Cities Can Save the Earth
The climate crisis won't be solved by changing light bulbs and inflating your tires more, planting a tree and driving a little less. It's going to require a truly fundamental shift in how we build our cities and live in them.
The key to changing our cities involves the car. Cars dominate cities in the rich countries, and they are increasingly swamping poor countries as well. Big auto companies, are rapidly building car factories and highways in China and India. Many cities, like Berkeley, California where I lived for 30 years, don't have a single pedestrian street - and their citizens don't even notice how completely given over to the car their towns are. Only one out of 10 people on the planet actually drives cars, but drivers are causing a vastly disproportionate share of planetary damage through the automobile-sprawl pattern of development.
The concepts behind the ecocity are fairly simple. They involve a shift in development toward centers of high diversity:
- Switch to a pedestrian and transit-oriented infrastructure, with ecocity architecture built around compact centers designed for pedestrians and transit;
- Roll back sprawl development while vigorously restoring nature and agriculture;
- Integrate renewable energy systems while using non-toxic materials and technologies and promoting recycling.
A major difficulty in moving toward ecocities is that cars have influenced urban design for 100 years. Many of us caught in this infrastructure find it extremely difficult to get around in anything but the car. The distances are just too great for bicycles, the densities just too low to allow efficient, affordable transit.
Despite these obstacles, there are tools available to help us move in the right direction immediately. In many places - such as San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland, Oregon in the United States, and to a greater extent in Curitiba, Brazil - a certain amount of this "ecocity" thinking is already going on. Sometimes it's simply a matter of recapturing the past. Cities used to be built for pedestrians. The core of some of these cities remains in Europe and China, though China is bulldozing some of these ancient city centers as we speak. Some cities like Venice, Italy, the Medina of Fez, and hilly Gulongyu, China are 100% car-free - and very successful.
It's possible to build ecocities, and we must do so if we are ever to solve the looming triple crisis of climate change, declining biodiversity, and dwindling fossil fuel energy.
The Biggest Things We Build
It's puzzling that almost no one connects the largest things we build - our cities - to the largest problems that we're experiencing, much less connects them to solutions to those problems.
When I was the convener of the First International Ecocity Conference in 1990, our keynote speaker was Denis Hayes, chief organizer of the first Earth Day. We have made a lot of good progress in the environmental movement, Hayes said, and then cited all the battles we had won, all the good laws and policies we had implemented, all the adjustments in lifestyles and better recycling and energy conservation we had put into effect. But somehow in regard to the largest problems of all - chief among them climate change and species extinctions - we were losing the war. We needed, he said, to rethink the way we design and build our cities, and how they function as a whole.
As Hayes suggested, we haven't won that war for the health of the environment, and in fact are worse off now than ever before simply because we never confronted the largest things we build. We said, "Let's change a light bulb and fill our tires up more," rather than, "Let's look at the big picture." When he spoke 10 years later, on the verge of the millennium, he gave pretty much the same speech - because virtually nothing had changed.
Cities are "whole systems" and function something like living organisms. Their main organs are linked together, complementing each other's services for the benefit of the whole and relating the whole to its environment in a way that could be of reciprocal benefit to all organs and the whole organism. The city's organs include structures for transportation, living, working, education, shopping, recreation, manufacturing, and distribution.
The whole organism of the city we've been constructing for the last 150 years has been built on the basis of linking functions through ever-lengthening strands of connection. First, there were rails and trains and streetcars, then much more massively, highways, cars, and trucks. After World War II, a wildfire of enthusiasm for consumerist development swept the world. The United States emerged from the war the only industrialized country that wasn't pounded into the dust in direct warfare on its own territory. Assessing the results, the United States noticed it had about 5% of the world's population and half its resources at its disposal. We were the Saudi Arabia of oil in the 1950s and had half the world's cars. The United States spent that victory bonus building its freeway system and low-density housing, blasting off into the age of consumerism. Each house was a big, prosperous shell in the suburbs, accessible only by automobile and demanding to be filled with consumer products. This consumerism was as internationally contagious as the flu and spread everywhere. Today, perhaps the ultimate expression of this consumerism is the Chinese development model.
In the wealthy world, cities are whole systems made up of low-density development called suburbs, largely "single-use" downtowns called central business districts, with asphalt and pavement covering vast areas of land to facilitate travel by car. This is all supported by an oil infrastructure that stretches from our local gas stations to our 725-plus U.S. military bases scattered around the world, and heavily concentrated in and around the Middle East and Central Asian oil fields. With its far-flung support systems, says social critic and author James Howard Kunstler, this scattered city of suburbs constitutes "the greatest misallocation of resources in history." This diffuse city structure has been based on fossil fuel energy that became cheaper and cheaper over the last 150 years. Now such energy is getting more and more expensive as we approach peak oil production. After that, oil will become scarcer and even more expensive, as will any nonrenewable resource that's burnt up instead of recycled.
Redesigning the City
We can change our cities. In fact, our cities have already changed. Portland has frequent transit that's free in the downtown area, and has designated a "urban growth boundary" to limit the expansion of the city's urban area and preserve nearby farmland and other open spaces. and a thriving and very dense new residential and "mixed-use" center in the Pearl District. The rooftops in Tel Aviv, Israel and dozens of Chinese cities sparkle with solar hot-water panels. Copenhagen's pedestrian street, the Støget, has been growing steadily since 1962 and now stretches more than two miles. In San Francisco, Pacific Gas and Electric, the regional utility, has recently signed contracts for over one billion dollars for electricity from BrightSource Energy's desert solar electric power facilities. They will provide electricity to apartments and condominiums for city centers where transit works well - a more "ecocity" solution than placing solar electric panels on car-dependent suburbs.
But we can do more, much more, to redesign our cities for pedestrians and bicyclists, taking up very small areas of land in more compact development. Taller buildings with rooftop gardens and solar greenhouses can be linked by pedestrian connections between rooftops and terraces above ground level, making city centers intimately accessible to people on foot. As we add population and ecological architecture in pedestrian/transit centers, we can gradually eliminate the unsustainable suburbs.
As development shifts toward the centers, bicycle and pedestrian paths will begin to reach into the suburban fabric, alongside restored creeks that revive natural plant and animal communities and provide refreshed water circulation and filtration. Community gardens and parks will appear along these networks of waterways and bicycle paths. When buildings become dilapidated or damaged by fire, termites, earthquakes, floods, or dry rot, they are removed rather than replaced. With time, larger agricultural areas reappear and nature will reach in to meet citizens, rather than citizens driving for half an hour or more through the suburbs to get "out" to nature.
The notion that "city is city and nature is nature and never the twain shall meet" is one of the worst en vogue ideas in architecture and city planning circles today. If we don't dramatically celebrate nature as brought into cities in small but rich ways, such as through waterway restoration and its attendant wildlife, then there will be serious consequences. We're already in trouble as evidenced by global warming and species dying all around the planet, it will be worse if we continue to extend into the future ideas that banish nature from the city.
If the biggest things we build are our cities, then it's one of the biggest mistakes we can make to exclude the experience of nature from people who live in them. But if we learn from nature and come to understand our cultural foundations in nature, we can then understand what sort of foundation in land use patterns and design we need for sustainable cities.
A Good Start
Ecocities have their antecedents in the Garden City movement in the first half of the 20th century and in the critiques by Lewis Mumford of the rapidly spreading city of cars. The cultural flux of modernist, can-do thinking after the World War II laid the conceptual groundwork for the modern ecocity.
Three cities - Auroville, Arcosanti, and Curitiba - set the parameters of the ecocity. In Auroville, India, Mirra Alfassa, a devotee of the revolutionary mystic Sri Aurobindo, founded an international experiment in living and thinking in 1968. Their philosophical idea was to further human evolution toward higher consciousness, partially through the building of an international city where everyone was citizen of the world, dedicated to peace and an exploration of human enlightenment and higher fulfillment. Auroville soon became famous as a city restoring the forests and regenerating the degraded landscape near Pondicherry, India.
At the same time Paolo Soleri, an architect, philosopher, and student of Frank Lloyd Wright, was thinking through his vision of the compact ecological city. He envisioned a city much more three-dimensional than the flat, automobile-dominated giants spreading out rapidly at the time. He pointed out the paradox that a compact city rising tall from its foundations - which didn't have cars and highways or need the oceans of gasoline for everyday functioning - was actually far smaller and more efficient in terms of energy, land, and time. He dubbed his idea of cities with much smaller ecological footprints "arcology," the synthesis of architecture and ecology. He set out to build an example in the high desert city of Arcosanti, located halfway between Phoenix and Flagstaff in Arizona.
