41 comments on Mayor Bloomberg's Green Push
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
41 comments on Mayor Bloomberg's Green Push
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
there is nothing sustainable about NYC. Everything is shipped in now by train, truck, car, or barge. There is little industry, no agriculture. Once the city was ringed by the most productive farms in the world. Now that has been paved over by suburbia. Food is shipped from around the world and there is no chance of reversing this in any meaningful way.
There is absolutely no recycling. Discharges of all kind (industrial and metabolic) are carted away for processing or disposal.
The only thing worse is modern suburbia.
Please tell us what your alternative is.
If there is no food in the grocery stores, nobody will have to be forced out of the city into the country, they'll be headed that way quite on their own. Where I'm sure they'll be greeted warmly by their country cousins. Or not...
and there probably is no alternative.
You are quite right about the first part about what they will do without food on the shelves, but I'm not sure about the warm greetings... :)
I'm not a doomer though. I don't think it will be so dramatic as you see it. I see things happening a lot slower and more insidiously - slowly sapping our national economy and leading to a fall in the average standard of living. This is something very preventable with the right policies pursued at all levels of government and in the business sector.
Yes the dense urban form is more efficient than the maniacally wasteful suburban paradigm. However these are not the only "modern living" alternatives, in spite of their familiarity (especially for one with a NYC parochrial bias) Small towns on waterways, larges town on larges lakes, small cities on seacoasts, large cities on large rivers, are all more sustainable variations if they are ringed with closed-loop local agriculture and industrial systems.
Given our lack of imagination and political will, and our corrupt financial system I don't see necessary changes occuring in time for PO decline. It would take monumental government resources and probably some type of central planning to reverse our titanic now.
There is nothing extraordinary the major or NYC residents can do to change consumption patterns that folks in anywhere in the country can not. Every American should seal up and insulate their windows, change their lightbulbs, walk to the farmers market (if you can afford it) etc. etc.
The City already has an envious mass transit system because it did it's job 100 years ago. We don't need Bloomberg to remind us of this. We need Bush to do so, and then the American people and the US government to make electrification of transport a priority.
so, who started the divisive comments?
I was applauding a step in the right direction - you just made fun of it without offering up your own vision.
Now, small towns near lakes, rivers and on seacoasts could be great if they can wean themselves of automobiles and truly relocalize (which seems a little far off right now). A detached house, a personal automobile in the driveway big box stores and single use zoning is more indicative of small town America than multi-unit housing, walkable mixed use downtown areas.
But right now we have a model that is already more efficient and still has a lot that it can do to become more efficient: Highly dense urban centers.
And considering we have 300 million people, we are going to need large cities - indeed, I think we will see greater density and urbanization in the future instead of sprawl or small self-sufficient regional communities.
It feels as if it were an election year campaign to drag greens over to the establishment. NYC is 1 million educated well-intentioned inner-core achievers surrounded by 7 million struggling lower-middle class citizens who can at best invest in a few fluorescent or halogen light bulbs. NYC is also the other 20 million suburbanites who take culture from the core and return a little in business and sales taxes. How will Bloomberg's proposal make a differene to those 27 million?
pete
How do 1 million people in the middle of the city make a difference to the 27 million others?
All the million in the center need to do is exercise their consumer might (collectively through the city's regulatory policies) and create new markets that spur competition over sustainable goods and services. And reclaim their highways, streets and neighborhoods from traffic coming from the other 27 million.
You want our consumer dollars? Earn it by following our regulations on good environmental practices. If you don't want to follow our regulations, then go find work somewhere else. 10 others are waiting in your place.
You want access to our high paying jobs, our cultural institutions, our unique shops? Then please don't drive here - but if you do, be prepared to pay through the nose for congestion pricing or you will squander hours in traffic.
You want a good paying blue collar jobs with union benefits? Join the transit workers, become a park ranger, help construct new green buildings,
Are you on a limited budget in the city? Stop wasting energy, sell the car, support denser mixed use neighborhood zoning.
Large in the low millions though (without checking, largest city in the world in 1890-- London? perhaps 4 million people). And with very messy coal, hence the nickname 'the Smoke'.
The sort of Mexico Cities of the world now seem unimaginable without cheap transport. But you could argue they use relatively little oil.
It's actually the suburbs of New York which must be the really energy intensive bit-- spread out from hither to yon in large houses. New York's population isn't, I don't imagine, higher than it was in 1930-- it's just its geographic area is several times as large (counting the commuter belt).
Perhaps a greater threat is a more prosaic one. I saw a projection of the scale of storms NYC might face by mid century (I'm not talking Al Gore's global melting slides, just extrapolations from rising surface temperatures).
The gist of the article was that lower Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn would likely face very major floodings on a regular basis. And a flood of lower Manhattan, for example, could do $50bn of damage.
The article was about whether to build storm barriers, like our Thames tidal barriers, across the East River and the Hudson. (the Thames Barrier closes when the water surges--
http://www.esemag.com/0998/barrier.html )
The problem being that this would be expensive ($20bn or so I think was the number) and it would be an admission that some parts of the City could just not be protected. Which makes it politically almost infeasible.
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/posters/Hall_Jim.pdf#search=%22jim%20hall%20thames%20barrier%20floo d%20global%20warming%22
the above on the situation in London
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/493_HotNY.pdf#search=%22flood%20defence%20new%20york%2 0city%20global%20warming%22
p17 has a (not easy to read) NYC map-- not as bad as the piece I remember seeing, particularly wrt Manhattan.
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/8_28_99/bob1.htm
same map in colour (a bit easier to read but smaller).
The Lower Garden District of New Orleans. Mid-rise construction (2 to 4 with occasional 1 story construction), narrow one-way streets with parking on both sides (St. Andrew is 28' wide, some are 24' wide).
My side of the street has (corner) 4 apartments, 6 apartments, 8 apartments, (corner) 4 apartments. SFRs around the corner.
Other side of street (before entire block burned down in Katrina) was (corner) 11 apartments, 7 apartments, SFR, 8 apartments. My block is a bit higher density than most of the Lower Garden. Perhaps 1/3rd are SFR or duplexes.
Narrow streets save space for people, allow higher density and shorten walking distances.
I am 2.5 blocks from the St. Charles streetcar. I can buy food in 5 places within 6 blocks (including Walmart), my tailor is within 4 blocks, as was my insurance agent. Banks within 3 blocks, also dry cleaners. More people walking by late at night than Manhatten, I know my neighbors.
Greenery abounds, we have a very nice Coliseum Square Park within 4 blocks. Public tennis & basketball courts (once the FEMA trailers move) 5 blocks away.
Two world class restaurants within walking distance and dozens on the streetcar line. Many just very good places to eat as well :-) And bars abound !!
5 miles of unique shops on Magazine Street, just 2 blocks away.
The tallest building in town (One Shell Square, 51 stories) is in between the streetcar tracks and 1 mile away. The French Quarter is 1.25 miles away as is the Superdome.
More here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1026/is_4_159/ai_73410729
I would argue that our model is a more livable and enjoyable than NYC and from a
perspective we are better as well.
No elevators for example :-)
Best Hopes & Respectfully,
Alan
Please bear in mind that most of NYC's population is in Brooklyn (3m) and Queens (2m) (not Manhattan) which sounds closer to your description of 3-6 story density and neighborhood shops. It would be great to get more trolleys at streetlevel in Brooklyn and Queens.
It would be interesting to do a direct comparison of the land use/energy/water/carbon output per person. It's good that there is so much available within walking distance, but how many drive their car for commuting, grocery shopping, etc. Brooklyn and Queens are still very energy efficient by any standard, but they do have much higher rates of car ownership.
New Orleans and New York were in a statistical tie for fewest miles driven by residents/capita (excluding suburbanites driving inside both of our cities).
