0

Housing Starts Decline: Exactly As They Should Be

Yesterday the Commerce Department released that housing starts in the U.S. had dropped 10.6% in the month of October from the previous month. Cast in a predictably negative light, the markets responded with downward movement due to rising fears of a slow pace for our economic recovery. I find myself in the minority that sees this as long term good news, a market condition we should be embracing as we take a rare economic opportunity to try and move our jobs base from our historical model of unlimited growth to one of sustainable capitalism.

Traditionally, housing starts are seen as a leading indicator of economic health as they represent fuel for the construction industry which contributes 4-5% of our national GDP according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Building and purchasing new homes is one of the quickest ways for Americans to spend money—which is one of the things we do best. But not only is there no reason for us to be building more homes right now, but we should not emerge into a new economy built on the foundations of an outmoded concept of creating square footage ad infinitum.

If one were to forget the economic assumption that more housing starts is always positive, it is easy to see the number of reasons why we have no need for more housing right now. The recession has left us with an excess of homes. An article in the Wall Street Journal notes that “the number of homes listed for sale was 3.63 million in September according to the National Association of Realtors. That is enough to last about eight months at the current rate of sales.” The article also points out that foreclosures are still on the rise, leaving more property in the hands of banks (and even the FDIC) that want, and need, to unload them at bargain values, only further pressuring prices. We do not need more of a product that is in declining demand from a consumer that cannot afford to purchase it.

Furthermore, the NRDC’s Kaid Benfield pointed out last month that aging baby boomers are estimated to begin unloading their suburban homes at a rate of 5% per year between 2010 and 2030, only adding to the glut of available space.

Suburban homes are also not where we should be focusing our money and efforts when it comes to new living space. The financial crisis offered an opportunity to finally rein an expansion of suburban sprawl that has gone on for decades. New homes farther away from town and city centers bring with them more utilities, more emergency services and more energy wasted in commuting. We should be bolstering our urban centers and drawing people back to their inherent efficiencies of living. To have our government working on a carbon bill while we are using more farmland and natural landscape to prop up developer homes is ridiculous. It is the difference between the image of sustainability and the nature of sustainability—the latter is an encompassing system that affects a lifestyle in its entirety.

If Americans are serious about creating a more sustainable economy, then eventually we need to move away from a system where our barometer of success is continuous growth. It is possible for our country to be healthy without building an increasing number of new homes each month. Of course, it means asking those annoying questions like “What happens when there is no more acreage left to develop?” or “How many people can our country feasibly support indefinitely?” The easiest way to avoid the answers is to begin changing our trajectory now. Instead of new home construction we can be focusing on building retrofits, restoration and deconstruction. These practices use less energy, produce less waste and improve upon the building stock that we already have to make it better instead of tearing it down. One can imagine a combination of virgin building, recycling and upcycling that could bring us much closer to a level of construction stasis.

Construction is only one of the areas where we need to re-align our practices to change our economic growth expectations. Transit, energy production and distribution and water infrastructure all are viewed as continuously growing commodities and can all be curbed into regenerative social practices.

Photo Credit: Flickr movers_4u

Economic 
23

Water: The Neglected Resource

water dropsUsing over 1,300 gallons per day per capita, many Americans have been lulled into the misconception that we do not have to worry about our water supply. We are paying a great deal of attention to our resources for energy: coal, oil, natural gas. Debates in the Climate Bill and the upcoming Environmental Summit in Copenhagen have sharpened our focus on the sun and wind as natural resources. Of all of the resources that America focuses on, water is near the bottom and as a result we are unsurprisingly the least careful with its use and upkeep. The truth is known in other parts of the world much more poignantly than here: a clean supply of fresh water is essential and serves as the lynch pin for the interaction and function of countless other systems in the country.