Curitiba, in Brazil, was an already-existing city that moved in an ecological direction. Mayor Jaime Lerner, with a team of architects and planners, began shaping the city around transit-oriented compact development. They planned five long arms of tall buildings to reach out from a city center, where dozens of city blocks had become pedestrian streets. Streets dedicated to busses and emergency vehicles only served these arms of high-density development. With this pedestrian and transit-oriented basic form, the city went on to grow around open spaces preserved as public parks. The city planted millions of trees in denuded former ranching land, instituted stringent recycling including trading groceries for garbage in poor areas, and built inspiring libraries called "lighthouses of learning" in the city's neighborhoods that rose up five or six stories. In general, this visionary leadership released a torrent of creative innovation with an ecocity base unlike anything before.
These innovations haven't realized their potential. Auroville's growth as an ecocity, despite significant support from the Indian government and official UN endorsement as an international city, has slowed to a crawl. Arcosanti, in contrast, has received relatively little support from government, foundations, and the general public, and it too hasn't really gotten off the ground. Curitiba is today overrun by cars despite its early leading ecocity role.
Humanity failed to heed the lessons these pioneers offered. What we could have done by creative initiative we now must do out of necessity. Oil is running short, the climate is changing, and species are disappearing: We can no longer indulge in isolated experiments. We must redesign every city, and soon.
Next Steps
There are several ways to begin turning our cities into ecocities. First, there is ecocity mapping. This amounts to mapping your city plan so you have a clearer sense of your centers of most vitality. The map shows where to increase density and diversity of development, which is in those centers, and where to best open up the landscape for such features as restored creeks, expanded community gardens, and parks, which is often in the areas farthest from those centers.
The ecocity general plan, like any other general plan, lays out policies for developing and maintaining the city's physical expression and functionality. Those policies have to also include specific reference to financial investment; if the city doesn't allocate money for the transition, its plan is just symbolic window dressing. If no serious money is spent, no serious progress will be made.
"Transfer of Development Rights," or TDR, is a powerful real-estate investment and development tool. It provides a height bonus for developers willing to put higher density housing or other structures in exactly the right place according to an ecocity transition plan. The developers pay for the purchase of development rights that are transferred from one part of town to their taller buildings in the growing pedestrian transit centers. At sites where the development rights are purchased, existing buildings are removed and no more development can be built there. This tool is a willing seller/developer transaction - when the seller wants to leave, a ready fund is there to buy his or her property. After the sale, buildings are dismantled and recycled and open space, such as a restored creek or community garden, is created. This tool, which is being used now in South Lake Tahoe on the California/Nevada border, is perhaps the single most powerful tool presently available for rolling back sprawl development, making it possible to plant millions of new acres in CO2-absorbing trees as well as bringing close-in farming back into our lives.
There are many other tools to create ecocities. Car-free-by-contract housing, for example, encourages building apartments and condominiums with no car parking provided because residents don't need or want cars. Any policy that establishes and expands the pedestrian environment is a tool for building ecocities. Such policies can be used to shape buildings that utilize the sun's energy, eliminating the necessity of having to pay for a car to get access to the city's benefits, or help restore natural landscapes. Such tools produce pioneering transit systems that fit low-energy infrastructure, like that in Curitiba, and provide free public transportation, like that in downtown Portland. They are the wave of the future - if we are smart enough to get to that future in one piece.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
29 Comments so far
Show AllIt took me several sessions to get through this long article but it was time well spent. It lead me on some side trips to the eco-developments mentioned in the text; a worthwhile journey.
Rebuilding our cities, deconstructing suburbia, restoring natural stream flows and creating more open spaces, no matter how slow these kind of changes take will be well worth the time and investment.
Save the country: build green cities!
So how do we set the incentives so that the private sector develops urban land to its highest and best use, and reduces use of the fringe sites?
Land Value Taxation.
Explore this idea, and then act locally. Reduce your town's reliance on taxes on buildings. Increase the millage rate on land value.
The private sector will be incentivized to better utilize choice land.
Works a whole lot better than "command and control" measures.
Like so many of these "greens", the author doesn't understand that it is the economic system of monopoly capitalism with its need for never ending growth that must be done away with as a first step to saving this planet. Anything short of that will just prolong the demise of this planet but not really reverse the trend. I don't hold much hope that this will be accomplished as long as the focus remains capitalist solutions to what is essentially a capitalist problem.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
and the city systems section:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/techCitySystems.php
Though The Venus Project is much more than just building cities....
Sioux Rose
OLD: Amen! We need lots more VENUS projects in this Mars-rules nation!
"a more 'ecocity' solution than placing solar electric panels on car-dependent suburbs"
We really need a major upgrade in the quality of the information conveyed in the public discourse. The article is full of sloppy glossed over factoids such as in the quote above, where the author tries to sell the idea that a giant central power plant is more eco-friendly than distributed generation. His argument is severely disjoint serving only to confuse the people and make self-governance and self-determination ever further from reach. Central power plants are a huge no no, inviting the demon elites to take further abusive/destructive control over the society. So you never want to cite them as part of any solution to current ills. Also, suburbs just by accident, happen to be a sustainable layout for the significant sector of the population that will want to grow gardens, so suburban yards will become suburban gardens, and small neighborhood craftsmen and merchants will pop up to service those communities. They will have solar roofs, and will be connected to cities by light rail and bus.
"Taller buildings with rooftop gardens and solar greenhouses can be linked by pedestrian connections"
We need less tallness in buildings. It doesn't matter that people currently want to live stacked ten twenty or fifty stories up. That's not the future. Instead of living like sardines, the people will need to get closer to nature, and city density will have to be limited to something like 30 people per acre. People need to have some trees growing in the soil around them. See, the reason they want to live like sardines is because they want these world-class attractions within walking distance. But world class attractions within walking distance is itself part of the completely unsustainable rackets we're trying to get rid of. As part of the holistic solution, we're enlightening the people, so there's more creativity, more people mastering the arts, and more smaller local performances so there's much less need for "world class" billionaire producers/performers endlessly jetting around to sky high emerald cities. We want more performers, fewer spectators, more trees, fewer tiers.
I hope that you are aware of the fact that the less density in a city, the more nature humans need to destroy!!
rtdrury,
I assume you practice what you preach, and live in the suburbs, so one simple question. How many miles did you drive a car in the last year? I drove only about 3800 miles, almost all of it discretionary out-of-town outings. This is down from 15,000 to as mich as 30,000 miles per year when I lived in the suburbs. It only takes a few miles to nullify the benefits of your garden or compost pile.
You have created a complete straw-man caricature of urban life. Cities have trees and parks. The theater spaces, art spaces, or bookstores I can walk - which are completely absent in suburbia will not have famous actors or authors flying in anytime soon. Even in the neighborhood shown in my photos (did you look at them?) many people have gardens in their small back yards. An you have far easier access to farmers markets and public markets with local produce.
When I lived in a city neighborhood, I would find every opportunity to go out and walk around the neighborhood - there was so much to see there - different every day. Since my job location moved me to the suburbs, I go out to walk very little, the bland sameness in both landscape, architecture, commerce, and especially, the poeple is just too depressing. Heading out in many directions, it isn't even safe to walk as you must walk on the edge of a roadway with cars whizzing by.
Sioux Rose
SABO: There are worthy aspects of your argument (pro city) and RT DRURY (pro nature/country). I think it's wise to make allowances for differences in human sensibility. I cannot live in a city because the way I am wired is such that I can't sleep. I find the energy too constant and the noise infusion a subtle form of rape to my senses. I prefer living among trees, deer, birds, and open skies. I drive 3 X a week and probably don't spend more than $40-50 a month on gas. I bike a lot. Not everyone is designed to live like a sardine with thousands of others. This is why our planet has such diverse topographies, some regions are remote and not intended for urbanization. So both of your perspectives are equally valid.
Yes, but the really-existing alternatives are either faceless generic suburbia - which is often noisier than city neighborhoods because of the heavier car use, or older, often quite leafy, urban neighborhoods.
I suspect the probelem is that most USAns have never actually lived in a functioning city neighborhood, so what they call "the city" are really places like freeway-clogged Texas or southern California cities.
I don't understand the "sardine" comment. It isn't like you are sharing your house with strangers. And, if I am going to have to be around people, I'd rather be around multi-colored, left-oriented, artistic, open-minded, worldly, engaged city dwellers rather suburbanites with their uniform Limbaugh-brainwashed, and often quite racist, political attitudes - even if there are fewer of them per acre.
I wish this was hyperbole, and maybe urban Pittsburgh is the biggest anarcho-hip paradise outside of Eugene, Oregon, but the cultural and political differences between the city and the "South Hills" a scant 5 miles away is that stark.
