. However, she ends on a more positive note by listing some benchmarks to help communities determine whether their decisions are helping to build holistic equity or are endangering community capacity.
In Chapter 3’s section on needs, cycles and systems, the author recognizes that many of the elements of community systems are difficult to quantify. If you cannot easily measure the components of certain social systems, then how are systems diagrams useful? It is easy to see how systems thinking can be used to reframe economics and other measurable disciplines, but I am interested in knowing more about how to measure social needs, or if this is even something that can be measured in a traditional way.
Chapter 4: Systems Thinking for Communities
This chapter attempts to explain basic systems analysis and applies it to theories of sustainable community development. Systems thinking is revealed as a language of symbols that can help reveal the way living, dynamic, extraordinary communities operate. The essence of systems thinking is that “the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts, and the whole forms a coherent entity that can exhibit behavior that is very different from the parts would lead you to expect.” (p.82) Cause and effect diagrams, feedback loops, flows, delays are shown using systems diagrams, and community systems archetypes were uncovered in common urban problems like traffic congestion, education and sprawl. Hallsmith points out that equilibrium plays an important role in systems thinking because closed systems are often resistant to change. That being said, she also says that small changes to the components of a system can lead to huge changes in the outcome of a system.
I found it very interesting that Hallsmith’s study of human systems thinking “indicates that for complex human systems, this critical state of being on the edge of chaos is perhaps a relatively normal condition.” (p. 83) This is a hefty statement that is hidden toward the back of chapter four and seems to have very deep implications when it comes to planning for sustainable communities. Hallsmith later points out that complex natural systems often teeter on the edge of chaos, but are also self-organizing. Perhaps this “property” of self-organization is part of the urban planning process, but it often seems to work against it. This dubiousness ties in with one of the central questions of our Community Garden project, which is whether or not spontaneous community gardens are more successful than government planned community garden projects.
Chapter 12: The Living, Learning, Caring Community
I chose to read the final chapter of The Key to Sustainable Cities because I was hoping to be left with a clear conclusion to the book. I was somewhat rewarded with Hallsmith’s final plea for life-long community education and an increase in urban policies that actually care for the people. The author also included recreation, spiritual outlets, arts, a clean environment, safety, cross-generational and cross-cultural support, civic involvement, economic development, equity, access, housing, energy, transportation, conflict resolution, waste disposal, water and self-determination as key ingredients in a sustainable community.
I agree with many of Hallsmith’s final recommendations for building sustainable cities. I was particularly impressed by her call to “give up the sacred cows of Western society.” (p.246) She makes a clear declaration about the unsustainable nature of the American dream. Is this obsession with isolation, fortess-like homes, taking up space and using up our resources just a sick extension of Manifest Destiny and American expansionism? I hope that we can indeed halt the incessant quest to acquire more useless things and end our impulse to consume more than we need. It seems our feet are just too big for our shoes, but this time, we can’t buy bigger shoes.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sustainable Communities: Chapters 3 & 4
Agyeman : Chapters 3 & 4
The more that I read of Agyeman’s book the more I come to the conclusion that his writing is a bunch of over-intellectualized garbage. His thoughts are well articulated and rarely a page goes by without a comment that makes me think. So I ask myself… how come I am struggling with a text that has me nodding in agreement most of the time? I have concluded that Agyeman writing is essentially useless. As in… what is the practical use of this book? Is he advocating for more Just Sustainability, by pointing out how most of our larger Environmental organizations miss the mark when it comes to issues of social justice?
Consider the following example…
The National Audubon Society earned a 0 on the Just Sustainability Index. I guess the National Audubon Society isn’t as worried about justice of the underpriveledged… um… birds? It’s about birds. I challenge anyone to integrate concepts of justice and equity into the mission of the National Audubon Society. After Agyeman lists the National Audubon Society as one of the organizations with a JSI of 0, he then remarks that “despite the somewhat depressing overall picture, there are national environmental and sustainability membership organizations in the United States that are beginning to engage with the emergent JSP, …”, inferring that many organizations have missed the mark by not infusing a purpose of social justice in thier mission. I don’t use this to make light of providing justice for the underprivileged. No one can deny that is a noble goal of any organization or government policy, but Agyeman constructs this elaborate system of useless categorization and profiling to lump many organizations as having no or little component of justice. He’s right. They don’t, and they don’t care to. It is not part of their mission, so where is the connection? The National Audubon has as much to do with equity/justice as the Minnesota chapter of Star Trek Lovers.
