Archive for ecological issues

Not the time for short term thinking

Many smart business leaders and investment managers are taking advantage of the economic slow down to stop, think, and put into place the foundations for the next 5 to 10 year business cycle — and even thinking much further ahead than that.

Unfortunately, it seems that many city governments, and those at other levels that impact cities are taking the opposite approach.  Some are even backtracking on progressive, forward-looking plans initiated before the recession hit.

Take San Francisco’s proposed congestion pricing strategy.  The mayor and other urban leaders previously saw reducing congestion as vital to the long term livability of the region and especially the metro core.  Now they are seeing the economic downturn as a reason to backtrack.  From the New York Times (pointer Frances Bula):

During his second inaugural address a year ago, San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsom, called congestion pricing “the single greatest step we can take to protect our environment and improve our quality of life.”

Last week, however, the mayor’s office offered a more tepid endorsement.

“The devil is in the details,” said a spokesman, Nathan Ballard. While Mr. Newsom supports congestion management, Mr. Ballard said, “Given the challenging economic times, we would hate to impose too heavy a burden on commuters.”

Commuters are paying less than half price for gas!  The congestion charge would likely still have the vast majority paying less to commute than they did 6 months ago.

City governments, urban business leaders, and all of us voters and citizens need to be thinking about what we want our cities to be like when the economy is next running at full tilt, and over the next 10-20 years. If we want less congestion, more amenities, more walkability, etc. — and more desirebility as a place to live for talented people (which will attract tax-paying corporate employers)  then now is the time to push forward on projects that enhance this.

This is not the time to prop up an older way of doing things for whatever short term gain may be had.

I am concerned that aspects of the stimulus plans that Obama’s administration is formulating will end up being a waste of money and actually set America’s cities back.  More freeway capacity will tend to prop up suburbia, rather than support the revitalization of downtowns and inner urban neighbourhoods.

Once the economy rebounds, many features seen in 2007 and early 2008 will return: high oil prices; citizen concern for the environment; popular interest in living closer to places of work, entertainment and recreation.

These social and economic features that characterized the end of the last cycle should be kept in mind by everyone from urban residents to urban planners and politicians.

Energy-efficiency: haven’t we done this before?

Roof-top solar-powered hot water heaters, architecture appropriate to the local climate and using more natural air and light, are among the ideas being put forth as “new” green initiatives.  Many ideas being discussed here as novel, sound familiar either in North America or around the world.

In Greece a decade ago, I remember towns where almost everyone had a solar powered hot water heater on their roof.  Each room typically only had one light bulb and people were careful to turn it off when they were not using it.

In Tucson I lived in an older home with large overhanging eaves from the roof.  Combined with the thick plaster walls it stayed cool in hot summers (cool being a relative term in an Arizona summer).   It had no heating system, which meant for some cold winter days however.  The technology of the down jacket was handy for staying warm.

In Australia in 1980, I similarly remember houses being designed to stay cool.  In winter, only the living room had an electric space heater.  People used big thick blankets in the bedrooms and often an electric blanket to warm everything up before going to bed.  Presumably you heated only the room that you really used while awake, instead of all the rooms.  Makes sense.

Of course,  clotheslines for drying clothes remain illegal in many communities or specific residences within them.  But, I expect that to change soon.

Green building codes call for the better use of natural light and air.  Large windows that opened used to be the norm in office space and homes.  Then came cheap energy along with artificial lighting and air conditioning.  But so many places that today use air conditioning do not need to do so, or not year round.

My favourite new “green term” this week is “living building” — a building designed such that it uses water and resources in a more sustainable way and even puts more into the energy grid than it consumes.   In my mind, I’m thinking “tree house.”

What the Olympics teach us about urban health

During the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, incidents of hospitalization for asthma declined by 41% according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The air quality in Beijing over the past two weeks has apparently been better than it has in decades.  One day had an index reading of 12, down from an all time high in December of last year of 500 (according to this report on Price Tags)

In Atlanta, the city dramatically curtailed private automobile use.  In Beijing both private automobiles and manufacturing were shut down in order to improve the air quality.

What all this suggests to me is that irrespective of concerns about global warming, our urbanizing planet needs to cut pollution now simply to look after the health of its citizens.  Or, if you want to think about the economy, consider the lost productivity from people unable to breathe.

Two lessons from a massive CBD power outage

Last week in downtown Vancouver a main electrical cable underground caught fire.  At approximately 10 AM, Monday morning, half of the CBD lost power including the building where I work.   BC Hydro could not fully restore the power for several days, although some buildings were back on the grid within about 6 hours.

In perspective, this event was an inconvenience.  No one died.  No real catastrophe happened.  But it did offer some valuable lessons, here are two.

