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. 

A Common Tragedy, The Tragedy of the Commons

The other day I was checking the news on the BBC website. While I was looking at the leading stories of the day, I came across a story about the worst traffic jams in the world (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19716687). The article noted several cities around the world to have some of the worst traffic jams. These cities ranged from Jakarta in Indonesia to Kampala in Uganda. Upon reading these accounts of congestion, I was reminded of Hardin’s concept of the “tragedy of the commons.” In other words, I came to realize that this article on congestion was a perfect example of a resource on our planet that is used by many, yet not owned by anyone.

Hardin’s paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” documents the drastic and startling truth about common resources. The paper spells out the tragedy as “the results that come about when a single resource is owned and accessed by everyone, and regulated by no one. Without some type of self-policing, this resource will disappear.” Although it might not seem apparent, the congestion that is found in major cities around the world is a result of the “tragedy of the commons.” The interstates and highways in most, if not all, of these countries is a public good that can be used by anyone with a car. That is, anyone who possesses a vehicle is able to drive onto these transportation systems and travel about. As a result of this fact, these transportation systems get overused. This is not always the case. There are times where the number of automobiles on the interstate system does not have drastic effects on people’s travel times. But as more and more vehicles enter these transportation systems, there is less room for people to move about. With less space for all of the cars on the road, the velocities of the cars will decrease. This increase in the number of vehicles on highways and interstates causes the travel times of vehicles to slow down, which in turn causes congestion.

Space on highway systems can be obtained by anyone with a vehicle. In other words, as stated before, anyone with a car can drive onto these transportation systems. No one really owns the space on the highway systems, so as a result of it being owned by no one yet used by many, the space on highway systems is a resource that gets overused and exploited. But one might ask are there any solutions to this problem? One solution that people propose is for individuals to carpool to work. Advocates to this solution believe that more people should travel to work together. They should carpool because it seems as if there are many cars on the road that are occupied by only one person. If more people began to carpool, then one can argue there will be fewer cars on the road. Another solution that some individuals propose is to stop using automobiles to get around a city. Advocates of this proposition believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to use other modes of transportation. People should either ride their bicycles to work, ride the local commuter rail line, use buses to travel around, or just walk.

            Personally, I believe that the solution about people finding other means of transit is the better solution to the problem. Not only will it fix the “tragedy of the commons” with space on the highways, but it will also lessen other issues. This solution will diminish the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as well as reduce our dependence on oil. Even though I think this is the better solution, I don’t think it is the solution that will work right away, especially not in the United States. Sadly, 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 Americans to transition to other means of transit. With that said, I think the solution that will work for now would be the proposition for individuals to start carpooling. Hopefully, once people begin to carpool, they will gradually transition to other means of transportation.  

Automobiles: Not a Necessity in Urban Areas with Compact Development

In the article Growing Cooler, Ewing discusses a sustainable method known as compact development. Such a development enhances a group of communities to focus land uses around a transit station or within a transit corridor. In other words, it is a method in which Americans can reduce the vehicle miles traveled, thus lowering the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. “Better community planning and more compact development will help people live within walking or bicycling distance of some of the destinations they need to get to every day.” Compact development allows there to be interconnectedness within urban areas so that people can use the automobile less often. Studies have shown that areas that take on this sort of development are actually quite successful. “Even accounting for income and other socioeconomic differences, residents drove about 25 percent less in the more compact regions.” No, compact development won’t solve all of the issues related to CO2 emissions, but it is a great step in making our processes in large metropolises more sustainable.

            Many have speculated that there are two theoretical perspectives on how to combat the world’s problems, technological sustainability and ecological sustainability. One of these perspectives, technological sustainability, views technical solutions of creating new innovations as the best way to get the necessary resources to continue living on Earth. The other perspective, ecological sustainability, calls for the alteration of human actions. That is, maybe we shouldn’t find new ways of getting resources, but instead try to use less of those resources and live simpler lives. Ideally, it would be best to combine these two perspectives to fix our planet. Combining the theories from these perspectives would be hard, but it isn’t impossible. Using these two different perspectives, one can study the effectiveness of a sustainable process like compact development. That is, one can look at these two different perspectives and in turn compare them to the features of compact development. In my opinion, it seems as if compact development is sort of like a hybrid of these two perspectives.

The components of technological and ecological sustainability are combined within the method known as compact development. I believe that compact development is a hybrid of these two perspectives because this strategy not only calls for the development of new infrastructures (or the alteration of existing infrastructure) within urban areas, but also tries to alter the lifestyles of citizens living in an urban area. The lifestyles of the citizens in the city would be different because the infrastructure of the city would cause them to drive less. Through the innovative implementation of compact development, people would be forced to use public transit or walk. Thus with more and more people either walking or using public transit, the vehicle miles driven in the area would decrease. “With smart growth, most developments would be built to connect seamlessly with the external street network. These developments would fill in vacant lots, replace failing shopping centers, construct transit-oriented neighborhoods, and revitalize older town centers rather than displacing forests or farmland. This would in turn cause people in urban areas to be near important places as well as have a means of transit (other than the automobile) to get to where they need to go.” This strategy of development would in turn change the processes that happen in a city. With compact development people could have "urban lives" without having the automobile be a necessity. With a well-integrated system of compact development, urban residents could travel around different parts of the city by solely relying on mass transit and/or their own two feet. 
              Neither technological sustainability nor ecological sustainability are perfect methods to fix the problems of our world. These two perspectives both have their pros and cons. With that said, to actually modify our processes to be more sustainable it would be ideal to combine these two perspectives. Compact development is one example of a method that combines the innovativeness of technological sustainability with the environmental awareness of ecological sustainability. 

America’s Loss of Meaningful Places

After World War II, American society was experiencing some drastic changes. From the Baby Boom to the interstate highways, the United States was becoming a different country. Many argue that these changes were for the better, but one has to realize that these events after the war actually altered American cities. After World War II, many “places that were not worth caring about” sprang across the United States, thus causing the landscapes of the country to become dull and uninteresting.

In his presentation, James Kunstler claimed that after World War II many people in the United States seemed to stop caring about their surroundings. Due to this indifference of one’s geography, “places that were not worth caring about” dominated the country. Most of these places still exist and many more have been established since the 1950’s. But one may wonder why did the United States loose its touch with cities and their built environment? To answer these questions, one has to study the historical occurrences of the country, and see how the byproducts of these events altered the United States. Kunstler claimed “A lot of this [the issues in America’s built environment] comes from the fact that the industrial city in America was such a trauma that we developed this tremendous aversion to the whole idea of the city.” The suburbs were an escape from the disgust found in the industrial cities in the late 1800’s, but as we look later in history they didn’t explode in growth until after 1945. It was this era after the war that produced the lack of identity in American places, and it was all thanks to such tools as the automobile.

In 1971, John B. Rae asserted, “Modern suburbia is a creature of the automobile, and it cannot survive without the automobile.” Though this might have been a drastic claim, in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s automobiles did become more accessible to the American general public. This innovation drastically changed the infrastructures and landscapes of the country, “fundamentally restructuring the pattern of everyday life.” With the implementation of the Interstate Highway Act, cars were able to take hold of these pathways towards the outskirts of the city. As Jackson states in his paper, “the interstate system virtually guaranteed that future urban growth would perpetuate a centerless sprawl.” This urban sprawl in turn affected the general public’s opinion on architecture and their sense of place. People were more interested in efficiency, promptness, and instant returns instead of quality and meaningfulness. “As the United States became a rubber-tire civilization, a tasteless, cheap, and forgettable architecture emerged in the suburbs.” As the years went by, more Americans possessed this lack of connection with their surroundings, and lost most (if not all) of their appreciation for a sense of place. Such a mindset in the general public caused there to be a drastic increase in the number of places that weren’t significant to anyone. This in turn created those areas that Kunstler termed “places that are not worth caring about” to spring about.

Even though the United States is dominated by places that people have no connection with, there are still some spaces that are worth caring about. I, myself, have been fond of several places. One of these places is a park that is a mile away from my house. This park is called Norwood Park, and I have been going to this park since I was a child. Not only is it a place where children can play, but it also is an area where people can come relax and enjoy life. Norwood Park is a unifying space that brings people together, and serves as an oasis from the hustle and bustle of city life. I think this park is important because not only does it allow people to engage in a multitude of activities, but it also has a charm to it that draws people. The park is full of life, beauty, and most importantly it allows one to understand the significance of a sense of a place. I would hate to see Norwood Park being destroyed because it has and always will have a special place in my life. 

