City dwellers harm climate less?

The idea that city dwellers have less impact on water, air, and land has become an accepted norm. Is it really true? Logic would dictate that denser areas, cities and even suburbs, are more efficient because of the way they can cluster people and have more logical land use patterns.

What seems to be left out of the equation is that cities dwellers produce very little. Take NYC as an example. They import pretty much all their food, products for consumption, and still have 1.6 million cars entering Manhattan daily (this does not include buses and trucks). In addition, all the garbage produced in the 5 boroughs is then shipped to PA via truck. Is the carbon footprint really that small, or are we just imposing our lifestyles and creating environmental hazards in other communities that supply the things we need to live our lives?

The New Scientist article starts to scratch the surface of this issue:

Jim Hall at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK says that, although dense cities may reduce transport emissions and act as "hugely beneficial" hubs of innovation, their total effect on the climate also depends on measures that were not captured by the current analysis.

"Cities where the service sector dominates have outsourced carbon intensive industries to developing countries, yet are still voracious consumers of industrial products," Hall says. "There is a large discrepancy between production-based and consumptions-based metrics of emissions." Dodman agrees.

"The emissions for a pair of shoes made in China and sold in the UK are currently allocated to China, not to [the UK], so it is fair to ask whether we should count emissions according to the location of production or the location that is driving the consumption."

Dodman also stresses that despite comparing well to their nations' average carbon footprint, western cities have room for plenty of improvement. In the list of top climate offenders, their emissions still dwarf those from cities in developing nations.

This begs the question, should we be measuring how we act locally, especially consumption habits, and what impacts we are having globally?

Pre-fabulous Housing

Who wants green housing? who wants low cost housing? Who wants prefab? The folks over at Clayton are going to provide you with the answer: the I-House. A green affordable prefab house that should be able to meet just about anyones budget.

The result was the Clayton I-House, an innovative prefab home that can be powered for a dollar a day, thanks to Low-E windows, solar augmentation, high-efficiency appliances and superior insulation. The solar panels on the roof don't supply all the home's needs, but they do cut electricity consumption in half. There's also a tankless water heater and a cistern that collects rainwater from the roof for use in gardening, car washing or other outdoor uses. Floors are made of fast-growing bamboo, and paint and insulation are low- or zero-emission.

The basic I-House is 992 square feet, though the design's blend of indoor and outdoor space makes it seem bigger. Though final prices haven't been set, Clayton hopes to deliver it for about $100,000. But the "core" unit can be expanded by adding additional rooms in different configurations to suit the buyer's needs and the character of the lot — placing rooms above one another to accommodate, for example, a hillside. Clayton Vice President Chris Nicely says the goal is to allow as much customization — both in configuration and interiors — as possible. It can be set on a traditional foundation, for example, or it can sit on piers driven into the ground.

Are we ready to reverse trends from the McMansions to the smaller prefab homes? Is an innovative idea like the I-house what we need to curb current trends and land use patterns? It might just be the spark we have been waiting for.

A Regional Approach to Urban Affairs

Neal Peirce at citiwire has this good commentary on how the new office of urban affairs needs to approach work on regions instead of cities or suburbs. Many in the urban and planning fields have been waiting for a regional approach that can successfully work through the red tape that has been created through the myriad number of partnerships and relationships that make up regional government bodies. Here are some excerpts:

Instead of primary focus on tired (and waning) subsidies for troubled inner cities, advocates for the new office are hoping for a radical shift to a federal partnership that focuses on entire metropolitan regions and their potential to produce innovation and restoke the American economy.

The reasoning’s straightforward. Unlike the hub-and-spoke city-suburban model of yesteryear, today’s 363 metro regions encompass broad swaths of multiple center cities, downtowns, suburbs and exurbs. The top 100 are an economic marvel: alone they account for 92 percent of air passenger boardings, two-thirds of major research universities, 75 percent of workers with graduate degrees, 78 percent of all patents.

The president recognized metros during his presidential campaign, saying Washington has been “wedded to an outdated ‘urban’ agenda” mired in antipoverty policy alone–that it’s time “to stop seeing our cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution.” So he promised an urban strategy “that’s about South Florida as much as Miami, about Mesa and Scottsdale as much as Phoenix, about Stamford and Northern New Jersey as much as New York City.”

Obama’s selection of Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion to head the new office was a touch unsettling to some supporters of a more metro-oriented urban approach. They worry that Carrion’s experience is entirely New York City-related, without background either in city-suburban ties or federal policy.

I am glad the new office of urban affairs exists but the choice of Carrion was poor judgement. We need someone who has years of experience working on regional ideals, not city specific. It is yet to be determined how much policy will be dictated from the new office.

Who needs a cheap car, not me!

Nothing is better than creating massive amounts of hype over cheap automobiles. The new car in India is just that and the memes are spreading globally. Who doesn't like the idea of a cheap affordable car?

I think we are at the gates of offering a new form of transport to the people of India and later, I hope, other markets elsewhere in the world," he said, describing the launch as a "milestone."

"The present economic situation makes it somewhat... more attractive to the buying public," he told reporters in Mumbai ahead of a glitzy official unveiling ceremony at 7:30 pm (1400 GMT).

Potential owners of the car -- which is just over three metres (10 feet) long and has a top speed of 105 kilometres (65 miles) per hour -- can apply between April 9 and 25, Tata managing director Ravi Kant said.

A ballot will then select 100,000 people to be the first to get the keys to the vehicle and deliveries will start in early July 2009, he added.

The rest of the world doesn't have to worry, they plan on making versions for us too:

Tata is hoping the Nano will also be a hit overseas in the long term.

Earlier this month, the firm unveiled a European Nano sporting airbags and leather trim that will hit the market by 2011 but be costlier than in India due to the extra features.A US version is also on the drawing board but requires redesigning to meet American safety standards.

It is frightening that when we should not only be thinking about more energy efficient vehicles which should be costing more, we are still crazed about cheap cars. Yes, we have had our cake and eaten it, but shouldn't we in a peer to peer way helping developing countries understand that it is so much more than a car. Your land use planning and the way of life will change forever as more and more cars get introduced into countries that have not been dominated by them.

I believe the US has finally realized what a problem private car ownership is, and we are slowly taking small baby steps to fix that. At our current rate it will take another 100 years for us to realize we don't need cheap cars, instead we need affordable public transit that works for everyone.

Inequality is creating unaffordable cities

NYC is looked as the model to emulate in regards to a vibrant and successful city. Yet, recent reports are pointing to an income gap that continues to grow larger and larger in the Big Apple. Once seen as the place to go to make it big on Broadway, Wall Street, or just in general, lately it seems to have become a city of glaring opposites: the rich and the poor.

This Forbes article is a follow up to a study that claimed the middle class is leaving and will no longer cease to exist in the Big Apple. Can NYC survive with less diversity, especially in regards to income? Here is an excerpt from the article:

Worst of all, the rise of inequality in these high-cost blue cities seems to be connected to policy decisions. High taxes and strict regulations have expelled relatively well-paying blue collar jobs in manufacturing and warehousing from expensive urban areas. Without them, an extremely bifurcated economy and society forms because no traditional ladders for upward mobility remain; they are critical to a successful urbanity.

Back in the 1960s, Jane Jacobs predicted that Latino immigrants to New York, mainly from Puerto Rico, would inevitably make "a fine middle class." Yet four decades later, in the Bronx, the city's most heavily Latino county, roughly one in three households lives in poverty--the highest rate of any urban county in the nation.
At the other extreme, in Manhattan, where the rich are concentrated, the disparities between socioeconomic classes have been rising steadily. In 1980, the borough ranked 17th among the nation's counties for social inequality; today it ranks first, with the top fifth of wage earners earning 52 times that of the lowest fifth, a disparity roughly comparable to that of Namibia.

To an old-fashioned Truman Democrat like me, this is bad news. But some modern-day "progressives," like Richard Florida, celebrate the concentration of rich people. They see them as guarantors that places like New York will be the winners of the post-crash economy. The losers? Goods-producing regions of the Great Plains, the industrial Midwest and, of course, those unenlightened, suburban middle-class people.

Is it time we rethink our current models and come up with new approaches to how we create vibrant and livable cities. I believe quality of life seems to be at the core of many issues, yes, Richard Florida is right that economics plays a key role. While I don't buy the creative class argument, the clustering of the rich will slowly work to deteriorate our cities and leave them as playgrounds for the well to do.

New design for Hennepin Ave. is wrong for cyclists

After years of riding in NYC I find this design proposed for Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis short sighted and ignoring best practices. In NYC it is common for cyclists on the avenues to ride in the bus lane. This is likely the least secure spot you can be in because of blind spots and right hooks. Putting cyclists in a bus lane and car turning lane is the last place you want to be. Even if the lane (18' in spots) has enough room to pass on the left, many cyclists are not use to riding in between two lanes of moving traffic. While splitting lanes in NYC is a common way to get around, it is not the norm in Minneapolis.

This new design will force cyclists to have to negotiate buses, cars, and pedestrians on a very crowded main arterial through downtown Minneapolis. Even though issues have been voiced about the current counter-flow lane on Hennepin, this new concept seems to tac on space for cyclists as if the planners and traffic engineers forget we use the roads as well.