Audubon is about the birds. WWF is about the wildlife. American Rivers is about the rivers. When I worked for several of the state PIRG’s for 2 years our focus was primarily on a state recycling bill, a bill that was equitable for all soda and water drinkers and affects inner cities as much if not more than wealthier suburbs (state PIRGs JSI = 0). Environmental organizations start out as the idea of a small group of people passionate about an issue. They grow or not based on their public support. Their mission may have components of social and/or environmental justice. Where is the advantage of rating these organizations with a JSI?
Agyeman’s examples are each great cases of local initiatives with components of social justice making a difference locally. The fact that the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union ordered 248 natural gas powered busses doesn’t mean that that organization should be compared with organizations whose primary or sole goal is environmental stewardship. The concepts overlap. Social Justice is important. Environmental stewardship is important. The ties that Agyeman creates between the two burdens each with the others problems, confuses the issue of scope, and have no practical purpose that I see.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Chapter 4 and Greening The City
Chapter four in Agyeman's book describes an index to compare sustainable organization's directives and evaluate their relation to sustainability and environmental justice. Agyemen outlines her methodology and explains that her descriptions of the organizations within this chapter all have the same score on her index because organizations that rate below a 3 should not be considered relater to JSP.
I noticed that many of these organizations were located in either on the East coast (mainy New York city) or the West cost. It is interesting to think about what influences people in different locations who face the same worldwide environmental crisis react differently. I would assume that organizations formed in NYC or California were formed out of disparate need for their services. States in the Midwest are so sprawling that people who live there do not face the same realities of overcrowding, pollution and climate change in the same ways as city-dwellers. In the same vein, the Greening the City chapter highlights organizations and practices for city dwellers to become more sustainable. Coincidence? Sadly, we as a society seem only to find environmentally nurturing alternatives to our daily practices only when put in disparate situations and atrocious conditions. The critique for both the Greening the City chapter and chapter 4 would be that the issues raised and practices prescribed seem too practical to spend time reading. People are driven by challenge, and once they fulfill their task, they will generally lose interest. Planting prairie wildflowers in your yard, or simply allowing primary succession to occur, is too easy and simplistic for people to accept. We all want to figure something important out, or buy that new technology--but all we really have to do is get a sense of what the ecosystem we inhabit is like and conform to it.
I noticed that many of these organizations were located in either on the East coast (mainy New York city) or the West cost. It is interesting to think about what influences people in different locations who face the same worldwide environmental crisis react differently. I would assume that organizations formed in NYC or California were formed out of disparate need for their services. States in the Midwest are so sprawling that people who live there do not face the same realities of overcrowding, pollution and climate change in the same ways as city-dwellers. In the same vein, the Greening the City chapter highlights organizations and practices for city dwellers to become more sustainable. Coincidence? Sadly, we as a society seem only to find environmentally nurturing alternatives to our daily practices only when put in disparate situations and atrocious conditions. The critique for both the Greening the City chapter and chapter 4 would be that the issues raised and practices prescribed seem too practical to spend time reading. People are driven by challenge, and once they fulfill their task, they will generally lose interest. Planting prairie wildflowers in your yard, or simply allowing primary succession to occur, is too easy and simplistic for people to accept. We all want to figure something important out, or buy that new technology--but all we really have to do is get a sense of what the ecosystem we inhabit is like and conform to it.
Greening the city/ chap 1
Both chapter one of environmental justice and greening the city discuss environmentalism as it relates to the poor. In greening the city different methods of creating a green city are discussed. The author argues these methods although occasionally, the benefits are good enough to outweigh the cost. Additionally the different methods will help low income people by lowering costs for items such as heat and food. Agyeman connects lower income with bad environmental conditions, claiming that groups need to refocus on social equity/justice in addition to sustainability.