Presentation on Sustainable Planning

On September 18^th, I attended a presentation on sustainability. Margaret Cederoth, who is an urban planner at the Parsons Brinckerhoff firm in Sacramento, California, gave the presentation. The presentation was about how cities can be sustainable. It was extremely interesting to hear an actual practicing urban planner talk about her work as well discuss how she implements the elements of sustainable processes into her planning.

One of the most interesting things about the presentation was Ms. Cederoth’s account on Masdar, the carbon-free city in the United Arab Emirates. During the presentation, she discussed how she was part of the team of people who were able to use their skills to create a sustainable city out of a huge empty area. There aren’t that many opportunities for urban planners to build a city from nothing, so it was quite fascinating to hear how this was done. I was also intrigued how Ms. Cederoth described that Masdar was built “with utilities in mind.” In other words, the team of people that worked on this project knew that human beings consume and use a lot of resources. With that in mind, they tried to implement environmentally friendly and efficient ways to collect energy for the city. Examples ranged from solar panels on nearly all of the buildings to a wind tower in the middle of the university. All in all, I was quite fascinated that such a project as a “carbon-free city” could actually be created in the real world.

Many of the topics that Ms. Cederoth discussed were related to the information we have learned from UP 199. Within the presentation, she discussed such phenomena as ecological footprints, the process of conserving and loading as well as many other elements on the foundations of sustainability. For example, Ms. Cederoth touched upon the reason why people in the United Arab Emirates wanted a carbon-free city. She mentioned that the “UAE has one of the highest ecological footprints per person in the world (11.9 global hectares per person).” This statement was directly related to one of our previous lectures where we discussed how there are many countries in the Middle East (these are countries that are extracting oil) have enormous ecological footprints per person. Ms. Cederoth also touched upon the topic of carbon emissions. She discussed how they tried to make the construction company use more sustainable methods in their building. For example, they wanted to limit the usage of cement in the city because “the manufacturing of cement is responsible for about 5% of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide.” This goes to show that people can build new infrastructures in ways that won’t harm the Earth in the future. Whatever the case, I really enjoyed this presentation and thought it was extremely cool to hear the things we have learned in class being implemented by real urban planners like Margaret Cederoth.

The Eminent Future of Our Planet Earth

More and more people in the world are driving cars that run on oil. More and more people in the world are using electricity that is created by the burning of coal. These human activities have repercussions (like carbon emissions) that are drastically affecting the state of our planet. Due to these drastic issues, researchers and scientists have been trying to come up with other resources to be used as alternatives to fossil fuels.

So as to halt the problems of global warming, greenhouse effects, and other issues, people are calling for the transition away from fossil fuels. Some are calling for the usage of ethanol instead of oil. While others claim that windmills and solar panels are the future gateways for storing energy. With all of these alternative ideas, there are many others who are skeptical about the transition away from fossil fuels. In his article “21st Century Energy: Some Sobering Thoughts,” Vaclav Smil explains that given our rates of consumption it is going to be extremely difficult for this transition to happen. Even though Smil does have some interesting points, there is a bit of a flaw in his argument. Smil argues that given our current capabilities and the existing insatiable appetites of the world’s people, it is going to be hard to use new alternative energy sources. In other words, Smil believes in “technological sustainability,” and that the only way for people to progress is for them to change the methods by which they obtain resources. He says, “Other renewable energy flows (like those from windmills and solar panels) could not cover today’s worldwide total primary energy supply.” In other words, Smil believes that the lifestyles of humans should not be altered/changed. Instead, new innovations need to be created to allow for our ways of life to continue as they are.

As evidenced in his article, Vaclav Smil is extremely pessimistic about humanity’s ability to transition away from fossil fuels. He says that the scale of shift to a new energy source is going to be extremely enormous and difficult. Also, in his article it is stated, “today there is no readily available non-fossil energy source that is large enough to be exploited on the requisite scale.” The existing fossil fuels being used provide a lot more energy that any other alternative energy sources. So, there doesn’t seem to be any alternative energy source that has enough energy to keep up with our lifestyles and rates of consumption. Smil contends that storage issues would arise if human beings were to actually use windmills and solar panels. For example, “because wind and direct solar radiation are intermittent and far from predictable, they could never deliver such high load factors like those of thermal electricity generators.” All in all, Vaclav Smil is not confident about the reliability of using non-fossil fuels as energy sources.

