The Oil Drum

The growth paradigm for the last fifty years in the US (and many other parts of the world), which accelerated in the 1990s has been away from cities and more in the suburban and exurban areas outside of major metropolitan areas. While large US cities have rebounded from their nadir in the 1970s and 1980s era of white flight, homelessness, drugs and crime, much of the infrastructure investment has been made toward developing auto-centric development instead of walkable mixed use zoned areas along mass transit corridors. I've long thought that good urban planning and mixed use zoning is a large part of the answer to dealing with our dependence on automobiles/oil as well as having many social, public safety and environmental benefits.

Now that $4 gas is here and looks like it might be a short stop before $5-$10 gas, Smart Growth is getting more attention as the best method to maintain a high standard of living and promote economic growth.

So let's take a look at some videos from around the country on what's happing on the Smart Growth or Transit Oriented Development front to reduce out dependence on automobiles.

Starting in my backyard, here's Public Service Announcement from Vision Long Island, trying to stimulate debate on reorienting.

Here's a short 2 minute spot explaining why the American Planning Association (APA) gave Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes their 2007 Award to her for revitalizing Smart Growth in downtown Kansas City.

And finally, here's a look at Sacramento's strategy of using infill development to manage it's growth.

Please leave comments below about what's going on in your area of the world.

The good folks at NYC's PlaNYC 2030 sustainability office have just released a series of short powerpoint presentations establishing a baseline on a variety of sustainability metrics and their analysis on future trends.

It paints a somewhat troubling picture of where we are now and where we are headed. Moreover, only some of this is within our own control. Because Global Warming is by definition not locally controlled, NYC might do everything in its power and still face major consequences of rising sea levels along with many other global port cities. In many senses though the point is not that NYC will be the decisive place where carbon reductions are found and the battle is won. Rather it's to show that NYC is doing more part in the fight against global warming and can continue to make great strides in reducing it's contribution. My hope is that NYC can be a shining light in the fight to reduce greenhouse gases, a showcase city proving that reductions in Greenhouse gases are not just possible, but economically efficient and increase quality of life. And when I say NYC, I'm really talking mostly about the infrastructure built in the 19th Century (dense, walkable, mixed use land use) and early 20th Century (extensive mass transit system complete with subways, regional train system and trolleys).

Link to article I snagged this picture from.

Imagine instead of eating a Pizza (my favorite food), you were to separate the ingredients and eat them one at a time - first the bread, then the cheese, the sauce and finally the toppings. It wouldn't be the same right? It would be boring to eat and take a lot more time to do. That's what happens in the Suburbs - residential all in one spot, shopping in another, restaurants somewhere else, work off over the horizon...but nothing co-located. A city is supposed to be the opposite - encouraging the mixing of uses to bring all these ingredients together and combining them in different ways to create unique flavors and textures.

Why do I bring this up now?