The connect between low income and poor living conditions is no surprise. Those who have less money often also have less rights, time, or money to put into fixing the problems of their community .Therefore it is much easier for outside people to take advantage of the poor neighborhoods by doing things such as dumping in the community. Although there is a definite connection in the problem, the issue (which was the same one I had last week and still feel is relevant) is how are the solutions connected? Agyeman suggests that environmental organizations reshaping their focus on justice will work, but if the issues are coming largely from outside the community some of the proposed solutions may be being focused in the wrong place. On the other hand comparing hte two different articles sustainable communities brings up many solutions to creating healtyer environments that do help the poor (bridging the gap between environmentalism and equity) such as creating gardens which help by providing cheaper food. The other idea that sustainable communities brings up is the idea of environmental incentives. Both on the large scale of the government making laws which promote different forms of green building, and that on the smaller personal level of decreasing cost is a much more effective way of creating change than trying to change for moral reasons.
Although both articles bring up very valid points both have issues. Agyeman discusses the connection between equity and sustainability but many of his points actually show the opposite. His examples are mostly problems and not solutions, although he claims connection between both. Greening the city skims over some arguments, like in the case of where it states the benefits outdo the costs but doesn't really give data to back this up. Also with some of the methods there is dispute on the effectiveness (such as in the case of the green roof where the actual amount that it creates insulation is debated). Despite these facts both authors give a good showing of the connections between poor environmental conditions and the poor, and also show the amount this is forced onto them.
The connect between low income and poor living conditions is no surprise. Those who have less money often also have less rights, time, or money to put into fixing the problems of their community .Therefore it is much easier for outside people to take advantage of the poor neighborhoods by doing things such as dumping in the community. Although there is a definite connection in the problem, the issue (which was the same one I had last week and still feel is relevant) is how are the solutions connected? Agyeman suggests that environmental organizations reshaping their focus on justice will work, but if the issues are coming largely from outside the community some of the proposed solutions may be being focused in the wrong place. On the other hand comparing hte two different articles sustainable communities brings up many solutions to creating healtyer environments that do help the poor (bridging the gap between environmentalism and equity) such as creating gardens which help by providing cheaper food. The other idea that sustainable communities brings up is the idea of environmental incentives. Both on the large scale of the government making laws which promote different forms of green building, and that on the smaller personal level of decreasing cost is a much more effective way of creating change than trying to change for moral reasons.
Although both articles bring up very valid points both have issues. Agyeman discusses the connection between equity and sustainability but many of his points actually show the opposite. His examples are mostly problems and not solutions, although he claims connection between both. Greening the city skims over some arguments, like in the case of where it states the benefits outdo the costs but doesn't really give data to back this up. Also with some of the methods there is dispute on the effectiveness (such as in the case of the green roof where the actual amount that it creates insulation is debated). Despite these facts both authors give a good showing of the connections between poor environmental conditions and the poor, and also show the amount this is forced onto them.
Chapter 6- solid thoughts and summary
Being entirely frustrated with the EJPs and the NEPs I decided to read a section of the book that does not focus on these annoying abbreviations that I cannot process well while reading. This was Chapter 6- final thoughts. What particularly caught my interest was a section called Just Sustainability: Reality or Rhetoric? It initially discussed Warner’s research on
For this reason Agyeman discusses why he likes doing case studies on smaller local projects. This was interesting as if you look at the case studies discussed in chapter 4 you can see they aren’t large scale projects. The ones that may be of larger scope are not discussed as much in detail.
This discussion however was entirely different from the National vs Local one had previously in the chapter. This focused on 3 steps:
- Discovering the support of an issue
- Coming together to discuss the issue
- Seeing if people were still supportive after the issue became a political issue
With these three steps all Agyeman was able to do was see that Environmental Sustainable Justice cannot be all things to all people. On the national and local levels, it has entirely different meanings. It is all contingent on the factors of the particular movement.
Application wise, this perspective is really valuable that things can be better deciphered on the local perspective. Further dissemination is possible by beginning on this level as well. I am curious as to how it is possible to begin spreading out after beginning small without having tremendous boundaries to overcome. If there are huge boundaries how do you go about achieving your goals? One of the most difficult things in any project is expanding- what is the best technique when it involves something as sensitive as the topic of sustainable justice? These are all just some questions I had while reading this concluding chapter. I usually have a different perspective than other people so it’d be interesting to hear what you think. Chapter 6 was a good one also because there were summarizations of everything. This really keeps your mind on track.