America uses an average of 410 billion gallons of water everyday. I have not done the study, but I doubt many other nations (if any) can make such a boast. Whether we realize it or not, the water bill at the end of the month is only a fraction of how much we really spend on our water infrastructure. On average, U.S. cities spend $70 billion annually on water and wastewater needs according to the U.S. Census—second only to dollars allocated towards education. Part of the reason is due to our water system being a very energy-intensive process both conveying and distributing fresh water as well as removing and filtering wastewater. Together it takes our country 8 quadrillion BTUs of energy every year.

The Problems

Like our energy grid, much of our water system has gone too long without upgrades and repairs. In many parts of the country water and sewer pipes are well beyond their rated lifespans, raising the likelihood of breakages and leaks that interrupt service, waste precious water and allow for the infiltration of disease. Midrange, post-industrial cities of the country are the most prone to budgets that cannot accommodate necessary changes to their infrastructure. According to the Baltimore City Paper, there are parts of town in the coastal city that have sewers over 100 years old. Similarly, my time in Syracuse, New York revealed that as of 2005 most of the city’s water pipes are 60 to 70 years old that leave the water with a lead content 33% over the EPA limit. Their sewers are no better, with only 14% of the pipes less than 50 years old—the rated lifespan of the system.

Despite the improvement in water quality that the Clean Water Act has brought, pollution still remains a harrowing issue for much of the country. The New York Times released a disturbing report claiming that the Clean Water Act has been violated over 506,000 times since 2004 by over 23,000 companies and facilities. According to the report everything from gas stations and dry cleaners to chemical plants and power stations have dumped hazardous waste into the ground or directly into bodies of water. The report claims that one in 10 Americans has drinking water with dangerous chemicals or does not meet federal health benchmarks. I encourage the reading of the entire article as well as their great interactive map. I found the figures to be staggering, but what made it worse was that “the Time research found that less than 3 percent of violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials.”

For years now, a lack of strong federal oversight has allowed these transgressions to become business as usual. Never known as the shining star of George W. Bush’s presidency (if it had one at all) his E.P.A. was notoriously lax in its oversight of its duties for the two terms of the administration. Without federal power to invoke consequences from the highest level, local regulators often fall prey to pressure from politicians or large corporations.

“The E.P.A. and our states of have completely dropped the ball. Without oversight and enforcement, companies will use our lakes and rivers as dumping grounds—and that’s exactly what is apparently going on.”  – Rep James L. Oberstar, D-Maryland

The Obama administration’s new E.P.A. head, Lisa Jackson, has noted that national drinking water quality is below acceptable levels and has vowed to renew the E.P.A.’s stance of enforcement.

Where Does the Water Go?

Finding a solution to some of our problems can likely begin with understanding how we use 410 billion gallons a day. A recent report released by the United States Geological Survey focuses on how Americans use their water. I found this publication equally as surprising. To begin, between 1980 and 2005, our water use has decreased by 5 percent! Upon reading this I was immediately skeptical and had to find out how it was possible, but before long the reason became clear.

As an architect I am often the champion of water efficiency in buildings. After all, nearly 40% of our nation’s energy is used by buildings so believing that they consume large quantities of water seemed to be intuitive. As it turns out, all domestic water use (residential applications in homes) accounts for only 1% of all of the water that we use. If you add all public water use and thereby include nearly all buildings in existence, you only get another 11%. Perhaps the culprits are all that heavy manufacturing or the mining we do across the country? Even with aquaculture, livestock, industrial and mining operations the cumulative total is only 20%. So where does the other 328 billion gal/day get used?

National Water Use Graph

The second highest source is irrigation which is mostly comprised of farming. 31% of our water is used to irrigate 61.1 million acres in 2005. The number one source of water use is cooling for thermoelectric power plants. 49% of our water goes to creating power from such sources as coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas. All of a sudden, the nature of where to target efficiency for meaningful change has a very different appearance and that is why our water usage has dropped over the past 25 years. Due to more sprinkler-system irrigation and more efficient cooling systems in power plants, water consumption has ebbed despite a rise in population.

Response

Though a complicated problem, moreso than can be addressed in one article, the information does not leave us without places to go or reasons to get there.