"The climate crisis won't be solved by changing light bulbs and inflating your tires more, planting a tree and driving a little less. It's going to require a truly fundamental shift in how we build our cities and live in them. "
Overpopulation forces us to learn to live ecologically.
I don't know whether I should just be annoyed or laugh. What an America-centric article!!!
It is really cute that the article contains a passing reference to Europe but - to the uninitiated - it still creates the impression that "the world" is the USA. Welcome to the mental American hillbilly, this time on CD!
As regards town planning, Europe merits not just a side remark but it is the ONLY(!!) continent that knows how to deal with "urban" in an ecological fashion in modern times, ok??
That's our speciality: Making livable and at some stage hopefully even really sustainable cities. So far, they're more livable and sustainable than most American cities, but that's definitely not good enough, American cities are on the whole no showcases on that front. Although I have a soft spot for New York and San Francisco.
The extension of Copenhagen's - BTW misspelled - "Strøget" by some yards is irrelevant, that's not what it's about. The ubiquitous use of bicycles or the sky-high car registration taxes, a car-ownership deterrent, in Denmark would have been the interesting messages instead!!
It's about making car-ownership more difficult, that's many European countries' agenda.
Like having to obtain a license, against quite a hefty fee, to be able to park one's car in one's own neighbourhood streets, or limiting parking time all over a city to encourage the use of public transport instead, or like the introduction of congestion fees in some city centres in order to deter people from driving into the them, or like the building of car-free compounds and neighbourhoods, that's relevant news!
What is a sentence like "in the wealthy world, cities are whole systems made up of low-density development called suburbs, largely "single-use" downtowns called central business districts, with asphalt and pavement covering vast areas of land to facilitate travel by car" supposed to insinuate????
Ignorant Richard Register: I live in a city that does not really have these US-style suburban sprawls, doesn't have these dead inner city sky scrapers - but doesn't have a single trailer park either, an unknown phenomenon in European towns - a place that's regularly voted one of the most livable cities on earth.
Do you honestly think that "wealthy world" stands for the USA?? Have you ever travelled to Europe?
We don't have these life-denying central business districts full of skyscrapers in Europe, we have vibrant beautiful inner cities!!! So cut out your "in the wealthy world", will you?? This is ridiculous!!
Say "in the United States of America" instead. Then I am fine. And that's that. Don't make a primarily American problem sound like a global problem!
We in Europe know how to build and plan livable and ecologically sane towns, after all. It's about affordable housing, rent control, a lot of beautiful public spaces, free access to water in summer for bathing and in winter for skating, if possible, no gated communities, no fortresses of the rich, a lot of green, affordable public transport, a lot of free cultural activities indoors and outdoors, particularly for children as well, rigorous waste sorting and recycling and education in green thinking. Involve as many citizens as possible in "city life" no matter how much they earn or if at all in a town's texture! But gradually force them to these great places by every means BUT a car.
And BTW: Most of our towns look a lot "wealthier" than your "in the wealthy world"=USA's cities, since most (not all, alas) European towns I know have no "no-go-zones".
But then we'd get into a debate about distribution of income, and that's too much for now.
Sorry, my friend, but Europe has its sprawl and its Walmarts. Yes, I experience this! Spain, France, even Germany, for example. In Germany, you can't escape the roadways everywhere, and they keep building new ones! And Europe is way overpopulated and way overdeveloped, and seeks more overpopulation and more overdevelopment, like the US.
Stroll a few feet away from the Rheinfels in Sankt Goar and you will see newer US style plots, replete with detached houses, driveways, garages, and manicured grass, phony "old" style facades. You will find the same at the edge of many 1000 year old villages in Rheingau, in the Hartz Park area, etc., which are supposed to be protected.
Unlike the US, Europe has very little wilderness to provide ecosystemic services. In Germany and Switzerland, they don't let the trees grow, but keep thinning them out, so that what look to be forests from the distance are really very fragile tree farms. As much as we have cut down humungous swaths of old growth in the US, you can't find anywhere in Europe the massive trees that we have at our back doors.
What Europe has going for it is the infrastructure of rails, concentrated cities and towns, and bike paths, and as beautiful as much of it all is in contrast to most of the built environment in the US, what has been added onto the European landscape in the 1900s and 2000s is not far from what the US has been doing to itself.
