| How Urban Is Urban Enough? |
| Monday, 27 September 2010 | Angie Hacker | Blog Entry |
|
The resource efficiencies are so enticing that many governments are initiating strategies to lure current and future residents into central cities. I tend to agree with Edward Glaeser (Harvard economics professor), and Sting (studly pop star) for that matter, who both came to the conclusion that if you love something, set it free. In other words, to preserve nature, don’t live in it. In fact, stay away from it. However, I realize this assertion is painful for many people who, for good reason, enjoy living amidst vast open spaces. Personally, I have lived in all sorts of communities: suburban Los Angeles, rural San Luis Obispo, amongst the high rises in New York City, and now in quaint, downtown Santa Barbara. While I absolutely loved my time weaving through the crowded streets of Manhattan to catch a subway at any hour to consume the varied cuisine or entertainment I desired, I also enjoyed the faint smell of manure, grass and sea salt riding a crisp breeze on a quiet San Luis Obispo morning. So I’ve headed back to my trusty blog to try answering a lingering question I have about the future of urban land-use policy. As I explain in my article, many governments are already attempting to promote smart growth principles to encourage compact developments and discourage sprawl. My question is: how urban is urban enough? I’ll use myself as a case study. Right now, I live in a single-family home with two other people in the most heavily populated and densely developed part of Santa Barbara, which isn’t saying much. My location allows me to walk to work, to see friends, to go shopping, to hit up restaurants and bars. I avoid my car, sometimes for up to a week at a time. The climate is about as ideal as you can imagine, so heating and cooling demands are low. However, while I’m sure my GHG footprint is smaller now than it was when I lived in the suburbs of Los Angeles, I’m also sure it’s higher than during my years in Manhattan. The flimsy, poorly insulated design of my current home forces me to huddle by my energy-sucking space heater on cold nights. In NYC, I had a teeny apartment housed in a 17-story, well-insulated building, shared with a couple hundred people. Forget using a car sparingly—I never needed a car at all. Mass transit is so pervasive there that I hardly missed it. With that said, it’s somewhat unnecessary, not to mention unhealthy, to feel too much guilt for not living in one of the world’s few mega-metropolises. So, perhaps urban is a relative term. The more government planners can do to foster communities that allow residents to live close to where they work; walk and use alternate transportation; and reduce our excessive consumption of space, land, materials and energy, the better. As residents, we can support the evolving nature of our neighborhoods as policies seek to infill those areas close to urban centers. As this occurs, community members and policymakers alike will have to find ways to balance quality-of-life demands with an increasingly compact urban landscape. To do my part, I’ll be exploring a few best practices in smart growth in future blogs and articles, so stay tuned! Updated 9/27/10; originally posted 3/11/09. Comments
(6)
Written by Jason Wasserman , March 12, 2009
In response to the responses to my response, I'm still only seeing opinions posted. I am looking for some cold, hard facts showing that residents of NYC have a smaller carbon footprint and emit less pollution than those living in the suburbs (like Santa Barbara, California). I'm still not 100% sure that the arguments presented are true. As I mentioned earlier, it takes a ton of energy for HVAC in those apartment buildings and office buildings, along with the energy used to run mass transit. Additionally, as I mentioned in my argument above, not everyone in NYC utilizes mass transit. Look at all of the people who commute in from the 'burbs by driving, along with the residents of Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Bronx who drive around. There's a reason people are oftentimes less healthy in the city and have a poorer state of living than the 'burbs.
Report abuse
Written by Steven Marx , March 12, 2009
Hi Angie
Report abuse
I'm enjoying your blog. I read an article by Glaser saying that Coastal Californians and Californians in general are promoting the production of GHG by trying to limit population growth in their areas of temperate climate, where each resident needs less energy to stay comfortable in winter and summer. This seems to me an unfortunate extension of the smart growth principles you write about, one easily manipulated by real estate developers and investors to promote private profit at the expense of both public and environmental values. Almost any green decision can be linked to chains of unintended negative consequences if that's what you're looking for. Best, Steven
Written by David , March 11, 2009
NYC is approximately the 13th largest city in the world when ranked by populous. It is not even close to being ranked in the top 25 most polluted cities in the world and ONLY 8th in ozone concentration in the US. Population alone should not be misrepresented in causes of pollution concentration. Industrial output is a major factor. Before people start betting their money, please properly and intelligently frame your argument.
Report abuse
As a research scientist and urban planner, i applaud Ms. Hacker's approach to examining the GHG issue. (Source http://www.weather.com/outlook...cles/rt-19) Top 10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Short-Term Particle Pollution: 1) Pittsburgh, Pa. 2) Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif. 3) Fresno/Madera, Calif. 4) Bakersfield, Calif. 5) Birmingham, Ala. 6) Logan, Utah 7) Salt Lake City, Utah 8) Sacramento, Calif. 9) Detroit, Mich. 10) Baltimore, Md./Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia. Top 10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution: 1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif. 2) Pittsburgh, Pa. 3) Bakersfield, Calif. 4) Birmingham, Ala. 5) Visalia/Porterville, Calif. 6) Atlanta, Ga. 7) Cincinnati, Ohio 8) Fresno/Madera, Calif. 9) Hanford/Corcoran, Calif. 10) Detroit, Mich. Top 10 U.S. Cities Most Polluted by Ozone: 1) Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside, Calif. 2) Bakersfield, Calif. 3) Visalia/Porterville, Calif. 4) Houston, Texas 5) Fresno/Madera, Calif. 6) Sacramento, Calif. 7) Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas 8) New York, N.Y./Newark, N.J. 9) Baltimore, Md./Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia 10) Baton Rouge, La.
Written by TerenceJ , March 11, 2009
Manhattan is undoubtedly more polluted, but don't forget it has 8 million plus people! I'd wager that on a per capita basis Santa Barbara is worse. When I lived in the South, I had to drive to go shopping, to a play, to a movie, to a concert, pretty much everywhere. In New York City I walk or take a subway train everywhere. I've lived here a decade and probably taken a cab only 50 times--and those times were by choice, because I was in a great hurry or with someone who would not travel undergroound, not necessity. Sometimes the city is aggravating and I miss seeing more of nature (although like any thoughtful city, there are some nice parks--Central Park and Fort Tryon Park in Manhattan and Prospect Park in Brooklyn, to name three), but I'm convinced my carbon footprint is smaller here than it would be in a smaller, less public transportation friendly place.
Report abuse
Written by Jason Wasserman , March 11, 2009
Which is more polluted: New York City or Santa Barbara? My money is on Manhattan because while you may be taking mass transit, there are hundreds of thousands of people driving and taking cabs. Additionally, and you should know this from working at the MTA, mass transit isn't always the most efficient way of getting from point A to point B in the city due to the fact that subway stops are not always convenient (see Brooklyn, Queens, and Bronx) and they're not always running (see overall pathetic practices of MTA). Additionally, not every residential building in NYC is a 17-story well built high-rise. In fact, I'd wager that there are more walk-ups and shared townhouses in NYC then there are luxury hi-rises. I'd be curious to see how efficient they are on a per-tenant basis compared to your house and lifestyle in Santa Barbara. Additionally, the cost of heating, electric, etc. for the hi-rise buildings are enormous and are often controlled by management and not by tenants themselves. Is it possible to do this study with real numbers on a per resident basis?
Report abuse
|
I recently wrote an article called 
Show/Hide comments
You're on a computer. How hard is it to use Google? Check out these articles. If they are not enough to answer your questions, then Google it yourself.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/05/29/how-does-your-city’s-carbon-footprint-stack-up/
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_green-cities.html