The past, present, and future...

American society is certainly at an interesting point in its history.  Over the last 225+ years, we established colonies, then states and a nation, then added more territory and more states.  We expanded over a vast landscape, full of bounty, in the form of natural resources (trees, water, soil, minerals, animals, etc).  Our ancestors had slaves, killed Native Americans (Indians), killed each other (pretty regularly, in the Old West), immigrated, uprooted families for better lives in other parts of the country, had land, lost land, got more land, harvested the timber, farmed the cleared land, move on in search of more productive land, utilized irrigation systems and controlled rivers, invented all sorts of things, pushed through the industrial revolution, into the agricultural "green revolution", polluted everything on this green earth, tried to clean it up, and continued polluting it, while also harvesting it more, and farming it more.  We have preserved landscapes for their beauty, only to destroy countless other beautiful landscapes in the name of growth.  


Ahhhh.  Growth.  A term with so many connotations.  Economic growth, the term most important and all too familiar to Americans right now, is also one that may have been misguiding our American society all these last 225+ years, and even the civilizations before that.  Economic growth implies an economic system that expands, rather than contracts, or stays flat.  


Economic growth has been associated with increased quality of life, among other things, to the point that, a "1st World" country with a strong economic system is considered to have higher quality of life than "3rd World" countries, although they have entirely different cultural constructs and values.  Quality of life has, in effect, been narrowed to the daily things that American (and European) society have come to experience over the past 150 years.

An expanding economic system also necessitates having the resources to continue to expand.  In the past, this was not as much of an issue.  A significant portion of the world, in the 19th century and even the early 20th century, had not been "pillaged" for it's resources.  The global population was simply too small, and trade was only impacting certain regions of the globe that supplied specific goods.  


Fast forward to the present.  SEVEN BILLION people.  Even as the association between quality of life and economic growth continues to persist, quality of life, measured in terms of happiness of the average citizen, has truly not gotten better in our industrialized, American society.  Money has not made people happier.  Stuff has not made people happier.  We currently have significant disparities in the social income scale, problems with our health system, a significant lack of jobs, millions in debt, and so on.  People work too much, have poor health, poor family lives, poor environments, and in this current economy, it's not getting better.  Our resources, over the past century, and really, the past half-century, have seen a significant decline.  The ever-expanding world economy ballooned at a rate that was furthered by the American way-of-life, full of stuff, greed, stuff, excess, money, "likes and preferences" before intelligent and rational thought.  We took full advantage of a system that was giving us everything, for cheap, and allowed our environments, and other countries and continents to take the brunt of our decisions.  


Now, everyone wants to be like us, which is ironic, because the current "US" is not in a very good state, primarily because of our decisions over the past half-century.  Our urban infrastructure, from sanitary and storm sewers, to roads and highways, is in complete disrepair.    Our health choices, of eating cheap and easy fast food for the last 50 years, and our living choices, in a suburban system that allows us to drive everywhere, have resulted in all sorts of health epidemics, from obesity in adults and children, to diabetes, higher cancer rates, etc., which all result in more health expenses, and more pressure on health insurers.

So, where do we go from here?  Do we continue, in the name of economic growth, as a model to improve our conditions at present?  Will economic growth truly help fix those problems, or will it just continue with the status quo?  Will increased revenue allow governments to invest in infrastructure, or will populations voice displeasure with government spending?  Will revenue be used to invest in infrastructure that takes US into the next century, or will we continue with the status quo of auto-centric infrastructure?  Will it be "me, myself, and I" or will it be "for the greater good

These are the interesting (and challenging) questions we have to answer, preferably by American society, but likely by a small minority of individuals that are truly interested in sustaining America into this century and  the next, and not simply interested in their own success.  

Local Food. Right Now. Come on, do it. Do it. Just do It.

A central component of green urbanism is food--local food.  Local food means either grown within the city through urban farming, i.e. someone's backyard (or frontyard), or a vacant lot turned into a mini farm; or it means from the surrounding rural areas, i.e. the Bluegrass Region.  

This article from Grist.org discusses the concept of local, healthy food and a new pilot show is mentioned, called Food Forward, produced by folks out in California.  Here's the video trailer.  The point of the show is to provide a more inspiring and forward-looking view of "people who are changing how we eat in America."  The trailer specifically looks at feeding children better food, and leaving a better legacy for our children.  That's a very admirable and justified thing to do.  The children of our society have become terribly unhealthy, and that will lead to all sorts of healthcare issues later in life for America. That said, I'm more interested in feeding all of us better.  

