Six in the city

Vancouver family does it up right. 2

Six kids, to be exact.

The Vancouver Courier profiles the Spino family -- 2 parents and 6 kids who live in a 3-bedroom condo in downtown Vancouver. It's an interesting read, as well as a good reminder that, for some families, downtown living makes a lot of sense. Says the pater familias:

"I don't see the need for having rooms in houses that you don't use. I don't see why you have two spare bedrooms for visitors that you just use to store boxes. I don't think that's efficient. I don't think that's a responsible way to live...You don't need that space. You don't need skis in the garage or a snowmobile somewhere and stuff in the attic-all that consumerism collecting. I don't think we're occupying a lot of space here. This high-density living is good for the city. It's good for the environment. It's good for the children-it's a fantastic way to live."

Good stuff.

I'm really not sure why city living doesn't have a better reputation among enviros. I mean, it seems like one of the best things you can do for the planet is to move to a place where a) you don't have to drive much, b) your physical footprint is small c) your living space is small enough that it doesn't take much to heat, cool, or light, and d) you don't have the space to store -- and not much incentive to buy -- a bunch of crap. I mean, the Spinos have six kids -- but they probably use a lot less energy, and have less impact on the climate, than my family of 2 adults and 2 kids in a single-family detached home.

Still, it seems like a common instinct is that to live green, you have to surround yourself with a lot of greenery. And sure, a back-to-the-land impulse is fine, as far as it goes; but if it means 5-acre lots and plenty of driving, then I'd guess that city dwellers are probably the ones living lighter on the earth.

And one thing that the article doesn't mention is that, because the Spinos probably drive less, and walk more, than most comparable suburban families, their neighborhood could actually be good for their health. Residents of compact, transit- and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods tend to suffer fewer fatal car crashes (the leading killer of children!), walk more for transportation, and have lower rates of obesity than folks in sprawling suburbs. One juicy stat: downtown Vancouver has lowest risk of fatal car crashes of any part of B.C., with a fatal car crash rate that's about one-third the province-wide average.

Clark Williams-Derry is research director for the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, a nonprofit sustainability think tank working to promote smart solutions for the Pacific Northwest. He was formerly the webmaster for Grist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. mdraheim Posted 10:35 am
    16 Jun 2006

    Green citiesThank you! I've been happy to see a lot of environmental folks coming around to the idea that cities are, or at least can be, green. I'm a city girl born and raised, so this is very gratifying to me. Walking down the block to the metro to go to work sure beats sitting in a car in traffic every morning! I live in DC where, according to a new study, 11% of our residents walk to work--the highest in the nation. Now, we certainly aren't perfect here, but that says a lot, especially when compared to our suburbs--Northern Virginia has some of the worst sprawl I've ever been unfortunate enough to witness.
    In any case, it's important that we all continue to find ways to make our cities greener, both here and internationally. It's really in all of our best interests to make our cities more livable, so that more people willingly live in them with a lower footprint. With over half of the world's population now residing in cities, maybe the time for the green city has finally come!
  2. atreyger Posted 6:17 am
    17 Jun 2006

    The problem (in my opinion)I believe that huge cities (a la NYC, and definitely not LA) are not the answer. I do believe that compact living is, but a typical urban dweller is much too far removed from nature to actually care about it, and thus creates a mentality problem. There's something about being a child and walking through woods on the weekends, being able to cross-country ski for a gym class, and smelling manure and tasting unpasturized milk (as nasty as it was) that sets a precedent for the way one thinks.
    Smaller cities and towns that are designed smarter among forests, fields, and farms (an important point also) with a well-developed network of transit are a good way to go. Farms are inherent to food production and if more people worked on these, US overdevelopment problems would be much lower.
    Delivery of food (and subsequent waste of it by people who are completely unaware of how it got there) to large places like NYC are a major part of the problem besides the immediate footprint of the dwelling and ability to use mass-transit.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement