Automobile Dependency: An Unsustainable Process That is Hurting Our Planet

        Over the past century, the vehicle has drastically influenced the lifestyles of Americans as well as changed the landscapes of the United States. As Jackson stated in his book The Death and Life of Great American Cities: “The vehicle fundamentally restructured the pattern of everyday life in America.” Through the automobile, urban sprawl was able to engulf the outskirts of U.S. cities thus creating suburbs. At the same time that the automobile has affected the geography of the country and altered the lives of Americans, it has also been hurting our planet’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide emissions. “The United States is the largest emitter worldwide of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Transportation (mostly vehicular transit) accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States” (Smart Growth America 2012). With this effect on the atmosphere, the vehicle is truly hurting our planet. Something has to be done to reduce these implications so that global warming can be diminished and human beings can live safely and happily for many more years to come. 
Workers drive their cars to get to work. Parents drive their cars to take their children to school. Teenagers drive cars to hang out with friends. All sorts of people drive cars for a multitude of different reasons. Cars may seem like harmless and convenient mechanisms that individuals can use to travel, but in reality they are negatively affecting all of our lives. In today’s society, automobile dependence is an unsustainable process that is not only altering the framework of our urban areas, but also harming the atmosphere of our planet. Cars run on petroleum. When burned within the car's operating body, the petroleum releases carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions not only get trapped in the sky causing an increase in number of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, but they also pollute the air immediately above residents in a city. This air pollution in effect causes people to have asthma and other respiratory problems (Martin 2008). Dependence on cars also leads to sprawl. The United States is a perfect example of this. In the 1950’s, the car became a lot more accessible to the middle-class in the country, and as a result people were able to move out of the city more efficiently and conveniently. The low-density, sprawling development that automobile use encourages allows for the consumption of valuable agricultural and conservation land. This consumption then puts pressures on resources and wildlife habitats (Capitol Watch 2011). Dependence on cars also makes other modes of transportation less important. With the availability and reliability of cars, destinations usually become farther away from each other. As a result, these destinations became difficult to reach if people are walking, biking, or using mass transit (Smart Growth America 2012). It is sort of like a vicious cycle. As places within an metropolitan area get farther and father away, we become more and more dependent on cars to travel to these places. All in all, as these accounts show us, our dependence on automobiles is an unsustainable process that is negatively affecting our lives. 
If we begin to think about it though, our dependence on automobiles is so strong that a world without cars seems almost disastrous and horrifying. People use cars nearly for everything, and a life without automobiles seems very inconvenient for most individuals. A world without cars would equate to humans not being able to travel as efficiently and quickly as they could. “Other transport alternatives commonly do not measure up to the convenience of the automobile. Private and flexible forms of transportation, such as the automobile, thus seem fundamental to urban mobility” (The Geography of Transport Systems 2009). In the United States for example, many products are transported to stores by trucks. The products that are being transported range from fruits to washing machines to even car parts. Without trucks being able to transport these items, stores across the country would be a lot emptier. These stores would be emptier because many of their products come from places that are not close to them. As these examples show, a world without cars would have negative consequences on the everyday systems within the framework of the United States.  
Even though our dependence on automobiles is vital to the functionality of our country, this process needs to be diminished and/or stopped. Many people have been proposing that cities in our world need end their sprawl and instead become more compact. Also, a person's everyday necessities within a city (which include stores, places of work, centers of entertainment) need to become more localized. One way to do this is to propose transit-oriented development within the communities of a city. Such development enhances a community (or group of communities) to focus land uses around a transit station or within a transit corridor. “Transit-oriented development results in the efficient use of existing land, infrastructure, and services, and supports the revitalization of community centers and neighborhoods by encouraging reuse and infill. TOD [transit-oriented development] fosters a sense of place through the creation of mixed-use centers that combine residential uses with economic activity. By requiring high quality urban design and safe, attractive pedestrian connections between uses, TODs create a vibrant sense of place” (Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 2010). Transit-oriented development in communities across a city can allow more of that city to be accessible by mass transit, thus the car does not have to be a necessity for urban residents. Other ways to decrease our dependence on cars include behavioral changes like encouraging higher occupancy rates in cars through car-pooling or implementing car clubs. Cities could also apply incentives to residents to lessen the amount of vehicles on the road. A number of cities in our world have created tolls outside of their central business districts so as to limit and discourage people to travel there by car. Another alternative includes technical interventions by forcing automotive companies to sell vehicles with better fuel efficiency or to create cars that run on safer, cleaner fuels (Sustainable Development Commission 2011). Using the ideas of urban sustainability, it would be ideal to use a combination of these alternatives to conserven and then load. That is, cities have to limit the usage of cars and then load on new technologies and other innovative ideas for urban transport.
      Car dependence is vital to the functionality of the United States as well as many other countries. In a way, automobiles have come to dictate not only the physical framework and landscape of a city, but also influenced the way individuals experience their "urban lives." It seems extremely difficult to diminish the dependence on cars, but there are alternatives that could be put into place to decrease and/or even end this dependence before it destroys our lives. These alternatives can in turn allow our cities to become healthier, safer, cleaner, as well as more sustainable places to live in.