First off, I know it's not totally realistic to suggest we can feed everyone locally--at least not through the winter.  And at least not right now.  This is primarily because most people have simply lost the skills of farming, harvesting, and storing food--we have devolved in that respect.  But also, a lot of people either don't have the time, or won't make the time, to raise their own garden.  It is a decent bit of work, and requires maybe putting in a little time on weeknights, and a little weekend work.

Imagine the amount of food that could be grown in all the unused/lesser-used spaces in the city though.  Check out other cities:  Front yards (only function aesthetically, and are a resource-hog as it is), back yards (reduced functions with more and more gaming technology and such), some parks, vacant lots (detroit), school yards, etc.


Next post, we'll take a look at Lexington, and the Bluegrass--what's being done, and what else can be done.  

Civic Mindedness

Suum cuique: To each, his own (thanks Wikipedia).  Every person is different, and has unique talents, ideas, and opinions.  Here in Lexington, there are thousands of people that have all taken our education and life philosophies in different directions.  We all make daily decisions based on education and life philosophies. This is true for almost any city in the country.

As a collective whole though, many lack an understanding of how each decision we make impacts our economy, our city, and our environment.  We lack an understanding of the basic functions of a city or town, and how that works in conjunction with the people living there, and the environment both in the town and in the countryside.  Basically, we lack a civic mindedness.

Civic mindedness involves both understanding these issues, and engaging our leaders in conversation on these issues.  For example, we all understand the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy, right?  Now, let's consider a road, two lanes (one each way), and during rush hour, that road becomes extremely jam-packed.  Everyone wants the road to be widened, so that the traffic will lessen during rush hour.  The reality, however, is that the capacity of that road now increases, and supports more traffic.  Widening a road to four lanes will only make things worse by creating even greater congestion.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Widening the road also causes a substantial increase in environmental impacts (urban heat island, stormwater runoff and pollution).  This problem, then, requires a basic understanding of the impacts of choosing to drive everyday, the real impacts of widening a road, and the costs of choosing to do that, as opposed to planning a city better.

In another example, many individuals are unaware that storm sewers (the grates along the curb) empty directly into local streams, full of whatever trash people toss out their windows (including cigarette butts), and the pollutants on the road surfaces from regular traffic flow.  Some even pour chemicals straight into the storm sewer.  When all these pollutants reach local streams, they kill aquatic life (fish, frogs, small insects essential to the aquatic food chain).  This subsequently has impacts downstream, i.e. Elkhorn Creek pollutants can impact the Kentucky River.  Then, eventually, a clean-up effort must be conducted, often an expense by the city, to restore a stream to healthy conditions--all because we, as citizens, failed to understand the impacts of our decisions.

Of course, there are some who do have a civic mindedness, and engage their community and leaders in critical thought.  For most civic actions, like land developments, road bulding/widening, zone changes, and such, public forums are held so that citizens can comment.  Recently, the Centrepointe project is an example of a land development that caused a significant citizen uproar, particularly with those who understood the impact it would have on the center of downtown.  In most instances though, the collection of individuals in these forums are not wholly representative of the community, and do not provide a substantial voice that understands the real impacts of such civic actions.  How can the political leaders make decisions that are in the best interests of the community, if the community is not knowledgeable on the subject, or chooses not to speak?  Then, how can the community be upset at the result?

Knowledge of these issues is important, because choosing political leaders for our community is central to those potential leaders understanding these issues.  If the citizen base does not understand them, then they certainly can not be expected to challenge the political leaders' knowledge of such issues.  Now, with this in mind, I would like to challenge each of you to become better educated on the impacts of shopping, driving, living, and dining decisions, both in your life and the life of our city, economy, and environment.  I would like to challenge you to participate more fully in our democratic republic--do not allow yourself to become a couch potato robot.  Our society is in a challenging situation, and needs greater critical thought and collective participation to become a city of the 21st century (and beyond)--not a remnant of the 20th century.

