The 15 most sustainable U.S. cities 28

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Winfield Posted 9:09 am
   17 Jul 2009

   LA & Dallas? That is absurd. The bar is set pitifully low. I have lost respect for NDRC.

   Permalink

2. 

   thricejamie Posted 10:04 am
   17 Jul 2009

   I went and checked out the rankings on the NRDC site a bit more, curious where Tacoma would end up on the mid-sized city rankings.  Now, maybe it's my civic pride getting the best of me, but their ranking of 54th (out of 176) and the specifics of the ranking suggests to me that the NRDC really didn't do a lot of research for this thing.  The one high ranking area for Tacoma is air quaility...which I would have expected it to fare the lowest in.  But then despite respectable bus service and a really nice downtown streetcar, it ranked low for transportation.  Other unexpected low scores came in recycling, energy sources, and water sources, where I think Tacoma could pretty much go head to head with Seattle.  Just by going with what I know, examining this specific scoring calls pretty much the whole ranking into question.  Seems they may have been going off of reputation alone...

   Permalink

3. 

   mdraheim Posted 10:04 am
   17 Jul 2009

   I'm surprised that the criteria NRDC seems to be using is so, well, shabby. As previous commenters notes: LA? Dallas? Please. By that criteria, Washington DC should be way up on the list. We too have a new bike sharing program and are actively increasing bike lanes (one of the cited features of several of these cities), we have a campaign to dramatically increase the urban tree canopy (which in many parts of the city is already very dense), a great system of parks (including the most urban National Park in the country), a city government that is enacting new progressive laws all the time (most recently a tax on plastic bags, but also addressing green building and of course renewable energy), newish combined recycling program which has upped the amount of recycled trash, a great public transit system, one of the highest percentages of residents who walk to work in the country, are an incredibly walkable city, a huge network of farmers markets...and I could go on and on. Of course, there are sections of the city that are lagging behind, and like other cities we have plenty of social problems. But if the likes of LA and Dallas are up there, we more than deserve a place, too. It's too bad NRDC isn't giving props where props are due.

   Permalink

4. 

   gristy218 Posted 10:13 am
   17 Jul 2009

   I think it's great for Seattle for being #1 in the U.S.  but what about our global community?  I wonder how we stand up to cities around the world.   That's where it's at now.   We need global stats to raise the bar.... 

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 10:57 am
   17 Jul 2009

   This isn't a sustainability ratings, it's a "policies-that-are-greenish" index.  NYC is easily the most sustainable city because of it's subway -- a world in which all energy comes from renewable electricity would be a piece of cake for NYC.  Somewhat the same for Chicago -- with some work -- and SF and Portland would be doing OK, although Seattle has a long way to go.  They need to have real indices for sustainability in energy -- which I believe NYC is good in also, as they use a lot of the Niagra Falls electricity -- and sustainability in transportation, then maybe sustainability in ag (although probably noone is good in that one) and  housing.  But at least give transportation its due, and make it an index about the physical assets, as well as  policy initiatives.

   Permalink

6. 

   EcoFriendly8 Posted 1:31 pm
   17 Jul 2009

   I'm glad San Francisco made the list but that's no surprise. When I was there several months during my stay in the US it struck me as very european-like, not the typical american city. And that was partly due to the eco-friendliness. I also noticed the vast organic food sector in SF which is a great asset and reflects the nature-consciousness of the citizens.

   Permalink

7. 

   RecycleYogi Posted 4:03 pm
   17 Jul 2009

   Any top anything list always seems totally bogus unless they post the criteria and points associated with each category and how each on the list scored. After living in and visiting most of the cities on the list, I highly disagree with it. Here's the criteria I'd use:1. City recycling program (not just for residents, but for public and private events, community spaces, etc.)2. Growth boundaries and/or density initiatives (less sprawl means less mass transit)3. Local food network (organic, local dairy, meat and produce farms)4. LEED buildings and/or sustainable building (how many of these cities have made a commitment to work with local contractors to make sure more sustainable features are going into each new building or home)?5. Water Management 6. Renewable Energy7. Open Spaces (parks, community areas)8. Mass Transit (since most of our cities are endless sprawl)9. City initiatives (our city and county offices encourage employees not to print, only use recycled paper, mandate double-sided printers to save paper, and have multiple programs and awards for individuals and businesses increasing true sustainability - not just increasing the talk)10. Businesses built around sustainable products or services (not only businesses with sustainable practices, but businesses that exist to provide sustainability services - take any of the categories listed previously)Add your criteria!

   Permalink

8. 

   pmcrandle Posted 8:59 am
   18 Jul 2009

   Thank you for your comments; we are grateful to Grist for providing this forum for discussion of Smarter Cities.  As background, this year's Smarter Cities report has been conducted independently of NRDC for four years and only recently found hosting at the NRDC website.  In preparation for future research rounds, we are working closely with NRDC's experts to improve our data sources and methodology. We welcome your comments.
   
   Last year was the first year we considered cities with populations below 100,000, which added over 400 cities to our list but presented a problem in locating comprehensive data sources that included them.  Regarding transportation, we looked specifically at the American Public Transportation Association ridership figures, but because they covered only a portion of the cities we considered, we chose not to weigh them so heavily that the majority of cities lacking them would be unfairly penalized.  Instead, we gave more weight to a survey response asking about the types of transportation options available (including bicycle paths, bicycle sharing programs, bus systems, carpool lanes, car sharing, dedicated bicycle lanes, light rail, sidewalks/trails, subways and trolleys). As we prepare for this year’s report, we are revising the data sources and weighting in consultation with NRDC experts and are specifically considering VMT/capita, modal share and walkability.
   
   On the question regarding our scoring and criteria, please see “How We Scored Cities” and “Data Sources and Point System” at Scoring/Criteria.  We appreciate the suggestions for criteria and are working on incorporating green businesses and food networks for our next year’s ranking, as well as a much expanded section on sprawl.
   
   While much of our data was derived from the EPA, the Census, the DOE and other comprehensive sources, survey responses did have a significant result on scores in several criteria, as noted in the Data Sources section. While our survey response rate was a fairly high 24.3%, we want to push for much higher response rates in the years to come. As a result, some cities such as Tacoma, received lower scores in certain criteria due to a lack of data. For air quality, we used the first EPA’s median Air Quality Index (AQI) from the first quarter of 2008; next year, we will consider the median AQI for an entire year.
   
   In general, we don’t intend this ranking to be an end in itself but a work-in-progress to identify and spotlight the dozens of cities that are implementing programs to make their towns more efficient, cleaner, more just and more livable, and to get citizens involved in greening their cities and towns. We understand that the research and ranking needs to be improved, but our ultimate aim is to encourage all cities and to engage citizens everywhere in actions that will bring about positive change. In that effort, we invite your participation and would like to hear your thoughts, criticisms and suggestions by emailing us at "smartercities" at "nrdc.org."
   Paul McRandle
   Consulting Senior Editor
   Smarter Cities
   NRDC  

   Permalink

   1. 

      RecycleYogi Posted 3:48 pm
      18 Jul 2009

      Thanks for the info and direct links to Scoring/Criteria.While I do get a good chuckle out of some of the cities on the list, I'm trying to keep in mind that at least they all are doing something, even if it's swinging the pendulum back towards the middle after decades of poor decision making. Good luck finding more data, it can be a challenge!

      Permalink

   2. 

      Jon Rynn Posted 12:04 pm
      20 Jul 2009

      Thanks for the clarifications.  I still find this sort quote from the criteria page sort of strange, though: One result that may surprise readers is Los Angeles' high rank. Due to the weighting of transportation options, Los Angeles scored well, even higher than New York (by a fraction of a point) though both have made many of the same public transportation choicesI guess there are inherent problems with weighted scoring.  I mean, vehicle miles traveled in cars, or some such, would give NYC a huge advantage over LA -- we keep hearing about how a particular conservation measure would result in "x amount of cars taken off the roads", when in fact NYC actually effectively takes cars off the roads.  So I would think that that would have a much bigger weight, then, say, a few more bike paths (not that there's anything wrong with that -- a truly effective bike system maybe, but no American city has that).

      Permalink

9. 

   guade00 Posted 10:46 am
   18 Jul 2009

   Yup. LA, Dallas, Denver, and San Jose on any top "Greenest City" list means we are in a whole lot of ecological hurt!

   Permalink

10. 