Lesson #1: office towers require a lot of energy to remain comfortable.  While on the one hand I knew this, I’d never experienced life in an office building with no power.   Within 45 minutes of the power going off, my office was becoming uncomfortably hot and the air tasted stale.  And this was in a north-facing office in Vancouver on a mild summer day with highs only expected to hit 23 degrees c, or about 75 F.   I can’t imagine what it would be like in an office tower in places like Dallas or Phoenix or Atlanta on a hot summer day with no power — 5 minutes to get out before you slowly start to cook?

Clearly, it takes a lot of energy to keep that building comfortable.

The broader lesson: As energy becomes more expensive, office buildings in hot climates are going to become very costly to operate.  I’m not sure I’d be as bullish as Forbes last week on places like Phoenix.  If you can’t build up because of energy costs, and can’t build sprawl because of high gasoline costs, where are people going to work.

Lesson #2: I’m not ready for a major disaster (are you?)  What if this had been an earthquake knocking out power?  I had no comfortable walking shoes nor appropriate clothing for urban survival after a disaster, not to mention no water bottle.

I intend to remedy this in the next week.

Roads: not just for cars anymore

 Using roads only for motor vehicles is wasteful.  As gasoline prices reach record highs and increasing numbers of North Americans embrace higher density living, allowing roads to be more than conduits for cars needs greater consideration.

Special events would be a place to start.

Today (Sunday) in North Portland an entire region of the city is going “car free” allowing pedestrians and cyclists to monopolize the streets. 150 blocks will be closed to motor vehicle traffic for six hours. Residents and visitors are expected to mingle, enjoy free events in the parks such as yoga classes, and enjoy the fresh air.  Portland’s event is modeled after one in Bogota where 2 million people come out on car free day.

I doubt that many will enjoy Portland’s day, in part because I doubt the combination of public transit and the roads could get that many people to the area.  But I expect it will be popular nonetheless and if it becomes an annual event — or even more frequent — it would draw more people each time.

Last weekend Vancouver had four car-free festivals in the city, each closing about an 8 block long stretch of a commercial/retail street. The traffic jams in the blocks around some of these areas were unbelievable — particularly the one in my neighborhood.  Many people clearly drove to car free events.  But, the events were packed.  There would definitely be popular interest in having a whole community car free.

We also can’t forget the spontaneous ones in which jubilant citizens take over the streets. In Germany — and probably much of Europe — soccer fans are joining together in the streets to watch and celebrate their team’s performances during the Euro 2008 soccer championships.

Perhaps these car free events will lead more city governments and residents to consider permanently closing some streets, making them pedestrian malls.  Or, if not every day, then maybe every Saturday or Sunday.  Allow the restaurants and cafes to add seating, creating a European-like sidewalk cafe culture.   Allow other retail and food sales to happen on the street.  And leave space for buskers.

Roads: lets see them put to use for community building and turn some cities from car-tropolis into places for people.

The “Pocket book point”

Great editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding gradual changes happening in America as gasoline prices rise.  John Timpane notes that transit ridership is gradually increasing and attitudes are slowly changing away from exurban sprawl and toward “elegant density.”

So, no, we haven’t reached the tipping point – we’ve reached a pocketbook point. When things really tip, we’ll discover – gasp – we don’t have enough trains and buses for those who need them.

He but doesn’t place blame on the choices to build a national cultural around the automobile.  But laments the costs:

How, then, can I say that car culture doesn’t work? Because the cost to individual and communal life, and to the environment, has been too high. And the bill is just now coming due.

As I’ve suggested before, he believes a full scale change to American life may be a ways off because of the deep investments in infrastructure.  But he seems convinced that it is coming, however not without a critical transit shortage and crisis.

Soaring gasoline prices not a threat to American suburbia

As much as I’d like to see differently, higher gasoline prices are not going to change the way American metropolitan areas are organized — at least not for a long time. Here are two reasons why not:

1. Gasoline prices in the US are only now reaching levels that were “normal” for many years in other parts of the world. And in many of those places (think Canada, Australia, etc.) people still drove a lot and suburban living was popular. The main difference was they used smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

Already sales of the big SUVs are down so much that manufacturing of them has nearly halted.

2. There is too much invested in the current system culturally, economically, politically and physically (the infrastructure).

The automobile culture with great shopping malls and power centres is a way of life for millions. The American economy revolves around automobile based consumerism as well as around suburban business parks as employment centres. Politically, the suburbs have clout; even if the population declines relative to inner cities it will take a while for the political weight to catch up. Finally, the billions or trillions collectively invested in road infrastructure invites motor vehicle travel.

***

All this said, I do think that other forces are also challenging the suburban way of life. Everything from climate change concerns to a renewed interest in living close to places of work, entertainment and shopping to a desire to have more free time are pushing people to re-think whether they need a large suburban house. Gasoline prices are also one small factor in this equation for many people.