  • Our infrastructure needs to be raised to acceptable levels that allow for efficient systems that can bring water safely to end users. This could include a more distributed system of supply along with onsite water collection and filtration of waste water.
  • Our governing bodies need to accept the responsibility of their offices to enforce laws that keep our water safe.
  • Efforts targeting efficiency should focus on our largest sources of water use: farming and power generation. This could lead to more research devoted to vertical farming and hydroponics. It also provides a seldom mentioned strength to renewable energy sources like wind and solar given that, once installed, their use of water is negligible.

Failure to progress on these initiatives could lead to an increase in national water-related sicknesses, more natural waterways polluted beyond safety for human use or ecological function and a further increase in drought and drinking water shortages for communities.

Photo Credit: Flickr Wester

 

Cultural 
3

P.R. vs. Progress: The Green Cost-Benefit Dilemma

campusIn a consumer-driven market like the U.S., change often rests in the hands of buyers and investors. The fastest way to spread a new social norm through society is by making a product that people want to pay for. The environmental arena has made a lot of progress in what can be a difficult arena: turning a social movement into a salable marketplace—but  the conversion comes with a catch. Organizations and companies that end up contributing to the “cause” want to make sure people know about it so it does not seem like money is just evaporating. For a number of entities this creates a tough choice of spending on things that are easiest to see or things that make the most difference.

A couple days ago I had the chance to sit down with a good friend who works as part of the financial department of a college in New England. For the sake of discretion, I will call him “Mr. Nes” (North Eastern School). Mr. Nes told me that his institution was on board with lowering their carbon footprint and increasing the efficiency of their campus. Apparently, they are one of a growing number of schools that are becoming more serious about being greener. This particular college was working with a consulting company to try and realize the best ways to address the issue of upgrading an existing campus.

Mr. Nes said that it was not long before the school began to run into tough choices when it came to what methods would be used in the campaign. It became clear that the efforts that would add the most benefit environmentally would not be showy additions that you could point out on a tour. At the same time, when it comes to endowment dollars, donors want to know that the money is being used wisely.

“The thing that makes the most sense is putting in a cogeneration plant” behind an existing building. “But no one would ever see it. On the other hand, we could throw up a bunch of solar panels on the admissions building, but the savings would be minimal,” Mr. Nes confessed.

The dilemma is not an uncommon one and will likely be around until the market matures beyond the point of needing to bolster recognition for making good choices. From anything to single family homes to college campuses, the measures that make the most difference are often not the ones that look best in an alumni newsletter. Systems like rain water capture tanks, grey-water filtration, power storage, and using geothermal or outside air for heating and cooling all are relatively absent from the public eye yet provide amazing savings in resource consumption. On the other hand, wind turbines, photovoltaics, low flow fixtures or waterless urinals are features that people can interact with.

Buildings like One Bryant Park end up with some combination of both, providing systems that produce a better bottom line and satisfy the need for publicity. Investors and pedestrians can see green materials, waterless urinals and naturally lit spaces with walls of high efficiency, fritted windows. Behind the scenes, the rain water capture tanks, ice storage containers and under-floor air systems are providing some of the backbone for their ecological savings.

In the short term, I see a couple of options or challenges for projects like these. One is for the architects and engineers who are tasked with making systems more visible to people in an attractive way. The other is to marketing departments and communication groups who have to find new ways of displaying and promoting important steps in sustainability so that those providing the funding dollars feel like they are getting the credit they are after.