Sustainable Communities by Julian Agyeman Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Practice
Summary
Having read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse & Sustainable Communities last week, I really wanted to delve deeper into some of Agyeman’s recommended practices for building just sustainability. I was pleased to find that Chapter 4 was chock full of existing programs from around the United States that the author found to be promoting sustainable justice. Not only were there three examples of actual beneficial programs in each of the categories of solid waste, land-use planning, toxic chemicals use, transportation and residential energy use, but Agyeman also went so far as to rate some of the leading US sustainability initiatives to determine which were most just.
For the category of land-use planning, Agyeman is critical of traditional zoning regulations and cites New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements as more favorable to just sustainability because they support collaboration and a variety of uses and income levels. Urban Ecology in Oakland, California was commended for its focus on helping low-income communities to restructure themselves using to Smart Growth theories. Bethel New Life in Chicago, Illinois hires minority contractors to help build sustainable centers and programs. The Bronx Center Project in New York City encourages residents of one of the most troubled areas of the city to restore usable spaces and to create new places for community education and health.
In addressing solid waste management, recognized programs helped their communities to move beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” to environmental, economic and legal empowerment. The author was particularly approving of Minneapolis’ The Green Institute because it combines neighborhood economic development with environmentally sustainable ventures. The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance helps communities to reduce their solid waste and to fight back against waste transfer-station infractions. ReDo of Baltimore, Maryland organizes donations of unwanted materials and teaches people how to reuse old items.
I could go on listing all the organizations that were recognized by Agyeman as visionaries in the just sustainability movement, but for the sake of brevity, I will mention just a few more that stood out as leaders in this area. The Toxic Use Reduction Institute of Lowell, Massachusetts “helped industry to reduce toxic chemicals used in manufacturing by 41 percent over the past decade, while improving the competitiveness of Massachusetts companies.”(p.123) Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, California raises awareness on local energy and pollution issues and helps to guide the community to make informed decisions on future power plants. In the name of transit equity, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union actually succeeded in getting the MTA to stop unjust fare hikes, promote student travel and overhaul the aging bus fleet.
Application
I was very interested in the way that Agyeman had used the Just Sustainability Index to rank sustainable organizations throughout the U.S., Of course, I immediately wondered if the sustainability project that I was working on would be listed in the Index, but I think the fact that the Downsview Park project exists outside U.S. borders kept it off the list. The more I read on, I was forced to think about how Downsview would stack up according to the author’s JSI categories -and I was also a little worried that it would be lacking. In order to know more, I went onto the Downsview Park website (www.pdp.ca) to see if some of Agyeman’s just sustainability search terms were there. I was pleased to find phrases such as “social equity” and “social diversity” built into the corporate mandate. Although the words “just” or “justice” were not explicitly mentioned in Downsview Park’s website, it seems like social equity is being very seriously addressed in the park planning process.
When I critically examined the list of park programs and events, I was also pleased to note that there is a wide mix of free events for children (Family Day, Eco-School programming, sports), adults (Movies Under the Stars, Driftmania), retirees (Wings & Wheels, Doors Open Toronto), and even a nice mix of celebrations honoring the cultures of East Asia, Latin America, Portugal, as well as Jewish and Christian events. From my background with the park, I also know that it supports various cultural groups, community organizations and sustainable businesses by offering partnership opportunities, and rental space. Based on my brief examination of Downsview Park according to Agyeman’s JSI, the park would obtain a 3, which is the highest score. Downsview Park is a sustainable development project that is in the very early stages of development, but it appears they are making good progress in the effort to incorporate social justice into this huge project.
Once I had read the chapter and used it to examine the sustainability project that I am involved in, I used the hand-out on Justice & Sustainability Resources to look more deeply at some of projects mentioned in the chapter. I visited the website for Urban Habitat in California. I was struck by the website’s boisterous spirit of civil disobedience. It positions itself as an organization ready to take on some serious issues with some serious action. It looked downright rowdy and definitely confrontational. I then realized that I was in the wrong website: I was actually trying to find the website for Urban Ecology, which was mentioned in Chapter 4 as a beacon of hope for land-use planning and just sustainability. This website, was much more calm, and more what I had expected from a group of community planners. In fact, it reminded me of the Downsview Park website, which, being run by the Canadian government, also tries to infuse an aura of calm, peaceful determination into their project. Graphic design in a website sure can make a difference in how a project is perceived!