Blog Renewed

I've been busy for the last few months (or more), and have not been focused on this blog.  However, in the coming weeks and months, I intend to redirect some time and effort into this blog, with more consistent comments and thoughts.  Previous posts spoke more generally about "Green Urbanism," but from now on, my posts are going to be directed primarily towards the Inner Bluegrass Region of Kentucky.  Since I live in Lexington, the majority of posts will be specifically related to current events and issues in/around Lexington.  Hope you enjoy the future of this blog!

Fighting for our Future

Let it be known--this is not a typical post for this blog. First, read this:

Student Activists Demand Alternative Energies on Campus
Burning Coal on Campus is Hazardous to Student Health and the Commonwealth

LEXINGTON, Ky: Tuesday, an anonymous group of students from the University of Kentucky hung a banner from a parking structure near Rose Street to protest the university’s use of coal power on campus. The banner, reading “COAL: A Tradition of Oppression. STUDENTS: Let’s Change Our Legacy”, included a reproduction of the familiar UK symbol, with a burning smokestack between the letters instead of the usual Memorial Hall steeple.

Deemed the “midnight strike force” by local news sources, the students are fueling a campaign to move the university beyond the “outdated” technology of coal power and in the direction of cleaner energies. One of the students, an economics and environmental studies senior, said, “You can’t argue facts. Coal is a finite resource and the shift to alternative energies has to begin immediately. Kentucky must realize its potential to be progressive and enterprising in the country’s transition toward environmental awareness.”

The students’ use of the word “oppression” alludes to the detrimental effects of coal not only on the environment, but on the miners and communities in coal-mining regions of the state. An estimated 12,000 coal miners have died from black lung in the past decade, and their families are equally affected. The real tragedy, though, lies in mountain top removal (MTR) coal mining, a practice that more and more coal companies are using to extract coal at a lower cost. MTR employs explosives to decapitate mountains, and the leftover waste is deposited in surrounding valleys. The chemicals and residue bury and contaminate freshwater streams, thus poisoning the water supply for surrounding communities and devastating local ecosystems.

While the university, directly, does not deal in MTR coal, Kentucky Utilities provides a significant portion of the campus’s power, and is a known distributor of energy derived from the controversial method.

“The University of Kentucky is the flagship university of the state, and as such, sets the example for the rest of Kentucky. Any change we can make toward cleaner energy and the diversification of jobs and economies will affect the entire Appalachian region drastically, and for the better. This change is one that can’t wait,” said an Appalachian Studies junior.

It seems momentum has not died from the announcement last semester that the new Wildcat Coal Lodge would be endorsed by the coal industry. Tuesday’s banner was one of a series that has hung on campus since October, indicating that the students have not forgotten President Todd’s decision, and that they still worry for the future of their school’s energy and integrity.

These students at the Kentucky bring up an important issue, one that relates entirely to the concept of Green Urbanism. First, Green Urbanism, while it maintains an inherent relationship with cities, requires that the inputs into the city (energy, materials, food, etc) utilize environmental, economical, and social sustainability. The absolute destruction of the earth

results in an absolute reduction in our environmental, economic, and social capital. Those landscapes don't just 'come back.' Nor can you just "restore" that landscape to it's former self (contrary to what many MTR companies want YOU to believe that they do). The soils become so compacted that plants are unable to grow. This= less forest, which =less possible timber resources, but also= less places for trees to grow and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Now, the second part of this is much more connected to the urban system: burning coal in/near urban areas produces air pollution, which has a multitude of health impacts. (And don't take that to mean we should just put coal-burning power plants 40 miles outside of cities--that means we would have to use more coal, and more resources to get that energy transferred that far back to where it is needed--oh wait...we already do that???....save that one for another time). The coal backers will come back here with the whole "clean coal" mumbo jumbo---but they may want to check their own industry. Just last week, Don Blankenship debated Robert Kennedy, Jr. (and was completely embarrassed by Kennedy, I might add). At the end of the debate, Blankenship conceeded that carbon sequestration, the advocated method of "clean coal," is a bunch of hogwash. So, "clean coal" = a pipe dream.

The alternative is we use wind, solar, geothermal (yes), and we use these alternatives on a decentralized system, rather than a centralized system, like coal power. More importantly, we rebuild/retrofit the existing urbanized landscape with passive-solar heating, more efficient insulation, green roofs, living walls, and other intelligent (yes) ideas. This will help reduce overall energy use, which will help reduce energy need, reduce coal input, reduce coal removal, and eventually, remove coal from the equation completely with replacement by renewable energy. Then, we are talking about the sustainability of our environmental, economic, and social capital, and we are talking about Green Urbanism.