With all of these pessimistic views that Smil presents in his paper, one wonders what our planet will be like if human beings did not “meet” the energy demands. Well, such an image reminds me of something stated in Professor Smith’s lecture. I think that the world would be a devastating and ugly one where countries are having wars over resources with many people dying because they don’t have the sufficient means to survival (i.e. food, water, etc). Such a world would also have many natural disasters like hurricanes and floods happening as a result of global warming. Such a horrid image could be contrasted to what our world would be like if human beings did make a difference to make the Earth a better place. I think such a world would be very communal where people would grow their own food and share it with those in their community. People would hardly ever use cars, and as a result the highway systems would become massive bike trails. This is a bit of a drastic idea, but it is something that could possibly happen if our processes became sustainable. Whatever the case, it is important to be educated about the state of our planet.

The Impeding Consequences of the World's Rates of Consumption

No one knows what the future entails. That is, it is impossible for anyone to know the events of tomorrow. Even though this is true, people can hypothesize and estimate what the future might look like. Using scientific research and well-designed models, people have been trying to predict the future of the world as best that they can. From the research that they have done, it seems that the future of our planet is looking bleak and devastating.

In today’s society people are consuming more and more. From the United States to Australia, the populations of these countries are using more than a year’s worth of biocapacity. As the Living Planet Report states, “In 2008, the Earth’s total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person, while humanity’s Ecological Footprint was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person. This discrepancy means it would take 1.5 years for the Earth to fully regenerate the renewable resources that people used in one year." The world’s people are using more of the planet’s biocapacity than is available for every person per year. Due to this fact, there is less and less biocapacity available to be used in the future. We are using the world’s resources quicker than it takes for them to be renewed and replenished. If our lifestyles and consumption habits continue as they are then we are going to have some serious issues.

David Orr mentions to his readers of the probable gloom of the future that is hypothesized by today’s scientists: “In our final hour, Cambridge University astronomer Martin Rees concluded that the odds of global civilization surviving to the year 2100 are no better than one in two." As a result of the world’s population consuming more than a year’s worth of biocapacity, it will become even more difficult for the Earth to restore these resources. The effects of this consumption range from climate change to a shortage of freshwater. As stated in the Living Earth Report, “The consequences of excess greenhouse gases that cannot be absorbed by vegetation are already being seen, with rising levels of atmospheric CO2 causing increased global temperatures, climate change and ocean acidification. These impacts in turn place additional stresses on biodiversity and ecosystems and the very resources on which people depend." These serious issues are the consequences of our insatiable appetites. Sadly, we are only experiencing the start of the ecological tribulations.

As stated in our lecture, the countries that are growing the fastest in population (the less developed nations) are also the places growing fastest in consumption rates. If these countries were to consume like Americans, it is predicted that drastic consequences would come a lot sooner. "Consequences would come a lot sooner because if everyone on Earth consumed resources like Americans, the world would require four earths." There is not much that can be done immediately to stabilize the population growth that many of these countries are experiencing. As a result, it is going to be more and more difficult to improve the situation of our planet. As we continue to consume and as the populations of the countries keep increasing, it will be almost impossible for the Earth to naturally regenerate its resources. It is a sad and devastating fact, but if we want humanity to continue to exist we have a lot to do to weaken the consequences of our actions.

          All in all, every citizen on this planet has to come to the realization that our lifestyles are not sustainable. That is, our processes of consuming the world’s resources are so drastic that in some time there will be hardly any resources left. As Professor Smith stated in his lecture, it is time for us to face the facts and get angry. By getting angry and truly understanding the situation of our planet,we can make a difference to fix our planet for the betterment of the future. “We must honestly face the forces we’ve set in motion and look to a farther horizon." There will be no tomorrow if we don’t repair what is wrong today. 

Drastically Different Views on How to Solve the Same Issues

With the issue of sustainability becoming more important, people all over the world are trying to figure out ways to fix the Earth's issues. There are a myriad number of papers that have been written to explain the situation of our world and what people need to do to "develop sustainably" in the future. Two of the most prominent ideas on how to develop sustainably are coined “technological sustainability” and “ecological sustainability.” In their papers, David Orr and John Robinson explain these differing views. Their papers allow, us, the readers to comprehend how drastically different these two methods are in trying to fix/approach the problems of our planet.