I believe a counter-flow lane either on the side or down the middle of the road with lead intervals and bike boxes would have been the best solution for Hennepin Avenue. This would have given cyclist dedicated space and the necessary time to make right and/or left turns. Assuming the lanes would be 6' for each direction leaves plenty of room to pass cyclists who are stopped waiting for the light to change and make their turn. Also, this design is similar to the current configuration and predictable for drivers who are use to the existing counter-flow lane on Hennepin. What is less predictable are cyclists being stuck in between two lanes of traffic.

If we are going to take the time and come up with new designs why not look at complete street designs and best practices from around the world. We need to create streets that are safer for all users.

Multi-modal lives in the Twin Cities

I always find it rewarding to see what fellow residents are up to when they decide, or choose, to change habits in regards to transit. Trying to live a multi-modal life is not easy for many, but with the right preparation and gumption, it can be done. I find these bloggers in the Twin Cities good examples:

Snak Shak:

It's a lot easier than I anticipated to not use a car at all during the week because of my 9 to 5 (actually more like 7:30 - 5:30) job. I can take either of two routes into downtown and the time difference between them is only about 10 minutes, so I take whichever bus comes first. I read book, don't talk to my Bus Friend, and then walk a few blocks downtown and I am in the office. Piece of cake. 

On the way home, I can get off at either Bloomington Ave. (close to home) or Chicago Ave. (close to some shops) so I can generally fend for myself to and from work. Minor errands are easy on a bike and I have a grocery store, a convenience store and a dry cleaner close by (within walking distance, in fact), so that helps.

Velocipete:

Last Thursday we got a good 5-6 inches of fresh snowfall here in the metro area. I rode to work, since it was lovely and dry in the morning and my attitude of the last year or so has been "if it doesn't completely suck in the morning, I'll deal with the afternoon when it gets here." And it didn't suck in the morning. But the snow came down heavy and fast and by the time I left work there was 4-5 inches on the streets. And everywhere I went there was no sign of a plow. 

I took the train from downtown to the 50th Street station and headed into Minnehaha Park. Those trails were not plowed either. And while the fresh powder of the trail was easier to navigate than the mashed potato snow of downtown, both took a tremendous amount of energy. I was surprised at how rideable everything was, it was just hard work. Even my nemesis, the Mendota Bridge, was rideable. But after 6 miles, I was covered in sweat and plenty pooped. But pleasantly so. I found the whole experience to be enjoyable, even when I had to push the bike. It was like a mini Arrowhead 135. Only 129 more miles to cover. I realized that if I ever attempted that race, I would need to actually train instead of just relying on my base commuting miles to carry me through. I'm definitely not in that kind of shape.

Car light family Minneapolis:

Okay. I know I’m in a fairly serious healing crisis. I know it was the practical thing to do, but it is really screwing our life up. Twice this week Dancer husband thought he could use the car, I thought I could and we ended up being frustrated, angry and stranded. There is little thought anymore. Little coming together. Little dialogue around schedules. We flit and float and all those things the damn von Trapp kids did on their way to bed at night. Here’s my new joke, “What’s the fastest way for a car-free family to lose consciousness and become completely ego-centric? Buy a car.” Yes, dear readers, you one-car families get it. It is harder to be car-light than car-free.

Twin Cities Sidewalks:

Here is my checklist of people seen on Saint Paul sidewalks:
Kids on trikes
Kids on bikes
Kids in wagons
Kids playing basketball
Kids playing wiffleball
Kids playing catch
Kids running around
Kids wearing costumes
People holding hands
Parents walking with kids
Parents walking without kids
Kids walking without parents
Joggers in T-shirts
Joggers in track suits
Joggers in sweat suits
Dogs running around with owners
Dogs running around without owners
Owners chasing dogs running around without owners
Cats running around without anyone
People on bicycles
People on scooters
People on motorcycles
Cool dude in a convertible with the top down

This is why I love Minneapolis:

If you live, work or shop downtown, the Skyways are probably the city’s greatest asset. Seven cumulative miles of store front, without ever sticking a toe into inclement weather! People who plan their lives meticulously, arranging to live, work and shop all within these boundaries, can conceivably go weeks without facing the elements. Certainly there’s the potential for this to be a Gerbil Habitrail Hell of sorts, but most winters I rarely want to go outside between January 2nd and March 31st anyway, unless it’s to get into a cab to the airport so I can fly to somewhere warm, so give me that Habitrail and throw in a running wheel and some omelet-flavored food pellets while you’re at it!

I love it that I could potentially just put on my over-sized Dilbert slippers and do two hours of shopping without ever touching pavement. The Skyway opens up all kinds of crazy possibilities for people who, for whatever reason, have outdoor aversions due to cold, snow, rain, heat or post-op infection. (I still tell the story - possible urban legend - of the HCMC patient wearing slippers, an open-backed gown and pulling an IV stand who, after a brief moment on the streets outside the hospital, ducked into the Skyway and made it all the way to Saks before someone suggested that he should consider turning around.)

Give it a try, you might just like it.