We have/had post-WW II suburbs in New Orleans East, Lakeview and south Algiers, with quite high rates of driving. I use 6 gallons/month in Lower Garden. Lower Garden District may have had the lowest rate of driving for the reasons noted. That is, we are the "Manhatten" of car use. The Warehouse District, French Quarter (Lindsey Boggs* lives on Bourbon Street, quite a lady at 90 !), Marigny, Treme and Garden District also have quite low rates of car use. Perhaps 10% to 15% of the population lived in those areas.
And half the population (guess) lived in higher but still moderate levels of auto use; Uptown, Central City, Mid-City, Gentilly, Broadmoor, Algiers.
My point is that 1-3 (rare 4) story levels of construction with large amounts of trees & green & parks (Garden District) is a quite acceptable alternative for low energy et al use IF done properly, as it was in 1830's New Orleans. Narrow streets are one of several keys IMHO.
Someone asked for an alternative. I gave one, a better one IMO :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
200 years ago, Fairfield County, Connecticut, was onion farms. You grow onions in marginally useful farmlands that can't grow much else.
A little human ingenuity goes a long way when it comes to keep from starving. I think depaving a lot of unnecessary suburban roads might be easier than you think when all of a sudden people realize it's more valuable for agriculture.
That's true except for all the recycling -- from the folks who make their livings off of harvesting the 5-cent redemption to businesses like New York Wa$te Match, which pairs, say, people who need large volumes of corrugated boxes with those businesses that end up with a lot as an output. That's the kind of businesses that is easier to run in a dense built environment like New York, where industrial operations are clustered together.
Fewer discharges (example: auto exhaust) than would be given off by the same 8 million people if they were widely dispersed.Friend, don't get hung up on the importation of food. That consumes a tiny amount of fuel compared to all the unnecessary motoring that happens every day, and it could be reduced further by increasing use of rail and waterways.
I think the sticking point is that it will be (of course) non unionised. The unionised supermarkets in California used the arrival of WalMart to cut pay and benefits in half.
Look at the good side, they are really pushing Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (probably the single best thing Americans could do, today, to fight GW and PO) and they have really cut the prices ;-).
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html
'Big Box' is a big component (McKinsey study - 40%) of the productivity miracle of the late 90s in the US (productivity snapped back from its post 1970 oil shock slump, and went from growing at c. 1% a year up to 3% a year, as high as it has been since the 1950s, and 1.5% higher than Europe).
Swings and roundabouts, as we say over here ;-). Productivity miracle, yes, but also an energy intensive and land extensive form of development. It won't look so clever if oil prices are dramatically higher.
1. standard of living might be increasing.
Welcome to the 'hedonic price adjustment argument'. How do you value a 3MHZ computer 2Gig RAM with a 19" flat screen and 250MB hard drive (X2 with RAID1 backup) against the PC you could buy in 1970? (IBM had an APL-based machine, the 5051? that cost about $20k in the early 70s).
Or how do you value healthcare now (more than 50% chance of surviving adult leukemia for 5 years or more) vs. healthcare then (no chance)?
US houses are 60% larger on average than they were in 1972. That sounds like an increase in living standards.
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/YVR_hedonicpanel_040628.ppt
(a bit techy)
2. it is absolutely the case since 1980 that almost all the gains in real income have fallen to the top 10% of Americans, and in fact the top 1% (and the top 1/10th within that 1%-- the best tracking study of this Congress tried to shut down (did they succeed?) because it was just too embarrassing. No one wants to be told that the Americans benefiting from economic growth all earn over $330k pa per person).
On the return of the productivity miracle. What has happened is there has been tremendous growth in efficiency in a small number of sectors (computer manufacture, retail distribution, online consumer finance), which has translated into growth in those sectors, at much lower prices.
So far, it hasn't translated into growth in real wages for the median wage earner (median wage still below 1999 level last time I checked).
http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/BPEA_Meetingdraft_Complete_051118.pdf