After two
posts (here and here) of attempting, with only moderate
success, to tackle the murky task of explaining the fiscal justifications for
urbanism, I’m moving onto the next, and hopefully easier, task of presenting
the environmental justifications. All the
posts are part of my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism”, an effort to provide an
expedited education in the underpinnings of urbanism for those interested in
following this blog. (In addition to the
two links above, earlier posts in the series were here, here, and here.)
Energy
Matters: One could take one of multiple angles on the environmental
question. Greenfield preservation is one
such perspective, with the creation of desirable high density residential
settings allowing the preservation of adjoining farmland or recreational green
space.
But, perhaps
because I spent the first decade of my career in the field of energy
generation, I’m going to focus on energy conservation.
We understand
the concerns with carbon-based fuels.
Perhaps not everyone is fully accepting of the climate change theory,
but most of the remaining discussions are about the scale of the change rather than
the reality of it.
(Personally,
I’m enough of a scientist to believe in the scientific process and the resulting
theories on climate change. It’s a
complex subject, among the most complex ever tackled by humans, so the theories
will undoubted be tweaked as we learn more, but the general outlines seem
clear. Plus, whenever I read something
by a denier, claiming to have found a hidden flaw in the theory, I’m already familiar
with the work of others that calmly and clearly rebuts the contentions. Lastly, it’s hard to watch king tides, for
the first time ever, splash over the walls along the Embarcadero
in San Francisco and not believe that something has changed.)
But even
non-carbon-based fuels have their environmental impacts, whether the mining of
rare minerals for solar panels, the visual and avian issues around windmills,
or the still uncertain technology needed to shape the output of new generation
sources to conform to consumption patterns.
Using less
energy is a good thing. And urbanism
uses less energy.
I often use two
particular facts to highlight the energy conservation of urbanism. My recollection is that both come from “Walkable
City” by Jeff Speck, although I could be in error on that point. The first notes that the average resident in
an urbanist setting uses 70 percent less energy, including transportation and
home use, than the average drivable suburban resident. The second notes that the average residents
of Manhattan in the 21st century uses about the same amount of gasoline per
year as the average American did in the 1920s.
In the way
of many statistics, both facts can be a little deceiving, leaving the reader
with the task of making mental adjustments.
The average use of urban versus suburban consumers should be subject to
a demographic adjustment. It’s not fair
to compare a pensioner living in a downtown SRO to a CEO living in a suburban
estate. And the New York statistic
should be adjusted for the fact that many New Yorkers rely on transit, which typically
doesn’t use gasoline.
But even
with those adjustments, the statistics are sufficiently strong that they still establish
the energy conservation potential of urbanism.
Energy-Based
Definition of Urbanism: The knowledge about energy and urbanism leads
to a possible alternative definition of urbanism.
I recently
exchanged emails with an East Bay reader who lives in a city that I recall was conceived
as a transit-oriented suburb, but gradually became more car-oriented. It’s a common land-use form for which some
have coined the term “first-ring suburb”.
As the reader describes her lifestyle, she, to
her credit, is living a moderately urban lifestyle, accomplishing many daily
tasks on foot or by transit, even while her neighbors are living a more suburban,
car-dependent life.
In her
email, she expressed discomfort that her friends, who live in places like San
Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, poke fun at her city. In the hope that she’s reading today, I’ll
suggest that she take pride in her urban lifestyle, even if lived in a less
urban place. (She might even ask to
compare incremental odometer readings with her “urban” friends.)
In her
email, she posed the question of what makes a place a city. I halfway ducked the question, noting that
city is a legal entity, a subdivision of the state. Besides, many cities, even metropolises,
don't function as good urban places, with Atlanta as a prime example.
However, I
suggested that her underlying concern was more about what makes an "effective
urban place". Trying to respond to
the question caused me to formulate a different definition of urbanism, this
one cast in terms of energy. I suggest
that an effective urban place was a place where the average resident uses less
than half the energy, including home and transportation uses and adjusted for
demographics, compared to an average resident in a drivable suburban setting.
By that
definition, large areas of San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, but not all,
can be described as urban. But it’s also
possible, and highly desirable, for smaller cities, such as the correspondent’s
first-ring suburb or my town of Petaluma, to create neighborhoods that are
effective urban places. Looking at
Petaluma in particular, the Station Area and the Fairgrounds are places that could,
with the right nurturing, become fine urban places.
I like the
energy-based definition, perhaps better than the one I offered a few posts
back. But I’ll continue to ponder it.
When I next
return to this Intro to Urbanism, I’ll turn my attention to the physical elements
of an effective urban setting. But that
post will be the post after next, as I take my weekly break from the Intro. Instead, the next post will return to my
holiday great streets theme, looking at Yountville and Napa. I’ll also give an update on the Petaluma
Urban Chat conceptual design effort for the possible re-use of the Sonoma Marin
Fairgrounds.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment