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.

But I like the water....

Everyone loves water--sounds, sights, and of course, swimming in it! In fact, we love water so much, we build right up next to streams, creeks, and rivers--right in the floodplains. This is common both in cities, suburbs, and the countryside. Cities eventually decided to put most streams into pipes and culverts though, so half the time, we don't even realize where the streams are, or should be naturally.

It's ok to like water, to enjoy it--but we have to realize the limits to our actions. Floodplains are critical for stream/river health. They help relieve the river of excess flows (or floodwaters), and the riparian buffers associated with the floodplain help filter pollutants, regulate stream temperature, and allow for an increase in biodiversity. If we let floodplains and appropriate riparian buffers be, we would largely be ok.

The problem though, is that because we do build in floodplains and remove riparian buffers, and we remove the ability of streams and rivers to perform natural functions (which they do free of charge), we require more economic input the mediate all the problems that occur because of our previous decisions. Furthermore, insurance for everyone is affected. If you have home insurance, and the insurer also insures people in who live in floodplains, you are at an ever-increasing risk of having your rates go up due to those other folks. Makes very little sense, right? Build in floodplains, remove natural functions, then get paid back on someone else's dime for having your home destroyed by a flood...

The other possible insurance scenario is that the government, or government programs (such as FEMA), insure construction in floodplains, knowing well that they will eventually flood. Of course, we all know by now that tax dollars are used for any government programs, and that is no different here--YOUR tax dollars insure wasteful building in floodplains.

In the end, this all comes down to poor economic logic--deregulation and an entirely free market is not the way to go. Regulations, if written well, are meant to prevent wasteful spending, particularly wasteful tax dollar spending. Without regulations, Appalachia would be gone, our waters would still be polluted like in the mid 1900s, more people would be dying from cancer, we'd have polluted our earth much worse, etc. And ultimately, all that means more expenses that were unnecessary if problems were dealt with from the beginning.

I'm Just a Regular Person--What Can I Do?

Green Urbanism at its peak will need the understanding and participation of a majority of everyday citizens. Everyone has the ability to understand both the parts of green urbanism, and to participate in parts of it.

First and foremost, everyone can make decisions on where to live. This alone has major impacts on other components of green urbanism. For example, if I choose to live in a 3000 square foot house in a court or cul-de-sac in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, I've already sealed my fate as an automobile-driving, energy intensive American. The house itself is terribly inefficient, and not meant to allow for natural air circulation from open windows. My kids, should I choose to have some, would grow up in the same environment. With no park within an walkable distance, my kids would either play in the backyard, which is truly an unimaginative, dull environment, or sit inside and play video games all day. The neighborhood would probably govern any additions or changes to the house, such as the addition of a green roof. They might not allow it.

A second opportunity for every person to participate in the push towards green urbanism is to ride transit more, or ride your bicycle. Not only is it more healthy for every person to ride a bicycle more, or walk to transit stops, it is also intelligent. Everyday, people that live near you drive in the same direction, possibly to the same general office park or complex. You each drive separately, spending twice (or more) the fuel and money necessary. Instead, you could each ride the bus, along with 15-20 (or more) other individuals. On the bus you could read a book, something that you never have time to do normally with the 30 minutes (minimum) that you spend driving each day. Even better, your choice to ride the bus has influence on the types of land uses or business and retail types that occur throughout the urban environment. More people riding the bus equals more small shops and jobs and density around transit stops, and a more walkable environment.

Third, everyone that currently lives in a suburban home with a yard can easily plant vegetables (and some fruits) in their yard. They can create an urban agricultural base. By growing your own veggies and fruits, you have control over what you eat--and whether or not it contains diseases. By choosing to grow a garden, you also remove lawn space, meaning you no longer go through the ridiculous process of "water grass-mow grass-fertilize grass with synthetic fertilizers-water-mow grass again." You also no longer use fuel to do this. You also discourage the terribly inhumane and unsustainably industrial agricultural systems that have been in place for years. Did you know that illegal immigrants (Mexican) in California's famed fruit agriculture zone get paid vastly under minimum wage (off the books, of course), to farm a region that is supported entirely by irrigation systems, rather than natural precipitation patterns. So, in one fell swoop, you have created a more healthy lifestyle for you and for others, while also helping the environment.

There are plenty of other things you can do directly related to being "green." Retrofit windows to be uber-energy efficient (called passive solar). Put solar panels on your house to reduce your energy consumption from coal power plants. Better yet, look into new windows that may soon have floppy solar sheets installed between the panes. Install rain gardens around your yard below your roof downspouts. Plenty of cool opportunities!

Artful Rainwater Design

Water. We all drink it, everyday. Some drink out of a plastic bottle, some out of Nalgenes, Kleen Kanteens, or SIGGS. The water we drink though comes from the sky, from rain. The first post of this blog discusses the hydrologic cycle in the context of watersheds. Stormwater is the human term for rainwater that falls on urban surfaces. Stormwater is often removed via pipes, as quickly and efficiently as possible. This approach has consistently resulted in downstream flooding, stream habitat destruction, and other substantial environmental and social issues. Though over the years attempts have been made to correct the problems with this approach, it still continues to be a problem to this day.

There are alternatives though. Green infrastructure is starting to be more widely used to compensate for the negative aspects of the prototypical engineered stormwater management approach. Green roofs, bioretention swales and structures, rain gardens, and other such elements utilize natural systems to remove rainwater. Penn State Landscape Architecture professors Stuart Echols and Eliza Pennypacker recently called some of these green infrastructure techniques "Artful Rainwater Design (ARD)." These designs are named for their intent and ability to act as art in the urbanized landscape, and function as stormwater management mechanisms. In many instances, these designs are also used to convey information to the public, sometimes via signage, and other times simply through informative design.

Kevin Jensen, a graduate student at Penn State, has developed a survey to gauge just exactly what the public does comprehend from such designs. Regardless of whether you, the reader, may be interested in ARD, it would be extremely helpful for Kevin, and educational for yourself, if you took the time to complete the survey. If you are interested in learning more about ARD, have a gander at this site.

Watersheds

Many have become exposed to the concept that water flows toward a stream, and then "downstream" from that point.  Watersheds are the units in which these streams drain, i.e. a drop of water can hit at the top of a watershed, along a ridge, and flow toward a stream, within the watershed.  Within watersheds, there can be forests, lakes, cities (or parts of), and all of these attributes affect the water quality within the watershed, as well as the water quality exiting the watershed.  

http://www.wildeducation.org/programs/nww06/watershed_illustration.html

The image above illustrates the concept well.  It is important to look at watersheds, at a local scale (subwatersheds) and at larger scales (regional watersheds, if you will) so as to understand where water quality inputs are affecting the system.  

Development can, and often does, negatively impact water quality in watersheds.  Primarily, this is due to the installation of impervious surfaces over what had previously been pervious, or able to allow water to infiltrate.  Thus, in developed areas, stormwaters "runoff" impervious surfaces much more quickly than in undeveloped areas, quickly trickling to the lower point of the watershed, and into stream and river systems, causing flash floods.  

Citizens living "downstream" from these developed areas are often the ones who experience the effects of flash floods.  They are outraged, as they have the right to be.  However, the answer is not to create more engineering marvels along the banks of the stream to prevent floodwaters from reaching their floodplains.  No.  The answer is to treat the source of the problem.  We can no longer build enormous amounts of impervious surfaces, such as substantial surface parking lots, and big-box stores, and ignore the negative effects of such elements.

Let's consider a situation.  If we do continue to develop as we have, and flash flooding continues to increase in downstream areas, it requires spending millions of dollars not only to prevent further flooding to occur (which actually is bad, because it causes even more damage farther downstream), but it also requires that those with home insurance covered by flooding get paid, which in turn causes others' insurance rates to raise slightly.  Then, we have issues with economics of people being unable to afford house insurance, and other governmental spending to fix issues that could have been prevented in the first place.  

Furthermore, we go on pretending that what is currently occuring is good, and that we also can play God Almighty and control nature's forces (which are unpredictable) by building more levee and flood containment systems.  Even more, we have to deal with degradation of streams, which results in decrease aquatic species (yes, that means less fish for us to eat), and thus greater food prices.

This is not a worst case scenario.  It happens every year, across the country, with seasonal rains and flooding.  It is occuring more frequently in recent years due to the greater severity and intensity of storms.  So, this is not an issue to be taken lightly.  This affects all Americans at their pocket books.  Unfortunately, leadership in many locations continues to evade these issues, rather than confront them head-on, and educate the American public about the problems.  Then, the American public, which is wholely good at heart and in intent, could begin to demand better development methods.  Grassroots.  Democracy.  We need government for regulations, but we need the bottom-up to actually understand and retain the issues that are presenting themselves to us.