What's Urban Ecology's stance on gentrification? This word has such a negative connotation but the processes involved in gentrification -- such as the promotion of home ownership and public-private ventures in housing/mixed-use developments -- have gone a long way to revitalize some of the most blighted communities in cities like New York, where I work. How do you approach a development problem where the community vision is at odds with a more market-based development strategy? -- Jean S., New York, N.Y.
Diana Williams,
executive director of Urban Ecology.
Greetings, New York! Alas, there is no silver bullet for gentrification. As you point out, parts of gentrification are good (money!) and parts are bad (displacement). Strategies we recommend include partnerships with community land trusts, ensuring community members have access to banking services that connect them to the financial mainstream (so they can secure loans and capital), and preserving and expanding the supply of affordable housing and home-ownership opportunities. Bottom line: Urban Ecology believes development does not have to price out existing families, merchants, and nonprofits -- especially if anti-displacement efforts begin at the outset of revitalization efforts. The best strategy is to start thinking about this before land values start to really heat up. A great resource on anti-gentrification is PolicyLink, located here in Oakland.
I'm concerned about the way many in the environmental movement continue to feed the Cartesian monster that says, "Cities bad; country good." This only increases the divide between humans and the rest of nature. We decry the fact that the majority of humans live in an urban setting and praise our agrarian roots, which strikes a discord with the ideas of groups like Urban Ecology.
Until we view cities as ecosystems and "nature" as a human construct (as much as "wilderness" and "city"), we in the movement will never understand that cities are important human habitats. What would you say to help foster the idea that livable cities can be part of the solution, to help relieve the pressures of sprawl, for instance? -- Scott Edward Anderson, Philadelphia, Penn.
How are livable cities good for the environment? Look at the numbers. Between 1982 and 1997, the population of metropolitan regions in the United States grew by 17 percent, while the percentage of land those folks used increased by 47 percent! Think bigger yards and four-car garages. Think developments named "Remington Estates" plopped in the middle of greenfields. Think hordes of SUVs toting kids to every single errand, because there are no sidewalks and, if there are, there is nothing to walk to.
A livable city, on the other hand, has stores and jobs nearer to homes, so you can get outside and walk to something. A livable city, bluntly put, packs in more people per acre than a suburb. A lot of folks think of "density" as a bad word, but we think it's a good thing -- as long as it's designed well. Density means you get to see your neighbors more, it means there is a hum to a place. All of this, in turn, is good for the environment -- more efficient use of land, less development on greenfields, and less pollution from constant driving.
I loved your sense of humor (unusual but necessary in these days of doom and gloom). And my question is: What U.S. cities do you feel are in the forefront, or at least not in the rear, for urban development and livable communities? -- Mamatha Gavini, Tampa, Fla.
At the risk of being annoyingly circumspect, my answer is that there is no single city that is most, or least, livable. Some cities are doing some things well, but none are doing everything well. More importantly, livability can be defined many, many ways. It can be about walkability, affordability, local parks, and street trees. It can be about a cool, creative music and arts scene, or about a river walk that replaced a decaying industrial landscape. So lots of cities are doing pieces of these things well; no one is doing it all perfectly.
Example: San Diego has done a great job of fostering distinct neighborhood identities and encouraging pedestrian-oriented development in their downtown. On the other hand, they have a real affordability issue, compounded by the fact that wages there are relatively low (for California, at least).
Now, if you really want a list, here are some choices: Portland, Ore.; Chattanooga, Tenn.; Norfolk, Va.; Delray Beach, Fla. And Tampa -- I had a great Cuban dinner there once. That, too, is part of livability.
Please comment on the value of downtown bike lockers as a bike/pedestrian amenity. Since '96, Rochester, N.Y., has had bike lockers in a dozen city garages and parking lots, but I've rarely seen bike lockers (a very secure coffin-like box, locked with your own lock) in other cities, even though their cost ($500) is funded from the federal gas tax via the TEA-21 Transportation allocation. -- Austin Paulnack, Syracuse, N.Y.
Bike lockers are a great thing. They encourage folks to use their bikes by giving them a safer place to park. Here in Northern California, we are perhaps a bit luckier on this front than other cities. We've got bike lockers on Amtrak trains, at ferry terminals, bus stations, and BART stations. Check out San Francisco's Bicycle Program.
Does Urban Ecology have any plans for expanding into other cities? For instance, have you ever thought of doing a project in Minneapolis, Minn.? If this is too far away, do you have a close collaboration with other groups in other areas that do much of the same work that you are doing, just in other areas? -- Marc Chapman, Minneapolis, Minn.
If that $50 million grant comes through, we'll be in Minneapolis tomorrow. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath. We'd suggest you try the Community Design Center of Minnesota, which is located in your city. Another place might be the Charrette Center Inc., also in your town. Finally, you might check with architecture and planning schools in your area, as they often have projects in which they adopt a neighborhood and work with residents to undertake a community plan.
Urban ecology often seems to suffer second-class citizenship when compared to more "traditional" environmental concerns such as endangered species, wilderness protection, and natural resources, for example. What is your strategy and advice for getting urban ecology a more prominent place at the table? -- David Mizejewski, Arlington, Va.
It's easy to defend critters. They are so cute, so powerless against big, bad developers. And those beautiful hillsides -- so pretty and bare -- who would want to put ugly houses on them, and roads leading up to houses? This is why -- as you point out -- defending urban development, and urban ecology, is difficult. It's just easier to say, "I stand for saving Bambi!" than to say, "I stand for balanced development that offers affordability and access to good jobs and that preserves important open spaces."
I personally believe that being an "environmentalist" comes with a responsibility to also be an "urbanist." Where do the houses, and roads, and people, go, if not on that pretty hillside? Answer: They should go in existing towns and cities, and/or in newly built towns and cities that are designed well and that use land wisely. (This is code for "density.")
So, my strategy is to remind folks that saving open space is only one side of the coin; the other side is where development goes. Environmentalists need to step up to the plate and do a better job of supporting development where it is appropriate if they don't want it where it's inappropriate. (I sound like I'm on my high horse now, huh? Well, I am.)
Before I object outright to your claim that cities "are good for people, and they are good for the environment," I should ask for clarification. Do you mean that cities as they are are good for people and the environment, or that well-planned and -managed cities have the potential to be better for people and the environment than they currently are? Because there have been numerous reports cited in Grist and elsewhere about the terrible health effects that pollution in major cities has on humans, specifically mothers and children, but also on the chemically injured and chemically sensitive. This seems to be at least one case that refutes your assertion, although I'm anxious to hear your point of view. -- Lukas Granger, Bozeman, Mont.
Bozeman, that was a very diplomatic way of asking, "What the hell are you saying!?" So let me clarify. My unarticulated assumption in saying that cities are good for people and that cities are good for the environment is that the alternative to cities is terrible for people AND even worse for the environment. See my answers to several questions above.
A video interview with Bill Moyers
The Yes Men reveal their next big stunt
A video interview with the Yes Men
Comments
View as Flat