Also, don't forget that US-style development does pervade in other non-European continents: Central and South America, Asia, Australia, Russia. And Central and Eastern European countries such as the former Yugoslavian countries, Romania, Transylvania, etc., are emulating the same as quickly as they can.
Much of what made Europe what it is came from the middle ages, where urban communities thrived on a network of guilds and the feudal system allowed people to farm and care for the rural lands. But by the end of the 9th century, almost all of the true forests had been denuded, first due to the reach of the Roman Empire and then the felling to make the wooden houses and to burn for fires as the population grew. This is the reason why most of the structures in the north in particular are made from stone, whereas in the US, our pre WWII houses and more are made from wood.
While we did not and do not treat our forests well, except for those that are fully protected wilderness, we still have trees from which to build. Not that we should be using wood anymore except for decorative treatments, the point is that the US, for all its ills, still has huge swaths of intact ecosystems, whereas Europe will most likely recover a very tiny fraction of its original intact ecosystems as compared to what remains and what can be restored in the US.
So, we all still have much to learn about reducing our footprint and living in balance between human and earth needs.
licketyglick,
I think you are comparing something one cannot compare: The USA are a colonial country largely made up of immigrants and their offspring - accommodating the results of the excesses of European and other continents' population explosions, since too many people scrambling for the goods are a prime motor for emigration - plus getting rid of the original population, and America is FAR less populated as a result.
The complete destruction of the prairies of the Midwest is probably one of the most thorough eradications of wildlife anywhere in the world, though. But probably not too far ahead of the destruction of the forests of many parts of Europe. (Not that I want to play a "but you're much worse than I" game, but I do think that this aspect of destruction of nature is underestimated to this day in America.)
So, yes, tons of wildlife in the US, mostly in the Appalachians and the Rockies, as far as I could discern - but most towns are still pretty horrible - and, yes, Europe is overpopulated, but also, yes, so is every continent that is not mainly a colonial conquest construction, i.e. every place that's not the Americas and Oceania. Because that's the way the world stupidly enough seems to be going: Too many people. (most European countries have negative birth balances these days, but that's cancelled out by immigration from the East and the South)
While I agree with you re deplorable developments in Europe, particularly re the tastes in the design of private homes - too many Hollywood productions, I guess - the tide is turning and the Americanization (WallMart left Germany again, they didn't catch on, BTW) is slowing down.
Many places in Europe ban exurban shopping malls because they kill their small shops in the cities, for example. Or you find surface space limitations for supermarkets some places (this Disney-like sugar-coating of these monsters by quaintly calling them "grocery stores" in the US is an enigma to me..) in order to avoid the growth of exactly these WallMart type stores.
Don't forget that many places you aren't even allowed to cut down a tree in your own back yard without planting a new one, for example!
All in all, when I think particularly of some Midwestern US towns I knew pretty well, I wish they'd hire people like us as consultants. You really still have many towns in the US where you have the feeling that they strictly follow an "Everything I Can Do Wrong to NOT Make My Town a Happy Livable and Ecologically Sustainable Place" handbook. I wonder whether they'll ever change.
Araquin,
I am fully aware that Europe is the model that US cities should, and through at least the 1920's did, emulate. This article does indeed neglect to mention that.
Some US cities still have walkable levels of density. It's probably a bit rough -looking compared to Europe, but look at the links on my 2:37 post.
Here's another picture:
http://tinyurl.com/dlkkk5
I don't blame you for being angry about American-centrism but I would expect you, as a European, to be much more aware and considerate of cultural difference between USA and Europe.
Example:
A coleague of mine spent two weeks in Vienna. His comment was: "Well, it's a nice town, but people live on top of one another"!
Here, in the USA, even living in suburbs doesn't provide enough isolation anymore. People go ever deeper into the countryside, buying old farms, or one-room schools, and remodelling them for living, just to be as far away from the city as possible. And then they were honestly shocked last year, when a two-member household had to spend $800 a month for gasoline.
Boy, do I miss European cities!
I'm glad to see that Common Dreams is publishing articles about building arcologies and ecocities. Al Gore states that with the rise of the seas because of climate change we could have 100,000 million refugees. Where will they all go? It's time to move the population into radically new 21st Centuries cities with a social architecture that allows for human rights and freedoms.
For years I've been writing about these issues. You can read my work about arcology designed around a global democracy at my web site below.