A Complex Competition Trying to Alter the Built Environment for the Betterment of the Earth

Not everyone in our world knows about the idea of sustainability. That is, there are still people in our world, and even in our country, who are uneducated about the foundations of sustainable living. Even though this is the case, it does seem as if there are more and more events, competitions, and societal happenings that are based on the idea of sustainability. From the emergence of LEED certification for buildings to contests like the Solar Decathlon, these incidents have been helping to educate individuals about the ideals of sustainable living and environmentally friendly design. One of the newest competitions in sustainable construction has been the Living Building Challenge, another example of a program that is trying to change our world for the better.

As stated on their website the Living Building Challenge is “a green building certification program that defines the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible today, and acts to diminish the gap between current limits and ideal solutions” (Living Building Challenge 2012). This program is one of the newest competitions that has been trying to influence architects, developers, urban planners and many others to implement the most sustainable elements into the built environment. Similar to the process of LEED certification, the Living Building Challenge has its own set of rules, regulations, and qualifications. The challenge is comprised of seven performance areas, which include beauty, equity, site, water, energy, health, and materials. Each of these performance areas is subdivided into twenty imperatives which dictate how and why a building under this program should be built.

The Living Building Challenge is known to be one of the most difficult competitions in sustainable design. For one thing, for a building to achieve this certification it must fulfill all twenty of the imperatives. Also, to make sure a project successfully fulfills those imperatives as well as work well within its location, a project cannot be evaluated until after a year it has been built (International Living Future Institute 2012). The twenty imperatives behind the design of the project are extremely rigorous, thus promoting a design that is truly compatible with the Earth’s environments and its processes. For example, the prerequisite of net-zero water is one of the most complicated imperatives within the challenge. “Buildings attempting to be certified by the Living Building Challenge must comply through careful collection and reuse of rain and gray water. Further, storm water must never leave the site, and black wastewater has to be eliminated by the installation of evaporating composting toilets” (Kenton Living Building 2012). As shown by this one imperative, the Living Building Challenge is no “walk in the park.” This competition brings environmentally friendly design to a new level, thus trying to promote the construction of buildings and infrastructures that are truly sustainable. 

Examining Older Houses to Improve the Characteristics of Buildings of the Present and Future

Last week, we visited the university's Gable House, a model for sustainable design. The Gable House is an example of a housing unit that follows the standards and principles of the Passive House Institute. With these standards, the Gable House is an innovative building that efficiently makes use of natural elements as well as compliments the processes of sustainability. Sadly, not all buildings are like the Gable House. That is, there are very few buildings that are as innovative as the Gable House. Despite this being the case, people can try to study existing buildings to better understand the dynamics within their framework. Maybe by studying the dynamics of these familiar buildings, we can improve their components (like how they manage natural lighting) to make them more environmentally friendly.

Over break, I decided to study the home of my grandparents. I chose to study this building because I thought most of my classmates would examine their own homes, so I decided to do something slightly different. My grandparents’ house is located a mile away from mine in the same neighborhood of Jefferson Park. Their house was built in the mid-1950’s, so it is not a new house and as a result it does not have innovative features that might be found in a home built today. The house is found on a North-South street and the building’s façade faces east. As a result of its site, the house is not able to take advantage of sunlight like a house on an East-West street. The façade of my grandparents’ house also has windows that are not very large. These windows also have awnings, so not a lot of natural light gets into the house. This issue with natural lighting could possibly be improved with the installment of larger windows or modifying the awnings so they don’t deter too much sunlight away from the home. Even though the front of house doesn't get a lot of light, the back of the house does. There is an enclosed porch on the other side of the house that faces west. This porch area has extremely large windows. The porch area also has white walls, so this place in the house is always extremely bright as well as warm. Whenever my family and I got to visit my grandparents, we usually sit around within this enclosed porch because it is a great place to relax, talk, and bask in the sunlight.