Zombie malls and walkable urbanism

(This post is a response to a recent series of articles about dead and dying malls in Lexington, KY)

Rather than thinking of Lexington Mall as a blight or an eyesore, think of it as an incredible opportunity. Across the country, demographic changes and resource constraints are driving increased demand for walkable urban environments. Growing up in Lexington in the 1980s and 1990s, I watched the development of shopping centers at the edge of the city and sprawling subdivisions in Fayette's neighboring counties. This development pattern was appealing in a world of cheap gas and large households. But times are changing. Oil is more scarce and more expensive. Households are shrinking, driven by young single professionals and empty nesters. And with increasing awareness of the challenges of climate change, people are looking for a more "sustainable" lifestyle.

This is not some east- and west-coast trend that doesn't apply to Lexington. The recent housing market study commissioned by Lexington's Division of Planning determined that Lexington has an underserved demand for "higher density product and diverse communities where residents are motivated by proximity to work, walkable environment, and access to green space." Recent downtown development has begun to meet this need, and projects around the Newtown Pike extension are promising; but it's not necessary to focus all the energy downtown.

Long before recent changes in the housing market, a variety of factors--from online retail to continual development of newer, bigger malls further on the urban fringe--began undermining older retail centers like Turfland and Lexington Malls. This problem is not unique to Lexington, and the innovative solutions utilized elsewhere should guide plans for Lexington Mall. In her book Retrofitting Suburbia, Ellen Dunham-Jones examines similar "zombie malls," and shows how they can be remade to thrive in a more urban world.

The model of cities with a single high density center is a relic of the past. The major retail and office nodes along New Circle, Man O War, and the major roads that make up Lexington's "spoke and wheel" transportation system show that automobile oriented development has been poly-centric for a long time now. Why shouldn't high density walkable and transit-oriented districts also spread throughout the city? Lexington's political leaders, developers, and citizens should embrace Lexington and Turfland Malls as two great places to start this trend.

Charter Cities

Paul Romer, an economist at Stanford, has been recently begun advocating for a concept he calls a "charter city". In places like the United States, businesses and similar private enterprises are fairly nimble and able to adapt to changing conditions. Just as importantly, there is a strong system of rules and norms of behavior that allow businesses to fail or to become obsolete, while new ones step up to meet a need. In contrast, cities and other governmental entities are much more resistant to change, generally by design. This is generally a good thing for governments, where stability is essential. For businesses and individuals to adapt quickly, the rules of the system in which they operate need to be stable and well understood.

However, Romer makes a good point: that as societies develop and grow wealthier, there are consistent changes that can be reasonably well anticipated. This is particularly true for cities. A rural community has different needs than a small town, which has different needs than a large city, which has different needs than a major metropolis. Sometimes those needs follow a logical progression, such as the provision of higher levels of police presence. But in other ways, the rules that develop as a small town grows into a city can be inappropriate or outright counterproductive for a major metropolis.

Romer works in the field of global development economics, so he's particularly interested in the application of charter cities to developing countries. His prime example of a charter city is Hong Kong, which was established by a cooperative treaty between the United Kingdom and China. This focus is appropriate, since the growth in urban areas that has already occurred in the United States still is just now underway or looming for much of the rest of the world. The availability of unoccupied land, the obvious requirement for the establishment of a new city, also presents great opportunity. However, as an urban planning researcher in the US, I wonder whether there's something we can learn from the idea here. Romer points out that it's much harder and less efficient to change a broken system than to create a new one and let more nimble entities (businesses and individuals) choose which system they want to be a part of.

I wouldn't say our system of cities in the United States is broken, but it clearly has its flaws. Many like me are concerned that the cities that grew up in the age of automobile-oriented suburban development are poorly suited to the approaching age of peak oil and climate change. It's scary and sad to think of letting these cities "fail" (think Flint, MI), but it's also clear that they can't easily be reformed in the same way that a business would reorganize.

Environmentalists and urban planners are often opposed to greenfield development (the construction of new neighborhoods on formerly undeveloped land). Ultimately, a charter city is a mega-scale greenfield development. However, for the opportunity to create a new city that breaks the mold formed over the last century, I think it's something entrepreneurial policymakers--particularly at the state and local level--should strongly consider.