Green Metropolis, David Owen
Green Metropolis by David Owen is about the author's obsession for New York City as being the most successful model for sustainability. At first glance this book is a love story about New York...but I've noted that Owen cleverly calls out the obsession with the word "sustainability" and with the corporate green washing that has occurred over the last couple years.
While in the first chapter of the book, David Owen, takes jabs at "putatively" eco-friendly cities such as Portland, Oregon (where I live), I would love to take jabs at New York. However, some of the facts raised about New Yorkers in general do impress me. So I am willing to say that I partially agree with David Owen and I would love to express the things that I disagree with...
Facts that make New York greener than Portland:
Sure you can rant and rave that electric cars, bicycle lanes, and solar panels are NOT Green. But I beg to differ. Portland, Oregon is building the world's first High Rise Living Building that will be a net zero energy building. That means that it will use no more energy than it produces in terms of electricity and water. It will collect and store an annual supply of water from rain and naturally purify it for use in the building. Huge solar panels shaped in the form of a leaf will power the building, while public transit will run through the building via street car. Smart Power networking systems will monitor energy usage and every tenant of the building will be given an energy budget. Bicycle parking stations will be available too. Portland is also implementing an entire new district in downtown near the University dubbed "Eco District" where it will plan future net zero living buildings. Portland, Oregon is also the first city in the nation to install wind turbines on one of it's high rises to exemplify it's commitment to alternative energy.
Portland is known for being eco friendly because it is eco-friendly. We don't pose, we aren't inherently green by definition (density), we are green by CHOICE. We like our electric cars, parks, and bicycle lanes because they add to LIVABILITY, something that New York doesn't have. Even though Oregon doesn't have the high public transit usage yet, doesn't mean that the Portland metro region hasn't planned for it. The Portland region has extensively curbed back suburban sprawl through the nations only Urban growth boundary, setting the boundaries for where growth can occur over the next 50 years. Which means that Portland's density will only rise in the future. For the size of Portland, it is doing pretty well considering that the state of Oregon has vast open land and forests. Balance is key when planning for the future. Density is certifiably a goal for downtown Portland, but not at the expense of boring architecture or endless rows of ugly buildings.
In terms of toxics: Portland has identified air toxics as a major concern for the region and is working closely with committees and the Department of Environmental Quality to recognize and reduce air toxics that are specific problems for Oregon. Something the New York metro region does not address. I serve on the board for the Oregon Toxics Alliance in my state and on various committees in Portland that pertain to livability, communication, and the environment.
New York is New York. Population density is what NYC has going for it. It is a completely different life than most American's are use to. It is the epitome of what urban living truly is. Being green has not always been popular. In fact, it seems that only in the last few years has the media and by extension the general public have been aware that sustainability is important. The most likely reason for this is climate change. It seems that every corporation is trying to capitalize on being green in some fashion because they think it's what consumers will choose to buy (something Owen rightly calls out). All the sudden, Manhattan is being touted as a green city because of its density. Density does force people to live with less, density forces people to abandon their cars, and it forces people to waste less too. Therefore density by definition is green, and therefore New York would by definition be the greenest, if we were to measure solely by density or greenhouse gas emissions.
I completely disagree with Owen's statements that locavorism is not green, and his challenge of off grid infrastructure as being unsustainable. It's pretty obvious to me that everyone plays the cards that are dealt to them. There is no comparison to someone who grows up in New York city vs. someone who grows up in rural Wyoming. We can't just break everything down to a common denominator such as greenhouse gas emissions and say that New Yorker's are greener than those of Wyoming, Oregon, or Colorado. But, it is safe to say that in general terms, density is good, and sub-urban sprawl is bad...for the environment that is. But their are things we can all do to make our environmental impact less detrimental or non-existent.
I for one live in downtown Portland, Oregon. I live in the most walkable neighborhood, the Pearl District. I also don't drive my car unless I absolutely need to, and if I can't get to a desired location by light rail, streetcar, or bus I generally don't go there. Their is a paradigm shift occurring in our society. I would dare say that all the green washing by corporations is almost a necessary step in elevating the general public's perception that the environment is important. Had it not been for green washing, then the average American might not make the choice to recycle, or bicycle or walk to work instead of drive. My point being that we are and have been in transition to a greener economy, a greener society, and a greener way of life. However, the rest of our country cannot become Manhattan overnight. Becoming Manhattan is not even feasible for most small and mid size cities. However, sustainable practices, solar panels, electric cars, are a solution for the rest of us who don't live in Mega Cities like NYC, Chicago, or L.A. The Portland metro region is planning and preparing for a million more residents by 2030 and they aren't going to expand the urban growth boundaries. This means that our density will increase, but at least we will be able to control the livability aspect of the growth at the same time.
