Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Do Sustainable Cities Have a Future?

By Neil Peirce, The American Prospect. Posted February 21, 2007.


Smart growth is newly fashionable. But what will it take to turn fashion into national policy?
Advertisement

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect.

A "green revolution" is burgeoning in America's cities and towns.

And it's a surprise. Six years ago, as we exited an economically exuberant but perilously polluting 20th century, the idea would have seemed chimerical. True, by the 1990s we'd begun to talk about community and global sustainability; President Clinton even appointed a White House council on the topic. But the conversation proved to be a tad ahead of its time. It exhibited little of the intensity with which the green ideal is today being talked up, and in some places, truly implemented.

A set of mix-and-match developments explain the change. Foremost and scariest among them is the mounting scientific evidence of fast-advancing, potentially cataclysmic global climate change. Then there is the growing realization of oil's short-term future in the dangerous world that September 11 dramatized.

Among the results are heightened interest in hybrid cars and renewed focus on wind farms, solar energy, biofuels, and other renewables; a burgeoning "smart-growth" movement in our states and regions; worry on the health front about sedentary lifestyles, obesity, loss of natural connections; green roofs and strong revival of urban parks; and breakthroughs to pinpoint waste and pollution in our great infrastructure systems, enabled by more sophisticated geographic information system (GIS) technology.

If the new, green, urban alchemy has an epicenter, it's Chicago. Once the embodiment of smoky factories and belching locomotives, the erstwhile City of the Big Shoulders has led the new green wave with beds of flowers and blossoming pots hung from new downtown street lamps.

A big share of the Chicago credit goes to Mayor Richard J. Daley and his allies. There's a green roof on City Hall and greenery along roadway medians stretching out into the neighborhoods. Asphalt schoolyards have been converted to grass, vacant lots turned into community gardens, greenways and wildlife habitat nurtured. Major reinvestment is occurring in the city's 570 parks, 31 beaches, and 16 historic lagoons. And there's a dramatic "big splash" -- 3-year-old Millennium Park, $475 million worth of lush greenery, sculpture, fountains, and more on the lakefront that's drawing 4 million visitors a year, many to its stunning outdoor music theater.

Says Chicago Alderman Mary Ann Smith: "We're creating places people want to be, not places people want to flee." In fact, Chicago has registered America's most dramatic "back-to-the-city" movement, with tens of thousands of new downtown residents.

Cities Taking the Lead

But Chicago is no exception. From Philadelphia to Seattle, Boston to San Diego, city officials agree that green urban settings are a critical draw in an era when highly educated, mobile professional workers -- the economic gold of the times -- gravitate to attractive, welcoming, and healthy places.

What's more, claim the apostles of green, property tax yields from homes and apartments near parks are significantly higher. Tree-lined streets alone increase property values some 15 percent.

Quite quickly in this decade, the familiar definition of "green" has advanced from trees and plants and parks to a much more inclusive vision of city and metropolitan planning. Moreover, it now comprises an array of environmental issues, including energy saving and renewable sources, reduced burning of fossil fuels, cleaner air and water, improved wastewater removal systems, and redevelopment of "brownfields" sites.

Energy standards for buildings -- the familiar LEED standards of the U.S. Green Building Council -- are a case in point. They're quickly advancing from handfuls of pioneering buildings to a preferred benchmark in new construction. Despite the 2 percent to 4 percent price premium for fully energy-efficient buildings, a growing number of businesses are opting for a LEED standard. Part of the justification is long-term energy savings; another rationale, increasingly cited, is the dramatically increased productivity reported among employees in quality green structures.

Increasing numbers of city governments are moving to the standard that Salt Lake City set recently -- requiring LEED approval for any of its own buildings, plus any commercial or residential buildings that receive city funding. "High-performance buildings should be the norm," says Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. "Municipal governments have a huge role to play in bringing about that progress."

On the nonprofit side, pioneers in big-scale green building are Enterprise and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Their five-year goal, announced in 2004, is 8,500 "environmentally sustainable" and affordable new homes, and a move to make sustainability the mainstream in affordable housing. And not just in construction: The new housing they support must be compact and land efficient, close to transit, and in neighborhoods with ample sidewalks and pathways and shops within walking distance.