My new essay 12th Hour for Arcology can be read at:
http://www.lovolution.net/MainPages/arcology/12thHour/12thHour.htm
Lovolution Village
http://www.lovolution.net
http://www.youtube.com/user/doctressNeu#
This article was just to long for me to read and hold my attention after just getting out of hibernation. The title though did attract my attention "Cities Can Save the Earth," the author give the impression is that all we have to do is tear down our city's and rebuild. All fine and good but think of the energy and cost of such projects. My main issue is one of overpopulation and I do not see where just rebuilding cities would do the trick. Of course sitting on a molten ball like the earth gives one the sense that the earth could care less. All one has to do is to watch the movie "Chocolat" and see how they built that city many moons ago. Notice how there is only farm land surrounding the city and not a bunch of cracker box houses. Now I really hope that the article had something to do with what I mention here. If not I guess I am going to have to start reading all these articles. Its a good thing time isn't really linear.
LB
Please check out www.mopedbus.com
Its an idea who'se time has come. The inventor is looking for interested parties and to get the word out.
No added infrastructure, just the proper usage of the infrastructure we already have:
mopeds on city streets
buses on highways
Suburban sprawl can be turned into an asset, if homeowners are given incentives to grow cannabis for industrial use, transforming their properties from sources of equity into sources of income. The problem with suburbs is their design for use with the automobile and their zoning for large regions of residential use with no small local outlets for shopping. In order for this trend to reverse, the US economy must first decentralize, de-WalMartize. The key to accomplishing this is to transform retail and residential mortgage banking into public utilities. Adopting single-payer health care would likewise stimulate small business by relieving it of health care insurance issues for its employees. All of our ecological, psychological, personal, political, and financial health issues can be significantly improved by just a few measures – measures that no one in Washington will even countenance.
Don't start setting rules how tall a building can be.
If you need tall buildings to limit the distance traveled to do things than by all means build up, and don't plow over more land!
This depends in part where you are. NYC architecture in California would fall down.
Well, since a third of all commercial and residential buildings in urban areas are vacant at any one time... Waiting for the highest bidder, Then upper limit price controls instead of a bubble-inflating speculative real estate model can help make it more affordable for folks to live closer to or within the city... We can utilize our existing infrastructure more efficiently through a more humane economic system than the current one that outprices tens of millions of Americans from owning a home, and keeps tens of thousands more homeless entirely...
We can solve the existing problems without creating more problems by expanding vertically...
On my block alone, four houses have remodeled and built a third story on their home to get the view of downtown and the waterfront...
Each time they do, they block the view of their neighbor, reducing it's value, and soon it goes up for sale... and the new owner does the exact same thing, adding a third story for the view... These are all single family residences, so the elevation gain only benefits the private interests...
The same has happened in other neighborhoods much more dramatically with drastic impacts on the community... Developers sit on vacant lots until they can build massive condo and apartment complexes, which tend to be alienating for the tenants and their neighbors... Forests are paved over for parking lots, wetlands are drained, and with the constant moving of families in and out, folks don't get the chance to develop long lasting connections with their neighbors... Suburban and exurban sprawl is just as bad, where gated communities and strip malls have eroded the soul of rural American farmers...
We can start by simply moving back to our existing older pre-car urban areas, while finding ways to prevent the displacements and gentrification that often results.
When I moved to an older, walkable urban neighborhood, from a life in suburbia, it was an epiphany for me. Never did I realize how much a burden a life of relying on a car is! And the access to diverse culture and furward looking political thought - try to find an anarchist bookstore, a foreign/alternate film video store, a food co-op, even a traditional italian grocer or a locally made beer in suburbia. Yet, all these things, plus numerous restaurants, cafes, and shops were a short walk out of my door. The neighborhood is even quieter than many suburban areas.
And yes, there was still room for a vegatable garden in the small back yard or vacant lots.
See the New York Times front page article from Tuesday May 12
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html
about Vauban, Germany, a town designed for carless living...
This concept is not new. I visited Stevenage, England (from my home in the US)in 1976 and was amazed how it was designed from scratch to encourage tranportation modes other than autos in an era when the automobile-centric paradigm was at its peak.
Richard is a sweet guy with a lot of great visions and ideas, but he is unfortunately militant about increasing the heights of cities, going to the extent of framing people as right-wingers when they oppose the addition of taller buildings their neighborhoods.