“Technological sustainability” is the method of combating the world’s problems with resources by using newly developed tools. As stated in our class, such people don’t think human beings should alter their ways of life. Instead human beings should change the methods of obtaining our needs/wants by creating inventive technical solutions. “Ecological sustainability” is quite the opposite. It is the method of combating the world’s problems with resources by changing the lifestyles of human beings. That is, people who support “ecological sustainability” believe we should solve the issues on scarcity by altering the ways in which people live their lives. We shouldn’t necessarily build new inventions, but instead cut back on the things we use by controlling our wants and needs. These two viewpoints on sustainable development are drastically different, and thus showcase how there are different ways to combat the problems related to sustainable development.

One might wonder why such authors like Orr and Robinson have created this typology. That is, why have these two authors discussed these differing viewpoints on sustainability? I think what they are trying to illustrate is similar to Mr. Boyer’s example between “math” people and “humanities” people. There aren’t only two types of people in our society, but we use the example to show how certain people think differently. Another example could be of the scenario of politics in the United States. We have two major parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. These aren’t the only political ideologies that the American people believe in. We have a whole bunch of people in between these two parties. There are people that are more conservative than Republicans and there are also people that are more liberal than Democrats (Libertarians, Social Democrats as well as Moderates). We use the two political parties to illustrate the drastic differences that exist in people’s personal political ideologies. I think Orr and Robinson do the same when describing sustainable development. Not all people fit into just these two camps of “technological sustainability” and “ecological sustainability", but they exist to showcase the spectrum of ideas that people think and philosophize about sustainability. They use these two extremes to illustrate the different ways people may think about in trying to prepare us for the future. In other words, Orr and Robinson use these two extremes to demonstrate how (just like the contrast between “math” and “humanities people”) different people have drastically different methods/thoughts of fixing the same issue.

Within this spectrum of “technological sustainability” and “ecological sustainability,” there could be many people that are in-between. An example I could think of is a person who uses already existing technologies to develop while also diminishing their insatiable appetite by a little so that they have more humble and simple lives. Such a person wouldn’t change his whole lifestyle and start living in the forests without clothing and modern appliances. Instead they could use less modern appliances and be more appreciative of nature (they could choose to ride a bike to work instead of driving a car). This person also doesn’t need new technologies to develop. Instead they could use existing machines and tools to live (they could choose to fix today’s problems without trying to invent something new to do it with). This isn’t a perfect example, but it is an idea that could exemplify someone who is in-between “technological sustainability” and “ecological sustainability.” Whatever the case and despite the differing views on sustainability, I believe it is important for all human beings to put some thought into the issue of sustainability. 

My First Thoughts on Sustainability

The issue on sustainability is a very interesting and compelling one. It is an issue that is very important to the future of our world and its people. The first time I really thought about sustainability was a couple years back when my family and I were driving through a rural part of Illinois. While we were driving, we passed by a landfill. The landfill was full of garbage. I was disgusted and saddened by this landfill. Seeing this landfill made me realize that there is so much trash in this world. This landfill that I passed was just a hole in the ground full of trash. Such landfills exist all over Illinois as well as in other states. After seeing this landfill, my family and I decided to try to make a difference in our household. We decided to start recycling, set up a compost in our yard, and try to reuse some products (that is, reuse some products instead of throwing them away). Even though my family and I became more “environmentally friendly,” we still had to put some garbage out in our alley to be collected. Not everything that we threw out was recyclable or decomposable. To this day, I still wonder about better ways for people to discard their garbage. I hope that in the future people will be able to think of more innovative and sustainable methods to get rid of trash and garbage.

Even though I have only attended one class so far, I have to say I am already excited to keep learning about the foundations of urban sustainability. I really hope that at the end of this class I will be a more educated and mindful human being. In relation to the story that I talked about above, I would like to learn whether there are better ways to get rid of trash. Not everything that people throw out can be recycled or decomposed, so at the end of the semester I would like to find out if there are other ways of discarding trash other than just throwing things into a landfill. I would also like to learn more about ways in which a regular person like myself can make a difference. I mean my family and I already try to be “environmentally friendly” with our recycling and the compost in our yard, but I would like to know if there is more that I could do to make the world a better place. I truly think if people were educated on sustainability, they would give their time and effort to improve some of the situations in the world. Whatever the case, I am extremely excited for this class and cannot wait to “dive into the waters” of learning about sustainability. Who knows maybe I will pass on the information that I learn in UP 199 to others so that they too can be educated about sustainability.