Green Metropolis- David Owens

I saw a review on this a couple months ago and got it stuck in my head; it's a pretty easy and informative read. New Yorker writer David Owens makes a great argument in his recent book, Green Metropolis. Using New York City as his main example, he explains why such a city can provide a model for the most sustainable way of living. Even better, he explains whats wrong with many incentives and encouragements Americans are given to do their part in climate change, and what really needs to be considered for us to make an actual change.

It takes only common sense to see why- people lived stacked on top of one another (in Manhattan 67,000 residents occupy 1 square mile of space); shops, grocery stores, schools, banks, doctor office, post offices, and so on are located right beneath, in between, and completely spread out through residences; everything needed is within walking or subway distance. The thought of even owning a car in the city horrifies New Yorkers.

Zoning regulations began in 1916 with New York City and focused on spreading people out into undeveloped land. Residential areas and commercial buildings were separated completely, building heights were limited, the creation of parking lots emerged; these new zoning regulations meant that owning a car was a not a choice, but a necessity to live in these areas. The outward expansion only continued because as long as their is space, there is something to be added. "Automobiles have enables us to create a way of life that cannot be sustainable without automobiles." Some cities, too, have ecological problems. In Washington DC, buildings are placed far apart, avenues are wide, parking spaces are ample, and in many parts, public buildings are homogenously spaced, discouraging public transportation use and making walking difficult.

Environmental organizations often send out inaccurate messages of sustainability, and worse, many have set examples themselves that are thought to be green, but in actuality are far from it. The Sierra Club was created in 1892 and its recent national campaign, Challenge to Sprawl, encourages people away from toxic cities and into areas of fresh air and wilderness. Ironically, it has only added to sprawl by constructing "disconnected residential developments and daily hundred-mile commutes" (as well as increasing sales of "off-road" SUVs and pickup trucks for those nature lovers to get into the great outdoors... yet only 6% of SUV owners actually use the 4-wheel drive). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, has raised awareness of greener construction, but its incentive for architects and designers to build more environmentally friendly buildings in questionable. For example, the headquarters of Spring Nextel Corporation in Kansas was praised and given certification by LEED as being environmentally friendly. It's obvious to see why... the 15,000 employees are dispersed among more than twenty low rise buildlings of four milllion square feet of office space, there are fifteen multistory parking garages, and it was built on former farmland more than 40 miles from Kansas City... but, it has green features like bicycles to get from one building to another and trees planted throughout the campus. Projects such as these boast fancy features and green incentives, but are often placed in non-dense locations and occupy large amounts of space over a campus of buildings.

Individual ideas on sustainable living are also skewed. Hybrid cars create an instance where they are only truly energy efficient if they are stuck in traffic (in which case the petroleum-powered engine turns off and an electric switches on); on highways, the carbon output is that of a normal car. The more practical move would be to switch from cars to public transportation. Carpool lanes on highways only create more room for individual drivers, and most who use the carpool lanes are those who would be more two or more anyway. What is needed is congestion and higher fees for drivers to pay, but traffic planners look for ways of helping traffic flow not the opposite, which just encourages the use of cars. Buying local produce at farmers markets also may not be as green as people make think; what needs to be considered is how it is grown, how it got to its stand, and what else it was traveling with. For example, buying raspberries from a supermarket means that they crossed the country with a truckload of other produce, making a minute expenditure of fuel per berry, whereas the berries in a local market have a much higher carbon output per berry. Even additions to make a more sustainable house are misleading. Solar panel plates are only truly effective if they are placed in areas where there is direct and constant sunlight, and when the highest sunlight hours coincide with the hours of high activity in the home. High performance windows have gained environmental reputation of efficiency, but are unnecessary (and unreasonably expensive) with proper insulation and measures of sealing gaps and air leaks, using window coverings, and other simple temperature control tricks. Many efforts at having people live more sustainably create perceptions that we need to add luxury enhancements to our lives, whereas the more effective and simple solutions are subtracting what we have and use, and using common sense (and these notions are boring).

These are only a few ideas Owens points out. He provides many references, figures, and well structures arguments for the nation's need to alter its approach to creating a greener future, and to use cities such as New York as a model. It makes you take a closer and more realistic look into the ideas of sustainability being projected to us as beneficial. (And gives New York City much deserved credit!) A really great read.