The idea is that with less auto dependency and easier access to public transportation and jobs, low-income families will have to spend much less on transportation than they now do (on average, 40 cents of every dollar of income at the poverty line). Fewer workers will be forced into long commutes and even more encouraged to walk, with ricochet benefits in saving energy, reducing obesity, and improving overall health.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: green building, leed

Neal Peirce's weekly column, focused on new developments in states, cities, and regions, is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group. He is also chairman of the ">Citistates Group, a network of journalists and civic leaders focused on building sustainable 21st-century metropolitan regions.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You mean "sustainable megalopolises"?
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 21, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously not.

Where the hell is any suggestion that ecologically-based birth control may just play some teensy part in all this??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Necessary But Impractical Solutions For Smart Growth
Posted by: edith on Feb 21, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Limit highway spending by the Feds and restrict mortgage deductions for existing housing only.

Those two subsidies caused most of the sprawl growth in the US. But we are addicted to cars, shopping centers, employment in "office parks" and oversized houses in the burbs(exurbs, not just "sub" urbs). Frankly the crash of the dollar maybe the only thing that will curb continued housing and highway growth in the US. Bleak but true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is what will mitigate against smart growth
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 21, 2007 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unchecked immigration and gang culture: these two trends are ripping the guts out of many cities and causing all the flight and fright. Until they are addressed, there will not be any significant movement towards smart city planning and growth.

How can you plan growth when you on the other hand think it is fine and dandy to let anyone move into your city and to form ghettos? How can you keep people in inner city areas - especially middle class people with families - when you leave the streets to be governed by drug gangs?

Jane Jacobs would be disgusted with all the hand-wringing wimps who take no action on these issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The rest of the equation... Posted by: Pat Kittle
Grid tied solar systems
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 21, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it ought to be mandatory that all utilites accept grid tied solar systems. This is almost non-existant in my area. Being able to sell surplus electricity to the utility company would make a photovoltaic array more affordable. It would take me at least 20 years to break even on a photovoltaic array. Even with a long time for payback I would still like to do it but I can not afford the upfront cost. And the initial purchase of a grid tied system would probably be cheaper since there would be no need for a batteries.

Think of how much help the environment would have gotten if the bush administration had taken the $500+ billion wasted in Iraq and bought citizens solar arrays. That would have been enough to purchase approximately 17 million $30K arrays. Then let's say the government put a lein on the property that says the property owner will pay $125 per month for twenty years to pay for the system. That in turn would bring in $2 billion per month on the 16 and 2/3 million systems initially purchased. And that would be enough revenue to purchase almost another 70K systems per month. Each month the number of systems and the amount of revenue would increase. Isn't that a lot better ponzi scheme than the war and petro dollar scheme that our washington nazis have given us?

I can not afford photvoltaics yet, maybe never but I am going to build a solar hot water heater and a passive air heater. That will help drive my power bill down alot but I could really use a photovoltaic array if just to run an air conditioner here in the hot and steamy southern summers.

I enjoyed this article alot. It was nice to actually read some positive news for a change. There's alot of bad news in it too but at least it's not all bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent article Posted by: eddie torres
Do they have a future??
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 21, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How could they have a future? They don't have a present or a past... because they simply can't exist to begin with.

Keep trying to underwrite your industrialized consumerist lifestyle with supposed "greening" that simply won't work.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is just..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 21, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its just a new iteration of the same old question.

Can't we have the same lifestyle while saving the planet... without having to actually do much of anything.

Can't we have radical change without changing at all???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, cities can be sustainable
Posted by: Camin Harner on Feb 21, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of points responding to the posts above. First, immigrants have made American cities the engines of economic growth they are and have been. It's hard to imagine New York (or LA or Chicago or Boston or wherever) without its successive waves of immigrants remaking their new hometowns.

And it's probably worth noting that previous contagions of nativism in our nation's history were all at least in part expressions of the age-old antagonism of country vs. town, with a little (or a lot of) hatred of non-WASPs thrown in. There's always always been ethnic tribalism in various guises in American cities, but it's never taken the nativist pseudo-populist form that so many Alternutties espouse.

