Living closer to where you work will do more to fight climate change than buying a Prius and living in the 'burbs. We'll never beat climate change until we change the way we structure our communities.
That is the conclusion of a new report out from the Urban Land Institute:
The report, "Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change," analyzed scores of academic studies and concluded that compact development -- mixing housing and businesses in denser patterns, with walkable neighborhoods -- could do as much to lower emissions as many of the climate policies now promoted by state and national politicians.
It's great to see this important front in the battle on global warming getting more exposure.
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 6:17 am
22 Sep 2007
Now if we could just cut back on livestock -- hey, sounds like land use is the hot topic! (no pun intended)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:19 am
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:49 am
22 Sep 2007
As to New Urbanism, it is a wonderful concept although what troubles me is that many of those downtown units are priced so high only a few can afford them - those "yuppie lofts" and stuff like that. As long as there is a fairly constant 2-3 percent growth in population, people will head out into new suburban frontiers. That's a scary thought, and I doubt New Urbanism works really good unless it is done in areas having low or negative growth. However, economics and the housing slump might fix some of that ...
-sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:57 am
22 Sep 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Don Chen Posted 7:37 am
22 Sep 2007
The problem is that New Urbanist developments are often hard to build because existing subdivision regulations and other land use rules dictate that low-density sprawling neighborhoods be built. So it's illegal to build in the New Urban way, unless an enterprising developer is willing to go through the time-consuming and costly rigmarole to get special approvals and variances. Today's rules were written during the mid-20th Century, when we were trying to make room for a country full of families with kids (in 1960, about half of our households had kids). Now we've got aging Boomers and empty nesters, Gen Xers who aren't as crazy about the 'burbs, and lots of one-person households. Only about one-third of households have children, and the percentage is declining.
We ought to make the rules of development more flexible to allow for more compact neighborhoods. That would make a lot more American homebuyers happier.
Our nation is growing. As we build to accommodate newcomers, we ought to make both the houses and the neighborhoods greener.
Permalink
Darrell Posted 3:52 pm
22 Sep 2007
Too often I'm seeing big boring residential boxes only accessed by car. At best they may reduce car commuting distances; at worst their increased traffic and poor design can create a backlash by neighbors against higher-density development.
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 5:24 pm
22 Sep 2007
That is a sloppy, unsubstantiated claim. New Urbanist developments have thrived in high-growth areas, such as Raleigh-Durham, parts of California, outside of D.C., and so forth.
I'll take the "what Don Chen said" route as a reply to the affordability part of your comment. It's true most zoning and other municipal regulations prohibit New Urbanist developments, but the New Urbanists have proactively sought to replace obsolete codes with those of their own design.
Not that I don't have qualms with NU. Its roots are primarily in architecture and urban design, and only some environmental connections are a priori. There are more and less eco-friendly NU developments; it depends on several dimensions such as brownfield/greenfield, nonporous/porous pavement, natural features, transit-oriented (almost all have at least some transit connection), etc.
Permalink
railfan Posted 11:57 pm
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 12:08 am
23 Sep 2007
Design will be an integral part of building sustainable alternatives. We suffer with terribly fatal designs at all levels of our communal and technological order.
The entrenched interests in maintaining the current track of sprawl have their grips firmly on the wheel and will not be easily wrested of control. These interests have big money from investors and from our tax dollars steering the system. This can only be maintained if they can keep the political system corrupted in Washington and in the state capitals (I own this land here and I'd like to see an interchange built near it.)
Our broken democracy is not working in our favor. I see a lot of apathy in people, including myself, getting more involved to fix it.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:58 am
23 Sep 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:39 am
23 Sep 2007
Remember, suburban land doesn't exist until you have vast rural acreage of perhaps 500 acres to develop with roads, houses, and businesses. Check with the first four suburban developments, the most famous being Levittown, Long Island - they built on potato fields and no, you didn't get a basement. This was like 1948 or so.
Nothing has really changed, since nobody is going to stop them operating in rural areas. But perhaps I have a jaundiced view...
Onward through the fog
Permalink