Like many houses in the city of Chicago, my grandparents’ house is heated by a natural gas furnace. In the winter, this furnace is used to make sure the house is heated comfortably for my grandparents. Even though most of the house is quite warm in the winter, there are some places where one can feel a draft. Small drafts can be felt near the windows of the house. A bigger draft can be felt near the door that connects the house to the enclosed porch. At times this is problematic because I know whenever I am in the kitchen of my grandparents’ home (the room that the enclosed porch is next to), I feel cold. This could probably be fixed by installing better windows within the porch, or maybe even fixing the door that connects the two sections together. 
           In the summer, there are some components within or near the house that help manage the temperature of the dwelling place. As I mentioned earlier, most of the windows have awnings. These awnings do limit the amount of sunlight that comes into the house, but they also provide shade. There is also a medium-sized tree in front of house. During the summer, the tree casts a shadow on the house, thus providing a natural form of shade. From the awnings to the tree to the house's porch, these components affect the building envelope of my grandparents' home in one way or another. 

            Through the descriptions I have provided, one is able to realize that the house of my grandparents is no Gable House. That is, this house does not possess state-of-the-art innovations, or take advantage of natural resources as efficiently as possible. My grandparents’ house is not perfect, but through studying such older houses one can better understand the foundational ills that such buildings posses. By examining these problems in depth, we can in turn learn how to better construct and/or fix up existing houses in our neighborhoods. With such knowledge and some effort, people can make sure their houses have better building envelopes as well as be able to make use of natural features as efficiently as possible. 

Combating a City's Interlinked Issues with a Web of Solutions

There is no such thing as a perfect city. All cities in our world have their fair share of issues and problems. Whether it is a lack of funding for public schools or an aging infrastructure for transportation, every city has a multitude of dilemmas affecting the well-being of its citizens. Sadly, more often than not these cities combat their issues one by one. That is, many individuals within an urban area believe it is best to fix problems by going to the direct and obvious cause of that problem. But in all honesty, this sort of approach does not work. The issues and problems within a metropolis are interlinked, thus the best way for people to improve their city is by solving multiple issues at once.

Curitiba in Brazil is not the "perfect city," but it definitely is a prime example of an urban area that was able to figure out ways to fix multiple issues at once. By recognizing the interconnectedness of a city’s problems, the famous mayor, Jamie Lerner, and other city officials were able to fix up the city’s landscape as well as improve the well-being of its people. That is, Lerner and his colleagues recognized that to truly improve the city, they needed to implement solutions that fix a whole range of problems all at once. Their approach in a way was like the web of solutions that I have created. For example, Curitiba had a problem with slums (poor individuals living in the periphery of the city) as well as an issue with an exponential rise in population. The city’s officials realized that most of the people that were migrating to the city were these slum dwellers. Instead of banishing the poor and limiting the growth of the city, Lerner and his colleagues devised several solutions to help the poor as well as manage growth in a sustainable fashion. To improve the lives of the slum dwellers they implemented the food for garbage exchange and provided health/education services for free. To manage the migration of these slum dwellers, the city designated a section of land outside of the city where these people could take part in a build-it-yourself program (the poor were given some resources and with these items they were able to build their own homes). These solutions did not fix all of the city’s problems, but they lessened the effects thus fixing the situation for the city and improving the conditions for the new migrants. All in all, people should take notice of Curitiba and their web of solutions. If more cities took this initiative to combat multiple problems at once, their people would definitely be healthier, safer, and happier. 

Reshaping America's Cities to Respect the Foundations of Urban Sustainability

In the United States, zoning laws are important components that shape the built environment within cities. How a building is built and whether or not that building can be altered is dictated by these rules. Sadly, there are instances where these laws do not allow for sustainable design.  In her paper, Edna Sussman proposes that more and more cities in our country should alter their zoning laws to respect the environment as well as try to make the world a cleaner, better place.

There are many methods that a city can follow to help make it a more “environmentally friendly” urban area. Sussman mentions some of them in her article. These methods range from changing municipal zoning laws to altering building codes. As a result of such papers as Sussman’s as well the growing popularity of the phenomenon of sustainability, some cities are actually taking action to make their city a better place. San Francisco is one city in the United States that has been applying strategic methods in its zoning laws and building codes to compliment sustainable processes.  

In 2008, mayor Gavin Newsom signed a law to alter the building codes in San Francisco for newly constructed buildings. The codes were to enact regulations on the buildings so that they could better conserve water and energy as well as reduce carbon emissions (San Francisco Chronicle 2008). This law in a way was a huge step for San Francisco to progress the country forward to recognize sustainable policies. Recently, the city of San Francisco extended this law requiring all new office buildings that are at least 50,000 square feet in size to have LEED Gold certification (Florance, Miller, and Spivey 2010). This in effect has allowed Americans to understand that it is possible for cities to become more respectful of the environment.

Upon hearing about all these intentions to make cities better places, one might wonder whether or not it actually works? Looking at San Francisco one can discern whether or not such attempts are worth the hassle. Over the years, it has been clear that better codes and zoning laws have become more popular. Since 2008, more public and private companies in the city have supported resource and energy conservation policies. More often than not, these policies have been set up to construct a lot more “environmentally friendly” buildings (Florance, Miller, and Spivey 2010). The increasing popularity of green building methods has proven that people are actually interested in trying to improve their cities.

At the very same time, many people have come to realize that it takes a lot of work and effort to maintain buildings to follow the necessary measures of sustainability. For example, small enhancements had to made for the San Francisco Federal Building, which has the silver LEED rating. “Planners overestimated the amount of light that came into the building and the heat that it generated. The ambitious plan to control the temperature using a mesh skin over the structure, didn’t always function the way it was supposed to. As a result, little tweaks had to be made to fix the problem” (Ashley 2010). Despite such problems, one has to realize that the whole project of enhancing the buildings in San Francisco is a learning process. Nothing will ever be perfect, but the actions taken by the government of the city as well as private developers are revolutionary in the sense that they are changing the way buildings are built.

It is not feasible or practical for codes and laws in today's cities to ignore the foundations of urban sustainability. As Dan Geiger, the head of the Green Building Council of San Francisco, said, “We've been wasting our resources for a good hundred years now. We cannot afford to do that, it's economically stupid -it's not profitable and it is harming our planet” (Ashley 2010). Something must be done in our cities to make them more livable and “environmentally friendly."  San Francisco is one American city that has led the way in enacting green, sustainable building and zoning policies. More cities across the country and around the world should take San Francisco as an example, and do their part in respecting the Earth and its environments. 

Bogota and Curitiba Revolutionizing City Life

Many cities in our world have been changing the way in which people live. These urban areas have revolutionized the way a multitude of people live with one another. Curitiba and Bogota are two cities that have modified “city life” in recent years. Despite their dissimilarities, Curitiba and Bogota are prime examples of urban areas where politicians and citizens were able to come up with sustainable solutions to the issues of a city.  

At first, one might think that other than being on the 
same continent, the cities of Curitiba and Bogota have nothing in common. Upon further investigation, one is able to realize that these two cities actually have some similarities. In the last 50 years both of these cities experienced massive population growth. “In the 1960s, the population growth in Curitiba reached the highest growth rate of the country, an average of over 5% per year” (Carballo 2010). As stated in one of the videos, Bogota faced similar growths in its population as well. As a result of the drastic rise in the number of people living in these metropolises, the cities were beginning to face other problems that in turn hindered the landscape, infrastructure, health, and welfare of the area and its people.

As multitudes of people were migrating to Curitiba, more and more automobiles were being found on the streets. In the 1970’s, when the now-renowned planner Jaime Lerner became mayor, he was challenged with an issue. Developers in the city had planned to expand the road network in Curitiba, thus causing the city to be less “pedestrian friendly.” Bogota had also been experiencing issues with cars during its rise in population. When Enrique Penalosa was mayor he encountered a problem where the Japanese International Cooperation Agency proposed that seven elevated highways be built within Bogota. During the 20^th century, these cities in South America were beginning to encounter the phenomena of the luxuries of automotive transit. Sadly, the consequences of these automobiles were altering the face of the cities in negative ways.

One of the biggest problems of Curitiba and Bogota is the slums that surround the periphery of the urban areas. These slums are full of poor people that live wretched lives. More often than not, these individuals resort to violence and crime to survive. Both mayors in these cities recognized this as a problem. Instead of disowning these people, they believed that by improving the lives of the poor they could quite possibly also enhance the city life for all citizens. For example, in Curitiba Lerner put forward a program where slum dwellers were able to receive food in exchange for cleaning/collecting the garbage. Penalosa tried to improve the lives of the poor in Bogota differently. He improved their lives by enhancing the facilities that many citizens used for recreation. The two progressive mayors in Bogota and Curitiba realized that the problems in the slums needed to be fixed, and they did their best to improve the conditions for all within their cities.