We need to roll-back the built environment as he states, but not at the expense of forcing people to live among outsized structures in the urban cores. In "A Pattern Language," Christopher Alexander makes a strong case for
limiting building heights to five stories or less. In many pre-existing neighborhoods, even this is too high, however.
As always, the crucial component to making our cities come into balance with human and earth needs is to stop population growth.
Stop population growth? Desirable as that may be, it always makes me flinch to hear it said.
As the article we just read points out, Americans and Europeans comprise a distinct minority of the world's population, and yet consume the vast majority of the world's natural resources. (The article specifically cites that America by itself has 5% of the population and consumes half the resources). It is also a well known fact that the U.S. alone is capable of producing enough grains to feed the entire world on a 2000+ calories/day diet. Surely the problem is one of distribution, and not of population?
Bear in mind that I am hardly against birth control; it's possibly the greatest invention of modern times, and I would like to see it used more extensively and responsibly. That said, most talk of overpopulation strikes me as blame-shifting. It's usually those "other" countries that have population problems, not us. But why do they? Could it be because the global capitalist system has given their nation an unbelievable short shrift when it comes to getting a fair share of the world's resources (including those within their own borders--which are usually monopolized by foreign-owned transnational corporations)?
Indeed, lack of birth control and apparent "overpopulation" problems in these countries is a *result* of poverty, not a cause of it. It is necessary to have many children, and the put these children to work (forgoing any kind of schooling) in order to make ends meet in many parts of the world.
Overpopulation always appears to be "their" problem, but the real cause of global suffering is poverty in large swaths of the world, poverty which is very much "our" fault, the result of imperialistic, exploitative, and usurious transactions that collectively go by the innocent-sounding name of "globalization". Things like predatory loans, forced privatizations, forced liberalization of trade, and so on, have caused world inequality between rich nations and poor ones to skyrocket since WWII. This is all well documented.
Consider the following, and then tell me that overpopulation is the real issue, and not free market, capitalist maldistribution:
Global spending in 1998 ($U.S. Billions):
Cosmetics in the United States 8
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Military spending in the world 780
Estimated additional costs to achieve universal access to the following basic services in all developing countries ($U.S. Billions):
Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
"The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/gates99.htm
"We hear that Third World poverty is due to overpopulation, too many people having too many children to feed. Actually, over the last several centuries, many Third World lands have been less densely populated than certain parts of Europe. India has fewer people per acre—but more poverty—than Holland, Wales, England, Japan, Italy, and a few other industrial countries. Furthermore, it is the industrialized nations of the First World, not the poor ones of the Third, that devour some 80 percent of the world's resources and pose the greatest threat to the planet's ecology."--Michael Parenti
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
---------------
A man named Thomas Malthus once wrote a book claiming that an egalitarian society and world would never be possible, since population growth would always outpace increases in economic productivity and the availability of natural resources. His crude apologia for inequality was roundly criticized by the progressives of his day, like William Godwin, and those of later generations as well (prominently, Karl Marx).
Please, let's put Malthusian thinking behind us once and for all. It is a stale and outdated doctrine. Of course, no one but the Catholics are opposed to birth control. But treating it as the most important issue or the answer to all the world's problems is to shift the burden, from the first world countries and their ongoing heist of wealth from the economically undeveloped countries, to the victims of this heist, the poor countries themselves. Let's not go there again. Malthus is dead; let's bury his ideas. If even supposed progressives can't manage to do this, then there is little hope that anyone will. Let's keep things in perspective: there are MUCH bigger issues going on than overpopulation, and they are social in nature.
I agree, that a 4 or five story limit is a good idea. But what we do need for walkability and frequent public transit service is sufficient density in the horizontal dimension. Too many Americans, having only lived in suburban areas have trouble understanding this. The traffic congestion and poor quality of life in the suburban sprawl around US cities is not caused by too much density, but rather not being dense enough, thereby requiring extensive personal car use. The madel we need is the European, especially Italian, cities like car-free Venice.
The Pittsburgh community I describe below, which not accidentally is also the city's "little Italy", follows this model. It consists mostly of densely 20 ft wide, three story townhouses and narrow streets with small blocks, interspersed with small park areas, and access to a commercial street with shopping, never more than a 4 minute walk away from any home.
Here's where I was talking about:
http://tinyurl.com/pzrb3s
Here's another neighborhood - stairways provide access down the hill to the "flats" where there is shopping (and a lot of jobs, once).
http://tinyurl.com/pjtej6