For a book whose premises I agree with, this was one tough read. I could only bear to skim it. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the main premise is old and obvious now--any environmentally conscious urbanist has known for decades that urban living is more green than suburban or rural living. So I offer just a quick chapter-by-chapter summary with a couple random comments.
More like Manhattan
Yeah, Manhattan is a much more energy efficient place to live than anywhere in the US. People who think it's an ecological disaster are failing to look at its per capita impact. Duh. Most Manhattanites I knew 20 years ago realized this.
Liquid Civilization
Yep, oil is bad. But come on, the concept of peak oil production may have some truth to it, but taking "Peak Oil" seriously as some sort of impending doom is ridiculous. More oddly, the author states that the 2008 price run-up on gas was purely due to speculation, clearly not true. We'll have the same prices this summer--global demand is the root. (Isn't that part of the peak oil gloom and doom?)
There and Back
Now we're getting somewhere. Some good points about the absurdity of auto-dependent lives. Improving MPG efficiency matters less than the accelerating sprawl. Zoning laws still largely encourage sprawl and undermine the communities they try to preserve. We should treat Manhattan as a model, not the exception.
Interesting note on Theodore Kheel, who first noted in 1955 that the auto was lowering NYC transit numbers, creating congestion and frustrating both drivers and transit riders. Under Mayor Lindsay, in 1969, he proposed tolls on the bridges to reduce congestion and pay for transit. Thwarted by Moses, and most of the US still reluctant to have "rubber pay for rails".
Traffic jams are beneficial environmentally, if they reduce the willingness of drivers to drive. Good discussion of congestion pricing, plus the need for properly priced parking. Though, Owen writes against charging trucks more in congestion pricing, which I disagree with. It doesn't matter that pedestrians need trucks to bring them goods, being against a higher toll is akin to arguing for subsidizing gas for trucks. The trucks use more of the public resource (roads) than cars so should be priced accordingly, and such charges won't pose a threat to delivering essential goods. The price is still very low relative to the value of the goods and services they bring--the charge may just help nudge them toward being a little more efficient.
Side note: At the end of the day, I think most drivers in small cities enjoy bitching about traffic. It makes them feel like they're in the big leagues.
The Great Outdoors
Lots of good Jacobsian observations. Good criticisms of Central Park, as hugely disruptive to the flow of the city, creating massive borders to the neighborhoods around it. I used to promote (rather tongue in cheek) building in the park to get a rise out of people and to encourage them to think about some of the problems it creates. Washington Square park much more valuable use of land.
Perceived distance and borders more important than actual distance. Like the author, I now use the car in cases I would find ridiculous in my more urban past (driving half a mile to the post office because it's raining.) This isn't just because driving is easier now, it's because walking is a lot less pleasant.
Suburbanites don't actually spend more time outdoors. Notes how people complain about having to park half a block away from their destination. (Another side note: people in small cities love to bitch about parking too.)
"Environmentalists have tended to think of themselves mainly as defenders of what's left, rather than as shapers of what lies ahead." Amen.
Embodied Efficiency
Get this: skyscrapers are actually very efficient. Again, Duh. And, LEED is kinda stupid. (See the chart here, which sums things up nicely:
http://www.microurban.org/2011/03/epa-study-urban-more-green-than-green.html.) Maybe some good background info in this chapter, but getting bored.
On this topic, I believe the elevator is the greatest and most overlooked mass transit tool ever. Maybe after the staircase.
The Shape of Things to Come
China, China. Dubai, Dubai. Snooze, snooze. Ok, back on track:
When affluent Americans think about "going green," they tend to focus on enhancements to their own consumption rather than subtractions from it: buying a new, more fuel-efficient car (rather than driving less or taking the bus), building a new kitchen full of eco-friendly gadgets and exotic building materials (rather than deciding not to add yet another underused room to their house), replacing their old windows with high-tech new ones (rather than caulking air leaks, drawing the curtains during the day, and turning the air-conditioning down or off), and eating better-tasting chickens, tomatoes, and eggs.Good point, these aren't just "enhancements", they're increases to consumption. Damn yuppie bastards.
Still, I can't understand why this guy still lives in exurbia, and yeah, I can't recommend the book. I do hope it finds an audience who will find all this novel and enlightening--I'm sure there's a huge potential market still. And I hope that smaller cities, despite their many differences with Manhattan, accept a lot of the positives of Manhattan, especially its density and its transit-/walking-/biking-orientation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment