Blog
will the feds pass legislation mandating adapting to climate change?
Sunday, June 07, 2009
if so, where will it be? in the coastal zone management act? the disaster management act of 2000? or simply under the purview of FEMA and the ACE?
can adaptation be beautiful?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
only classical forms remain resilient over time. we witness this constantly in architecture and landscape architecture (and arguably the visual arts). things outside the "norm" are deemed "radical departures." sometimes theyre just fads. or genre shifts. remember, picassos early were pshaw'd as rubbish.
reacting now is New Urbanism - that pre-constructed village center feel. though a trend in its own right, NU rejects mini-trends and falls back on the classic. NU will succeed where the promise of mcmansions and cul de sacs fail. New Urbanism provides comfort. it is classical and understandable. why? because it is reliable.
western cultures reliably fall in love with classical shapes and techniques. as each trend dies, back comes the roman column. emulations of the baroque in churches are still vernacular. roman-ish in civic buildings and streets grids guide the politician. colonial (and the unfortunate victorian) are the style of new urbanist's homes. this persistent reverence for certain shapes and techniques help protect that which has historic value. after all, who will argue 20 years hence the sudden pressing need to restore strip malls to their historic glory? the better question is why not?
the trend now is "design with the environment." it blends the ecological with the modernistic. green roofs, for example, are framed with straight lines of steel and brushed aluminum.
one hideous example of melding nature with architecture is renzo piano's undulating monster, the california academy of sciences building. the aluminum building has a rectangle foundation and an undulating roof that's covered in grass. to me, the roof looks like a gigantic computer chip with three, large green boobs growing out of it. this is the trend and it's untested.
what about our country's infrastructure in light of climate change? the brooklyn bridge's classical stone structure epitomizes our need for familiar form. but how will it be revitalized if its life expectancy has gone down?
i switch now to planning for the future. adapting to climate change is a compendium of devastatingly bland engineering. buildings n flood plains will be hardened with concrete to resist water and mold and our coastlines will sprout ugly new rock sea-walls and ocean barriers. there is nothing sexy about these projects, though they protect our lives and we see them daily. buildings and bridges will last longer if they are now made stronger. and hopefully beach communities will be safe from sea-level rise and erosion by long stone sea-walls.
is there art (the classical) in our infrastructure, too? there are three trends in architecture - bland subdivisions, New Urbanism and "green design." i wonder which design trend will be incorporated into adaptation planning?
Sustainability has no meaning
Saturday, May 09, 2009
No one enters a marriage thinking, "I want this to be sustainable." They want to grow and love and have rich experiences.
In a forthcoming paper, I provoke the planning field to consider dropping the term sustainability in favor of a re-focus and strengthening of time-tested conservation approaches, such as Smart Growth, LEED projects and LID.
Stay tuned.
Jane Jacobs interview VIDEO!
Friday, May 01, 2009
she speaks to the dynamic of top down mega-planning and it's assimilative effects on the people of montreal. then she breaks down the congestion and choice issues of massive highways. an articulate woman.
http://archives.cbc.ca/society/education/clips/6895/
"Broadcast Date: March 2, 1969
With her astute observations about the way we live, Jane Jacobs dynamically changed the urban landscape. The author, activist, theorist and self-taught philosopher challenged the establishment with her ideas about cities and the economy. In this CBC Television clip from 1969, Jacobs, a new immigrant to Canada, discusses Toronto's quirks and Montreal's creativity.
Jacobs was most famous for her influential book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961. At the time, Jacobs's book was considered radical for its staunch opposition to the raze and clear urban renewal projects of the era. But Death and Life spoke to city dwellers who wanted to protect existing communities. Jacobs's book has since become a classic and is often cited as the bible for urban planners. For her prolific works and activism, Jacobs herself became known as the city guru and, as CBC's Hana Gartner called her: the incomparable "rebel with a cause."
the u.s. federal gvt is assisting OTHER countries adapt to climate change
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
the department of defense's usaid program is helping developing countries adapt to climate change. adaptation is an infrastructure approach to addressing the inevitable aspects of changing climate. mostly it's a problem with moving water around during major storms, winter melts, access for agriculture, and poor and fast growing populations. on the one hand, it's a great program. there are lots of funds and successful projects. on the other hand, the feds are doing nothing state side...
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/docs/reports/cc_vama
adaptation planning beta to 1.0
Sunday, April 26, 2009
it's time to move from beta to 1.0 and develop the strategies to get there...
The Verdict - A Movie Review
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Paul Newman
Urban planning 2.0 = community involvment + data-driven goverment + government performance management.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The modern conceptions of urban planning have, in my opinion, become obsolete. The past two decades have focused on developing a community's involvement into a democratic process that helps shape the community's design and development. Many communities have become successful, even masterful at incorporating a methodology with heavy community participation. This success is in part very close to the manifestation of a Habermasian pragmatism - so-called rational social involvement. However, advanced theory in sustainable development shows that this trend, while positive, needs to develop even further.
In assessment, a well developed city/public relationship is not enough. And, I argue, the measurement phase is lacking in robustness and depth. How have the wide categories of human well-being, economic development and ecological resources improved in any meaningful (measurable) way as a result of these improved relationships? What are the actual effects of community-oriented urban planning? By who's measure?
Here's a thumbnail example of what I mean. Take any Peter Calthorpe project, which incorporates the claim of increased energy efficiency. The often mesmerizing argument is: higher density = lower carbon footprints. Well, how is this efficiency measured? Compared to what? Can you think of one city or neighborhood that has been studied for actual efficiency? (eg clock, every window, vehicle, chemical, etc.)
Michael Batty, director of CASA, said it best regarding increased density and actual vs promised energy outcomes:
"The problem is that our measurement of relevant energy use is extremely crude while the multiplier effects of energy flow through the urban economy and population are almost impossible to gauge. In short, our understanding of the way we use energy in cities is so rudimentary that most of the potential solutions to building more sustainable cities remain at the level of speculation."
(via http://digitalurban.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-big-can-cities-grow-guest
Thus, the combination of city/public development have stated benefits, but the benefits are not sufficiently measured. Rather than reactively retrofitting or designing for Victorian-esque neighborhoods, I call for a proactive formula, one that incorporates community involvement, digital driven government (CityStat) and government performance management (GMAC). Call it Urban Planning 2.0.
The next level of government decision making needs to be more IT based, cross-departmental and accountable (for efficiency, not punishment). Planning boards and departments need to communicate directly and deliberately with other boards to make better decisions. They need more data that focuses on effectiveness and efficiencies rather than short-term, misguided or mesmerizing outcomes. Municipal planning departments need not depend so much on the public's involvement or city council's political whims, which are constantly shifting and context reactive. The public and council, for example, can easily understand the installation of a new traffic signal. But, do they understand the long term effects of this light such as, the aggregate costs of law enforcement and maintenance, increased pedestrian and vehicular risks, light pollution, ecological impacts, aesthetics, disposal, source materials, etc.?
The city/public model does not incorporate basic theories of risk management or accountability in any mature sense.
I see that urban planning is stuck in the 1960s framework while touting community involvement as "urban planning 2.0." But the emperor has no clothes. Today's urban planning delves into snake-oil sales tactics, self-aggrandizement and even ego-mania. Portland, Oregon says, "Look at us, we're great!" while hiding the fact it's still annexing fresh land, increasing its number of vehicles per-capita and lengthening commuter times.
The field of planning has been attempting to get out of the 60s rut by riding the wave of public participation, false promises and narcissistic environmentalism. And it's starting to backfire.
Don't touch my avacodo.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Unless compelled otherwise, I've come to the conclusion that "sustainability" has failed as a movement.
What once blossomed from the conservation and environment movements has now become the realm of both corporate and pop culture - Walmart hiring William McDonough, Pizza Hut selling organic pizza, to Oprah Winfrey's website announcement that she's gone green. And sure, academia has more than embraced the concept. But, these efforts are glorified acts of conservation.
I declare that there is no system that is, has been or will be "sustainable." There are no models in nature or culture. Sure, it's possible to create functioning, lasting systems - art, literature, economics and science are clear examples. However, lest we forget, these systems are dynamic, prone to external shocks, and are escalatingly resource and labor intensive - NASA, the Hadron Collider, Apple's IPhone, Amazon's Kindle, etc...
Sustainability is irrational, even immoral - rich nations cannot deny access our equivalent wealth and health to developing countries. The UN defines Sustainability as: "Improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems." How can we (the world's overlords) improve quality of life without consuming finite resources? How can "improving quality of life" be measured without said consumption?
It cannot, and this is why sustainability needs to be scrapped. It's time for Conservation 2.0...
"Places are like large organisms..."
Saturday, January 17, 2009
In Grant Jones's introduction to the book Landscape Ecology Principles by Richard Forman, he attempted to make simple the complex intermingling of ecology and urbanism for the non-scientist layman. "Places are like large organisms," Jones summarized intent on arming the reader, urban planners, with the vernacular to speak with ecologists, foresters, advanced landscape architects, etc., that share a passion for land.
The book is immensely short at 80 pages ( http://tinyurl.com/8tnlsr ). It introduces how land interacts with the human built environment using simple diagrams and concepts - patches; edges and boundaries; corridors and connectivity - all examples of networks over a fragmented landscape. Humans' destructive effects upon ecologies are well known, and massive environmentalist movements the response.
But what if ecological systems began to adapt to our destructive habits? What if species needed less space to graze and grow? How would "restore" newly-adapted species to their natural state? Most of agree that new development (a building here, town there) is enormously disruptive, if not destructive, to species habitat. Now there is evidence that species are adapting to new environs never before documented. A forthcoming paper shows that smaller habitat can support species that once required larger tracts of land to survive. "Nature" is in some cases much more resilient to habitat-loss than is believed (which could become a dangerous idea).
http://tinyurl.com/a55p2p