Having read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse & Sustainable Communities last week, I really wanted to delve deeper into some of Agyeman’s recommended practices for building just sustainability. I was pleased to find that Chapter 4 was chock full of existing programs from around the United States that the author found to be promoting sustainable justice. Not only were there three examples of actual beneficial programs in each of the categories of solid waste, land-use planning, toxic chemicals use, transportation and residential energy use, but Agyeman also went so far as to rate some of the leading US sustainability initiatives to determine which were most just.
For the category of land-use planning, Agyeman is critical of traditional zoning regulations and cites New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements as more favorable to just sustainability because they support collaboration and a variety of uses and income levels. Urban Ecology in Oakland, California was commended for its focus on helping low-income communities to restructure themselves using to Smart Growth theories. Bethel New Life in Chicago, Illinois hires minority contractors to help build sustainable centers and programs. The Bronx Center Project in New York City encourages residents of one of the most troubled areas of the city to restore usable spaces and to create new places for community education and health.
In addressing solid waste management, recognized programs helped their communities to move beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” to environmental, economic and legal empowerment. The author was particularly approving of Minneapolis’ The Green Institute because it combines neighborhood economic development with environmentally sustainable ventures. The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance helps communities to reduce their solid waste and to fight back against waste transfer-station infractions. ReDo of Baltimore, Maryland organizes donations of unwanted materials and teaches people how to reuse old items.
I could go on listing all the organizations that were recognized by Agyeman as visionaries in the just sustainability movement, but for the sake of brevity, I will mention just a few more that stood out as leaders in this area. The Toxic Use Reduction Institute of Lowell, Massachusetts “helped industry to reduce toxic chemicals used in manufacturing by 41 percent over the past decade, while improving the competitiveness of Massachusetts companies.”(p.123) Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, California raises awareness on local energy and pollution issues and helps to guide the community to make informed decisions on future power plants. In the name of transit equity, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union actually succeeded in getting the MTA to stop unjust fare hikes, promote student travel and overhaul the aging bus fleet.
Application
I was very interested in the way that Agyeman had used the Just Sustainability Index to rank sustainable organizations throughout the U.S., Of course, I immediately wondered if the sustainability project that I was working on would be listed in the Index, but I think the fact that the Downsview Park project exists outside U.S. borders kept it off the list. The more I read on, I was forced to think about how Downsview would stack up according to the author’s JSI categories -and I was also a little worried that it would be lacking. In order to know more, I went onto the Downsview Park website (www.pdp.ca) to see if some of Agyeman’s just sustainability search terms were there. I was pleased to find phrases such as “social equity” and “social diversity” built into the corporate mandate. Although the words “just” or “justice” were not explicitly mentioned in Downsview Park’s website, it seems like social equity is being very seriously addressed in the park planning process.
When I critically examined the list of park programs and events, I was also pleased to note that there is a wide mix of free events for children (Family Day, Eco-School programming, sports), adults (Movies Under the Stars, Driftmania), retirees (Wings & Wheels, Doors Open Toronto), and even a nice mix of celebrations honoring the cultures of East Asia, Latin America, Portugal, as well as Jewish and Christian events. From my background with the park, I also know that it supports various cultural groups, community organizations and sustainable businesses by offering partnership opportunities, and rental space. Based on my brief examination of Downsview Park according to Agyeman’s JSI, the park would obtain a 3, which is the highest score. Downsview Park is a sustainable development project that is in the very early stages of development, but it appears they are making good progress in the effort to incorporate social justice into this huge project.
Once I had read the chapter and used it to examine the sustainability project that I am involved in, I used the hand-out on Justice & Sustainability Resources to look more deeply at some of projects mentioned in the chapter. I visited the website for Urban Habitat in California. I was struck by the website’s boisterous spirit of civil disobedience. It positions itself as an organization ready to take on some serious issues with some serious action. It looked downright rowdy and definitely confrontational. I then realized that I was in the wrong website: I was actually trying to find the website for Urban Ecology, which was mentioned in Chapter 4 as a beacon of hope for land-use planning and just sustainability. This website, was much more calm, and more what I had expected from a group of community planners. In fact, it reminded me of the Downsview Park website, which, being run by the Canadian government, also tries to infuse an aura of calm, peaceful determination into their project. Graphic design in a website sure can make a difference in how a project is perceived!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)