    PaperStreetsoapCo Posted 2:06 pm
    18 Jul 2009

    this article is a joke, right?there is no such thing as a sustainable city.  a city is a sedentary population which relies on extraction of resources from foreign areas all while exporting waste, pollution, and violence (in terms of market manipulation and resouce extraction - oil, for instance).    

    Permalink

11. 

    Delay And Deny Posted 9:48 pm
    18 Jul 2009

    The whole state of Washington, especially Seattle, is propped up by infusions from the Federal Government...it's completely reliant on Defense spending and other largesse.Yeah, it's sustainable, as long as hard working people in New York City are willing to pay taxes to layabouts in Wallingford clothing stores.

    Permalink

    1. 

       steve7138 Posted 10:04 am
       21 Jul 2009

       I can tell you this, from experiences working there [I grew up west of the Mississippi]--People in NYC do not work hard [epicenter of global financial crisis] and they could care less [have no human feelings] about preserving the environment for the rest of the United States-They are culturally indifferent/unschooled about America beyond Manhattan, and probably could not even find Washington State on a map--they would resort to use a GPS instead.

       Permalink

12. 

    jamespauldillon Posted 10:35 pm
    19 Jul 2009

    San Jose? The forgotten component of sustainability is historical preservation: What’s there to preserve in Silicon Valley besides the way it ate up the Bay Area with sprawl and brought congested freeways over once-pastoral countryside? (Check my blog entry on this list at http://www.downtoearthnw.com/blogs/down-earth/2009/jul/17/15-most-sustainable-cities-really/ )

    Permalink

13. 

    ejd Posted 2:22 pm
    20 Jul 2009

     NRDC did not do a very good job with their “sustainable city” rankings.  For Columbus, Ohio to beat Cleveland, Ohio, for example, shows that there is a real problem with the criteria.  In 2008, Sustain Lane ranked Cleveland, Ohio as the 16th most sustainable city and Columbus 30th, and with good reason.  Cleveland’s sustainability movement is nearly a decade older and more advanced than Columbus’.   Unlike Columbus, Cleveland has a rail transit system (one of NRDC’s own criteria), Columbus does not.  Cleveland was the first city in the country to connect its downtown with its airport with rail transit (way back in 1967).   In December 2008, Cleveland inaugurated an express bus line along Euclid Avenue, one of the city’s major streets.  Euclid was reconstructed as a “complete street” to encourage bicycling, and   pedestrian use.  The bus line utilizes a fleet of hybrid buses.  Columbus has no comparable transit project.  Cleveland’s transit system allowed bikes on buses before Columbus’ did.   Cleveland’s green building movement is several years older than Columbus’.  An interesting factoid:  the person who started the Cleveland Green Building Coalition was Sadhu Johnston, who several years ago was hired by the City of Chicago to be their Sustainability Director.   Mayor Daley came to Cleveland to see what was going on here with sustainability before launching his sustainability initiatives in Chicago.  I mention this because it shows the level the sustainability movement had arisen to several years ago in Cleveland.   In 2008, Cleveland was ranked #2 in the nation for local food by Sustain Lane and is way ahead of Columbus with urban gardens and urban farming.  Just a few months ago, the Cleveland City Council passed an ordinance allowing residents to raise chickens.    A local, carbon offset fund that will fund energy efficiency and alternative energy projects (renewable, combined heat and power, etc) was just launched in Cleveland within the past several months.  Columbus does not have such a fund.    The City of Cleveland has had a sustainability manager since 2005, Columbus does not yet have one.    The county government (Cuyahoga County) has a director of sustainability programs.  The county government in the Columbus (Franklin County) does not.  Cuyahoga County has a comprehensive vision and plan for sustainable re-development of the Cuyahoga River Valley (The Cuyahoga Valley Initiative).  Franklin County has no comparable plan.    Cuyahoga County has had one of the top metroparks systems in North America for many, many years.  The system has been expanded in recent years with new parks.    Cuyahoga County has begun implementing an aggressive Green Space Initiative to double existing green space in the county.  The County also has an actively growing network of bikeways.    The Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railway, which runs through Cuyahoga Valley National Park to Akron and Canton will soon be expanded to downtown Cleveland where it will connect with the Cleveland’s transit system.  Columbus has no comparable rail transportation project that is so close to completion.   Cleveland has a very active and growing sustainability movement in the business community being lead by the local non-profit: Entrepreneurs for Sustainability (www.e4s.org). E4S has been so successful in Cleveland that within the past year, it expanded to the Akron area.   Several businesses in the city are leaders in the sustainability movement.  Cleveland has a local car-sharing company called City Wheels.  Columbus does not.   The Cleveland Ecovillage Project is an ongoing project to sustainably re-development  redevelop a neighborhood around one of the city’s rail transit stations.   I could go on, but I think I’ve clearly made my point…Again, I appreciate NRDC’s efforts, but I believe Sustain Lane’s city sustainability rankings are much more accurate. 