Yet, despite facing similar issues, the two cities of Bogota and Curitiba are different from one another in several ways. Even though both countries are found in South America, these two cities are found in countries that have distinct cultures. Curitiba is found in Brazil, whose way of life is based mostly on Portuguese culture while the lifestyles of the people in Bogota, which is found in Colombia, is influenced by Spanish culture. Another difference is the importance of each city in their respected countries. Bogota is the capital city of Colombia, so it is recognized by many as being an epicenter of many things within the country. Sadly, unless they know about its link to urban planning, many people might not know about Curitiba. Unlike Bogota, it is not the capital city of its respected country, Brazil. These two cities are also drastically different in size. In terms of population, both are large cities, but Bogota almost has 7 times as many people living in it than Curitiba. In 2010, there were 7,363,782 people living in the city of Bogota  itself (excluding the larger metropolitan area) while the city of Curitiba had a population of 1,764,540 (City Data 2010).  

How is Jefferson Park?: Analyzing My Neighborhood

Known as the “city of neighborhoods,” Chicago is comprised of many communities that are diverse and distinct. Each of these neighborhoods allows Chicago to be the unique metropolis that it is. The neighborhood I live in is Jefferson Park.

            Nicknamed the “Gateway to Chicago,” Jefferson Park is one of the major transportation hubs in the city of the Chicago. The Chicago El rapid transit system, the Metra commuter line, and CTA buses can all be found at the main terminal in the area. All of these modes of transportation can be used to get to the Loop. Most of the residents work either within the Loop or on the outskirts of the Loop. Being an important transportation hub, a majority of the residents commute to work via public transportation. 
           It isn’t a problem to walk around the neighborhood. Although the neighborhood is walkable, Jefferson Park is quite large, so it may take one a while to walk anywhere. Despite this being case, the bus system is quite interconnected, so if the walk to the neighborhood’s stores and shops is too far, one can get there by using public transportation (CTA bus). Most of the main streets in the area are pretty “complete.” These streets have center-turn lanes and bike lanes. Most of these streets are “complete,” but not all of them. I think it would be a great improvement to my neighborhood if more streets in Jefferson Park were “complete.” In my opinion, “complete” streets would benefit all of the parties that use them (pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers). Although Jefferson Park has a lot of great modes of transit, it does not have a lot of green infrastructure within its boundaries. There is a forest preserve, but it is found on the edge of the neighborhood. Personally, I wish there were a lot more forest preserves like this one and other components of green infrastructure within my neighborhood.

            In my opinion, Jefferson Park has an identifiable center. I think the center of the neighborhood is the area surrounding the transit center (near the intersection of Milwaukee and Lawrence). All of the different modes of transportation converge at this transit center. A lot of restaurants, businesses, and a park (Jefferson Park) surround the transit center, thus people are drawn to go there. Even though, the neighborhood has an identifiable center, I don’t think it has edges that are noticeable. It can be a blur where Jefferson Park begins and ends. As I stated earlier, most of the neighborhood is walkable. For example, I go on strolls all the time in my neighborhood. I enjoy walking around my neighborhood and seeing everything that it has to offer. I usually walk to the main park, Jefferson Park, but there are a lot of smaller parks where people can walk to and just relax (like Dunham Park and Austin-Foster Park). These parks are a few of the spaces in my neighborhood that I consider third places. 

            I would hope that in 50 years my neighborhood of Jefferson Park would be a community that relies less on automobiles. Even though Jefferson Park is a transportation hub, a lot of people still use automobiles to get around. I would hope to see in the future that residents will only use cars for immediate emergencies or extremely long journeys. I would hope this would be the case, but sadly I don’t think it will happen. Most Americans have a strong connection with automotive transit. Due to this fact, it seems to me that it will be a difficult task for Jefferson Park residents to transform the neighborhood to an almost “car-less community.” I think the same would be said of green infrastructure. I would hope more green infrastructure would be developed in the neighborhood, but it seems to me that people don’t have very strong feelings about nature. Hopefully if more people learned about the importance of the foundations of sustainability and how it can benefit us all, then such neighborhoods like mine could become places that compliment urban sustainability.