Comments on: AskPablo: City Living

By: James waters

James waters — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:46:05 +0000

i just want to add that the West/Lehrer contention that it is more environmentally friendly (“efficient”) to live in a big city relies on the explicit assumption that innovation keeps pace with the growth of the city. That is, there is still resource limitation, and unless we manage those resources with increasing ingenuity, we are doomed.
James Waters
School of Life Sciences
Arizona State University

By: Costa

Costa — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:03:43 +0000

I posted about an article that did some calculations on this topic here: here The (common sense) punchline is that more density = less GHGs.

By: Wyatt Brown

Wyatt Brown — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:50:22 +0000

I just finished my B.S. in Parks and Recreation Management at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaf AZ. I almost ended up with a second degree in Land Use Planning. I just couldn’t help taking Planning and Geography classes in heavy doses, while I still had some Pell Grants left…
There is one paramount concept that I took away from my pseudo-obsession with planning and land use science at university- Urban sprawl is one of the single largest factors in human inefficiency and carrying capacity deficit-factoring.
As masses of modern, global citizens start to look to “nature” for their own lifestyle models, they also move psychologically away from big city living. As my friends in Flagstaff say; “Phoenix just doesn’t FEEL natural!”
This blog topic is spot on. Urban living is efficient living. Efficient living is green!
However, I would suggest that serious attention needs to be paid to making our dense, urban cores more livable and likeable. Planning, living, and social concepts are needed that go far beyond the NY, 19th/20th century industrial revolution-era, urban planning and civic lifestyle philosophies.
Our more refined tastes, as 21st century consumers have completely changed the demand structures for lifestyle. Our planning science need to better reflect this reality.
Ideas?
Comments?
Wyatt

By: Nick Aster

Nick Aster — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:37:02 +0000

Yo Pablo… great post, but it’s a bigger topic than this. First of all, what’s the definition of a city? I’ll bet if you did the numbers you’d see that truly rural folks do, in fact, have a very small footprint, probably smaller than the average Manhattanite. It’s the newer suburbs and exurbs that are the real energy and resource suckers.
I also wouldn’t advocate “more massive cities” unless it’s very clear what that means. Are you talking about New York style density? Tokyo? Los Angeles? Houston? Phoenix?
All of these are massive cities, none ideal in my mind – either from a sustainability perspective or a personal one.
I don’t think we have to cram into shipping container sized apartments in Tokyo to be more sustainable, nor do we need to live on communes in Montana. What we need, in my opinion, is more sensibly designed neighborhoods where you are not required to drive at all times, looser restrictions on where shops and services can go, and better incentives to NOT develop on farmland and other open-space preservation measures.