I'm just saying, New York is New York and you can't necessarily discount other sustainable lifestyles just based on public transportation uses. Owen also doesn't really address the environmental complications that arise from urban pollution. Apples and oranges aren't really good comparisons, but reading Green Metropolis should be mandatory reading for sub-urban planners that are trying to replicate California style sprawl across the country.
Thoughts, Comments, Questions...
9 COMMENTS, ADD YOURS HERE:
Awesome review I utilize Portland's mass transit daily, work in a local community garden, and get so much of my food from the Saturday Market.. I have never lived in a city with such a progressive attitude toward sustainability and building practices that actually create an enjoyable, truly livable urban environment.
while i agree that you can't just cite public transportation as proof of a sustainable lifestyle and i do think Portland sounds like a great place (i have never been but have been meaning to, i live in NYC), i have one complaint about what you have written about. what is the point of making a leaf shaped solar panel? it is purely for aesthetic reasons i am guessing. it is not necessary and probably made the manufacturing process more complex than it needed to be (therefore expending more energy in the process).
What I find troubling about some of Owen's ideas is the near exclusive focus on energy use. There is much more to city life and people's quality of life in a city than super-duper low energy use. Paving over everything in a city and buiding super tall structures isn't healthy for us.
Bits of green and nearby nature in a city help us cope with the flip side of dense living --high noise levels, low privacy, crime, and dirty air--all of which add up to stress whether one knows it or not. Studies from the public health and psychology fields document how green space helps maintain mental and social health. I'm not saying a Central Park everywhere or soccer fields, but pocket-sized spots of green spread around would do just fine.
And what about adding a physical health benefit to that green space? To heck with city dwellers across the U.S. relying on stuff trucked in from Calif. during the summer months. Urban agriculture can feed some portion of a city for some part of the year. It's far better for people's health than relying on the agriculture and trucking industries and their respective energy inputs and attendant enviro. impacts.
If we don't figure out how to make cities dense AND livable for more than just single, young people, suburbia starts to look pretty good, despite its energy-sucking, auto-addicted, obesigenic ways.
Hi,
It should be noted that the purpose of the urban growth boundary in Portland is to prevent urban sprawl. Specifically, Portland plans to become more like NYC over the years vs. more like LA. If that is in fact how it turns out I expect that benefits of NYC high density will eventually be in PDX but with the added benefits of newer technology and sustainable development.
Great book. Emotional review. The facts are, a lot of current green stuff is nonsense. My neighbours gutted their house and re-filled it with sustainable materials. And they drive their prius, self-righteously, to take their kids to school even though most of us (in London England ) walk and use public transport. But it is also true that not everyone, indeed most people, don't want to live in Manhattan. Indeed even David Owen moved to the country to raise his kids. And those who can afford to live in a manhattan penthouse also probably fly a lot on holiday, and fill up their car outside Manhattan (which is one reason gas consumption is so low). Portland is trying to show a way towards a more sustainable but also somewhat suburban lifestyle. But lets not kid ourselves, the vast majority of people in Portland still drive everywhere. Only with much higher gas taxes, and taxes on parking and tolls on city centre roads will people reduce car use. Farmers markets are nice but they won't change the world.
In response to Chewbear who asked, "what is the point of making a leaf shaped solar panel? I believe she is referring to the drawing in the shape of a tree that I believe is also indicative of a subway map - thus going to the author's contention that real greenness is not driving, not emitting emissions, as opposed to living in a low density lifestyle that he himself does (which is something I'm still grappling with - I'm sure I'm not the first to ask about that inconsistency).
I read this book and enjoyed it but believe the author was a little harsh on other areas trying to make living more sustainable. The author did a good job showing how it's important to think of per capita usage and the benefits of density and shared resources. However, the rips on places like Portland were a little over the top and rude.
I like what you said about "livability". The author never addresses this. There needs to be a balance between density and livability, and from what you wrote it sounds like Portland is finding this balance.
There is much useful and valid commentary in David Owen's book. Unfortunately -- as he'd have discovered if he'd contacted me first -- many of his facts about my house in Snowmass are wrong and his conclusions about it are thoroughly misleading. If he contacts me, I'll be happy to explain.
More broadly, I think people are very diverse, want and need to live in different kinds of places (I'm a mountain person), and with careful attention and focused effort, can live responsibly wherever they choose to be. -- Amory Lovins
This posts focus on authenticity, posing, and "green" status make me think it's about a religion.
Post a Comment