    Permalink

14. 

    Catmoves Posted 8:48 am
    21 Jul 2009

    "A liberal outpost in red Texas...." and this means what?Senior Editors need to scan very carefully when apprentice writers are at work. There are other faux pas, but such a prime example needs to be recalled.

    Permalink

15. 

    ilenviro Posted 9:39 am
    21 Jul 2009

    I just don't get it.   Why do the mainstream environmental groups have this infatuation thing with Chicago's Mayor Daley?   For years, the mayor blustered on and on about the success of his blue bag recycling program.  After an ongoing investigation by a local newspaper and recycling activists, the program turned out to be bogus.   The mayor has yet to come up with a decent alternative.   The vast majority of households in the city are not being served with a convenient and accessible recycling program.   This should be a top priority for environmentalists before any more accolades are given to the mayor.   It would certainly help reduce the city's carbon footprint. 

    Permalink

16. 

    steve7138 Posted 9:59 am
    21 Jul 2009

    NYC, LA, Chicago and Dallas cannot accurately be called "sustainable"--They have SEVERE ecological problems and often take a backwards approach to preserving the environment and thus need to be striked from this list. This list becomes a joke with these four included.I'm pretty sure whoever compiled this list performed biased, unscientific research, or must be from one of these four cities.  

    Permalink

17. 

    steve7138 Posted 10:14 am
    21 Jul 2009

     

    Permalink

18. 

    sassafrasgreen Posted 10:18 am
    21 Jul 2009

    No city is sustainable without an adequate local water supply.

    Permalink

19. 

    dniall Posted 9:22 am
    22 Jul 2009

    A better headline would be "The 15 Least Unsustainable U.S. Cities"

    Permalink

20. 

    dniall Posted 9:23 am
    22 Jul 2009

    A better headline would be "The 15 Least Unsustainable U.S. Cities"

    Permalink

21. 

    JodiSummers Posted 12:15 am
    23 Jul 2009

    THE LOS ANGELES CLEAN TECH CORRIDOR WILL MAKE L.A. THE LEADER IN GREEN TECHNOLOGY
    
    Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA) hope to transform L.A. into ‘the global capital of clean technology.” The goal is to transform the manufacturing corridor east of downtown into the center of green innovation. The mayor and his team are marketing this industrial parcel, dubbed the CleanTech Manufacturing Center, as a green business incubator, the way Silicon Valley hatched technology.
    
    http://www.socalgreenrealestateblog.com/?p=522
    
    Best….Jodi Summers
    
    The SoCal Investment Real Estate Group
    
    Sotheby’s International Realty
    
    (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    
    //
    var l=new Array();
    
    var output = '';
    
    l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[25]='\"';l[26]=' 109';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 99';l[29]=' 46';l[30]=' 115';l[31]=' 114';l[32]=' 101';l[33]=' 109';l[34]=' 109';l[35]=' 117';l[36]=' 115';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 100';l[39]=' 111';l[40]=' 106';l[41]=' 64';l[42]=' 105';l[43]=' 100';l[44]=' 111';l[45]=' 106';l[46]=':';l[47]='o';l[48]='t';l[49]='l';l[50]='i';l[51]='a';l[52]='m';l[53]='\"';l[54]='=';l[55]='f';l[56]='e';l[57]='r';l[58]='h';l[59]='a ';l[60]='

    Permalink

22. 

    Burglar Posted 9:04 am
    23 Jul 2009

    "reliance on hydroelectricity (and the resulting good air quality)"Uhh, anyone who thinks hydroelectric power is sustainable needs to do their homework. Sure the Pacific Northwest is ahead of the game when it comes to sustainability, but the bar is set so low I'm not sure how good a metric that is.

    Permalink

23. 

    Username Posted 8:33 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    Nice Article!

    Permalink