To the larger question of whether cities can be sustainable: yes, of course they can. It's going to take a radical revisioning of how we use space, and downshifting our consumption as we upshift our civic engagement and conviviality, and relinking our cities with their surrounding agricultural communities as we delink ourselves with more farflung locales.

Some cities will get it right. Some won't. The cities that do get it right will grow and prosper and attract more smart, capable, industrious people who will continue the process. The ones that don't will be like Detroit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: well... Posted by: Camin Harner
» RE: well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: well... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Well, then... Posted by: mjabele
» Weren't they? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Well, then... Posted by: AdamG
» And Posted by: JoshuaLudd
sustainable cities is an oxymoron
Posted by: AdamG on Feb 21, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Green building according to LEED standards, tree planting, green roofs, community gardens, etc. are all great but the two primary limiting factors of the size and scale of cities are availability of food and water. Some cities, such as Las Vegas, Tuscon, LA, etc. will eventually have to be abandoned as most of their food, water, and other raw materials needed to support our lifestyles will become too expensive for people to afford to live there.

Some medium sized cities, as long as they have enough farm and forest land adjacent to them, will probably survive. Cities will still be cultural centers where people go to experience art and drama and access goods and services that require specialisation in order to manufacture. The megalopolis' we are starting to see today will eventually succumb to plague, crime, and shortages until they drown in their own filth and suffering.

Overall, we will see a reversal of the trend for more and more of humanity to be living in cities. Either through non-voluntary natural population corrective measures or through a vlountary repopulation of our rural areas, we will see the cancer cities have become go into remission. Either that or people will succumb to the "cancer" as they desperately cling to their pathetic overcrowded living conditions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheap solar power poised to undercut oil and gas by half
Posted by: rwa on Feb 21, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is accurate it could have a profound effect on cities:
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Within five years, solar power will be cheap enough to compete with carbon-generated electricity, even in Britain, Scandinavia or upper Siberia. In a decade, the cost may have fallen so dramatically that solar cells could undercut oil, gas, coal and nuclear power by up to half. Technology is leaping ahead of a stale political debate about fossil fuels.

Anil Sethi, the chief executive of the Swiss start-up company Flisom, says he looks forward to the day - not so far off - when entire cities in America and Europe generate their heating, lighting and air-conditioning needs from solar films on buildings with enough left over to feed a surplus back into the grid.

The secret? Mr Sethi lovingly cradles a piece of dark polymer foil, as thin a sheet of paper. It is 200 times lighter than the normal glass-based solar materials, which require expensive substrates and roof support. Indeed, it is so light it can be stuck to the sides of buildings.

Rather than being manufactured laboriously piece by piece, it can be mass-produced in cheap rolls like packaging - in any colour.

The "tipping point" will arrive when the capital cost of solar power falls below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power. We are not there yet. The best options today vary from $3 to $4 per watt - down from $100 in the late 1970s.

Mr Sethi believes his product will cut the cost to 80 cents per watt within five years, and 50 cents in a decade.

It is based on a CIGS (CuInGaSe2) semiconductor compound that absorbs light by freeing electrons. This is then embedded on the polymer base. It will be ready commercially in late 2009.

"It'll even work on a cold, grey, cloudy day in England, which still produces 25pc to 30pc of the optimal light level. That is enough, if you cover half the roof," he said.

"We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm. They've spent $170bn subsidising nuclear power over the last thirty years," he said...

find the most relevant news and analysis at:
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/119050

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Legacy-systems inertia Posted by: eddie torres
LEED Buildings are not "fully energy-efficient", this is a trojan horse!
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 21, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Residential energy efficiency is something I am intimately familiar with as I have been involved for well over 20 years in the actual construction of very efficient buildings. LEED buildings provide little energy savings over typically built ones, sometimes using more energy than the buildings they replace, as is the case with Seattle's City Hall which is LEED Gold Certified. I have read through the "LEED for Homes" project checklist and the specifications are weak, especially the air infiltration standards. I am all for reducing energy use in new and existing buildings, but the LEED standards will not get the job done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seattle don't look so green from here
Posted by: culprit on Feb 21, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seattle's mayor is talkin' the talk without walkin' (or encouraging his citizens to). They're building a spit of light rail to the airport; meanwhile they're building more highways for all those cars (gas guzzling SUVs mostly). I've NEVER seen so many single occupancy vehicles in my LIFE! HOV lanes require only 2 occupants and still no one uses them...green building is all fine, but you've got to get those people out of their cars!