But, for those who want to live the suburban, automobile oriented lifestyle — and there will be millions in this category — there will continue to be affordable options. More fuel efficient vehicles will be available. The burst housing bubble will generate less expensive houses and mortgages. Suburban families may choose to save money elsewhere — eat out less, skip the movies, etc. (The “latte factor” will be less influential if there isn’t a latte nearby.)

While I’d like to see differently, gasoline prices have a long ways to rise before it will challenge the American suburban “way of life.”

VOG and Geckos

Two geckos are chasing each other across the wall as I write this in the lobby of our hotel in Hilo, Hawaii while the coqui frogs sing.   As regular readers have probably figured out, I’m on vacation.  Will be back next week and posts should resume soon.

In the meantime, I learned a new urban alert this week — the VOG index.  Vog is like smog, only produced by a volcano.  One of the Volcanoes (Kilauea) on the big island is spewing tons of steam and particulates along with toxic gases that are hovering around cities from Hilo to Kona to Honolulu.   The VOG index was 7 out of 10 today.

Back to the future: door to door canvassing

“knock knock” … “ding dong”

I put down a baby, or my dinner, or the food I’m preparing and scramble down the stairs to open the door. It’s not a neighbor or tenant needing help or dropping off a loaned item or wanting to borrow something. Instead, it’s a door to door sales person or charity collector.

A long time ago we canceled our land-line telephone because only telephone solicitors called it. Our friends and family always tried our cel phones first. But I recall the same annoyance — a ringing phone at dinner time. Any charity that does manage to find my number and harass me for money is instantly on my “no donation ever” list.

Over the past few months, with increasing frequency — at least 2-3 nights a week now — we’re interrupted by a knock at the door. I guess with so many people on “do not call ” lists or hiding unlisted, this is one way to reach potential buyers or donors.

A person collecting for World Vision a couple nights ago offered added perspective. When asked why she was the 5th visitor in the last week collecting for a charity, she said that it’s more ecologically sound and more cost effective for them to send someone door to door than to print brochures and leave them.

I’m wondering if the population density of a neighborhood has an effect on this canvassing calculus. My area is full of duplexes, and some townhouses as well as tightly packed single family houses on small lots. You can reach a lot of people without tons of walking. But would this work in a suburb? And, given security, I have to assume this door-to-door method doesn’t work in condo towers. Can anyone share their experiences?

Another thought: I guess it is more personal to send a real person to a house to ask for money than to use a call centre. The people knocking are paid usually, but seem to genuinely care about their organization. They usually can answer questions with good information.

But, the interruption is the same. They come at the worst possible time — when we’re trying to feed and bathe kids for bed — for me to have any interest in listening. I used to tell telephone solicitors that I don’t do business with them. I’m thinking about doing something similar with the door-to-door organizations. You want my money? Send me an e-mail (a personal one, not spam), or talk to me on more neutral territory such as in front of the grocery store, at the food court at lunch time, or just on the street (charities do this a lot here too). Come to my house at a bad time and you’re on my “do not donate” list.

Clotheslines

As increasing numbers of people seek small ways to reduce their impact on the environment, it’s interesting that one simple option is against the law in many cities — hanging clothes to dry on an outside clothesline instead of using the dryer.

Should things change?  Environmentalists and energy conservationists argue yes.  Others say no — that the use of clotheslines is unsightly.   The summer of 2008 may be the start of a “back to the future” battle for clotheslines.

The Province of Ontario, in Canada, has had a law on the books since 2003 that allows them to abolish local laws that ban clotheslines.  They are now discussing carrying through by the summer of 2008, at least for people who live in detached houses and row houses.  So soon, the majority of people in Ontario maybe able to use a clothesline.

In the United States, 60 million people live in communities governed by Home Owner Associations, and the majority ban clotheslines.  As reported in the Christian Science Monitor:

At last count, in 2005, there were 88 million dryers in the US, according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Annually, these dryers consume 1,079 kilowatt hours of energy per household, creating 2,224 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions.

Besides the global-warming and cost-saving aspects of clotheslines, proponents say hanging out clothes requires exercise and time outside – elements that are missing from many Americans’ lives. “So much of our lives have become automated,” Mr. Wentzell says. Plus, using a clothesline makes “your clothes last longer and smell better.”

Despite clotheslines’ purported benefits – and a scent that can rival dryer sheets’ “fresh rain” fragrance – “the overwhelming majority” of community associations regulate or ban them, says Frank Rathbun, vice president of communications for the Community Associations Institute in Virginia.

Apparently some US states are considering taking similar steps as Ontario Canada and over-riding home owner associations.

Although not everyone will switch to clotheslines, if more people had the option it could mean a 10% reduction in dryer use, saving thousands of kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

But many home owners are worried about property values declining because of laundry (somehow compared to the sub-prime mess and economic slow down, worrying about a clothesline seems trivial – however please correct me if I’m wrong).

In your city or town are clotheslines allowed? in your area who do you think will win the battle – the environment and clotheslines or home owner lobby groups?