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.