--Visiting New Yorker

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Twenty of these farms could power a city such as Edinburgh."
Posted by: rwa on Feb 21, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Offshore Wave Energy

UK's First Wave Farm Project Announced

The Scottish Executive has announced more than £4m funding to enable ScottishPower to build the UK's first wave farm project using Pelamis machines.

The project will be sited at EMEC in Orkney and use four Pelamis machines with a combined output of 3MW.


Ocean Power Delivery Ltd has developed a novel offshore wave energy converter called Pelamis. Building on technology developed for the offshore industry, the Pelamis has a similar output to a modern wind turbine. The first fullscale pre-production prototype has been built and is being tested at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.
It is anticipated that future `wave farm' projects would consist of an arrangement of interlinked multi-machines connected to shore by a single subsea cable. A typical 30MW installation would occupy a square kilometre of ocean and provide sufficient electricity for 20,000 homes. Twenty of these farms could power a city such as Edinburgh.

http://www.oceanpd.com/default.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the debate continues...
Posted by: djnoll on Feb 21, 2007 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over the last several weeks I have read many of the postings on this site regarding how we create a sustainable future, do we need to, who should do what and when, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I am a reasonably intelligent woman who has done more than a reasonable amount of research on sustainable development and the related issues. Much of what is in this article points not necessarily to the answers, but rather to the need to change the attitude of people so that change can occur.

Sustainability is not a luxury or a passing fad that can be ignored. It is not just for those of us today, but rather those who will follow after us. I do not think that anyone is suggesting moving back into the past or giving up rule of law or even giving up our technologies. However, change must occur. It is a simple equation really: WE EVOLVE OR WE DIE. It is an equation as old as time and just as true today as 100 years ago. Sustainability is evolution and life for mankind. To seek anything else at this juncture in history is suicidal.

Will our cities become the salvation of mankind? Not likely, but they can be a place of economic growth and change. Do we need large corporations, probably, but ones that actually operate in environmentally sound ways and in concert with local business networks which provide raw materials and services to support the business, not corporations that destroy local networks. Buildings need to be made energy-efficient envelopes and rooftops and vacant lots become gardens. The cities need to embrace serious civic engagement, law enforcement, and neighborhoods become pocket communities that work together to create larger community. It has been done in our past, and it must be done again.

In WWII our suburbs and rural areas were not hubs for industry, as they want to become today, but rather they were the places where we raised food for a nation at war and for our families. It was a place where people worked together to shoulder the burden of war in support of our soldiers. That national sense of partiotism must be reborn in this nation. We must work to preserve all the undeveloped land still available to us today so that we can feed the future. We need to start instisting that employers allow for telecommuting and that schools teach not only the 3R's and science, but also the arts, physical education, and life skills and trades, the way they used to do. We need to teach our children to think and to act sustainably. We do not have to give up the computers or the Internet, but if we want these toys, we damn well better make sure we have the power to run them without polluting our very lives away.

So, as you write and talk among your friends and family about urban blight or rural bliss, remember this: each without the other cannot exist. Each has its place, and what we make of that place is how we go forward into the future. Old vs. New Tachnology is not the debate. Big City or Small City is not the debate. Evolution or Death is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And the debate continues... Posted by: Leadbyexample
» Any beyond the most basic. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» One additional Note Posted by: djnoll
Get a Goat.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Feb 26, 2007 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the advantage of a green city? Cities were designed to get people AWAY from farming and the land. And into factories and grocery stores and football stadiums...

What we need are organized villages-.connected by trains-my grandfather said he could never understand why they got rid of steam engines...and everyone gets around the village by bikes with baskets or horses or (radical idea) walking....

And everyone has a garden and some chickens and a LITTLE house...with solar energy but NO cars.

Now just try selling this to the average American. Ha.

Many scientist think the reason we have had no alien contact is that technological societies tend to destroy themselves...and we are almost there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]