 

Economic 
6

Energy Sprawl Pales to Suburban Sprawl

One of the new opposing forces to the deployment of renewable energy has been dubbed “Energy Sprawl,” referring to a symptom of energy sites requiring dubious amounts of land that could purportedly threaten our natural landscape. Where NIMBY voices are troublesome, these claims are more misguided. There is no question that some renewable power options need space. Energy sources like wind and solar require land in order to build arrays large enough to make them efficient, but the real sprawling epidemic has nothing to do with energy, is much worse and has been going on unaddressed for decades: suburban sprawl. Anyone raising arms about devoting land to renewable energy should be prepared to combat the growth of our suburban communities.

energy sprawl vs suburban sprawl

Over the past half century, flight from cities has created an explosion of development in suburbia that claims more virgin land every year. As late as the housing boom that lead up to the current recession, the cost of construction, laxity of zoning laws and ease in security mortgage debt lead to new communities sprouting up across the country almost over night. The result is an ever-expanding network of roadways and a lifestyle driven by automotive travel that breeds inefficiency and waste.

There seems to be a misconception that land used for building new cul-de-sacs wrapped in colonial revival vernacular is somehow less desirable than land used for erecting wind turbines or solar panels. Virgin forest or prime farmland is consumed every year to be subdivided and turned into brand new housing stock. In her book A Field Guide to Sprawl, Dolores Hayden says “the American Farmland Trust estimates that in the United States, 1.2 million acres of farmland were lost to development every year between 1992 and 1997.”

As a point of reference, a solar farm planned for Deming, New Mexico will be one of the biggest in the world, producing up to 300 MW or enough power for 240,000 homes. If completed, the array will require 3,200 acres of land. Using the same ratio of roughly 1 MW per 11 acres of land, the 6 million acres of land consumed for homes in the 1990’s could contribute a maximum capacity of 545,450 MW (545 gigawatts.) According to the Energy Information Association, our total national power generation capacity is in the neighborhood of 995 GW (so over half of our power.)

Unlike energy development, suburban land acquisition does nothing for the natural environment. Its conception lays more roads, erects more power lines and creates more commuting traffic by perpetuating the need for more cars on pavement. The fortunate developments may only waste time, money and resources by laying new sewers while those too far from town or city centers rely instead on septic systems. Despite our best wishes, pouring Drano into a sink that leads to a leeching field is nominally the same as going outside and pouring it on the ground.

Energy installations like wind farms produce clean power and by doing so are diverting generation from sources like coal and oil that can bring damaging effects to the environment along every point of their supply chain from mining to combustion. Modern wind turbines are also usually tall enough that land beneath them can still be farmed. Though some energy arrays may pose some interference with the habitat or migration of natural species (a common attack against wind farm construction), it is estimated that in the U.S. up to 130 million animals are killed on the road every year by cars.

On the other hand, suburban plots produce nothing. They are not havens for animal habits. Unlike the land that they consume, rarely are they net sources of food, clean water or energy. An article by Dan Shapley notes that according to Census Bureau data, in 2006 nine of the ten fastest growing counties were located in the South or West in areas already stressed for the capacity of fresh water. In Dallas Fort-Worth, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, a North Texas Future Fund report states “by 2050 the [water] deficit could reach 1.1 million-acre feet per year — an amount greater than total current demand.”

Like anything else, the construction of renewable energy has its drawbacks but the argument of space does not come close to comparing to the epidemic of waste that comprises our history of limitless suburban expansion.

In honor of Blog Action Day 2009

Photo Credits: Alex Maclean & Sincerely Sustainable

Urban Planning 
2

Utilities Lead the Way to Sustainability

Coal Power Plant The much debated climate bill is being heralded as legislation with the substance enough to begin to change our lives towards a new path of sustainability. One group that would arguably see the most change is the network of the country’s energy providers as carbon pricing leads to higher stakes for producing electricity from coal, oil and natural gas. Some have set up this confrontation as taking place between greenies and big power companies, but the power generation world is not as uniformly resistant as some might say. Is it possible that some of our biggest polluters could actually help lead our walk into the sustainable promised land?

A series of recent events points to the possibility of utility companies leaving behind the stance of defiance to play a more cohesive role in formulating new climate legislation. One of first steps is acknowledging the issue which, compared to where we have been, is a big step. A trio of large utility companies recently lead a withdrawal from the United States Chamber of Commerce citing disagreements over the Chamber’s stance on climate change. Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources all pulled their participation from the organization that claims to be “the voice of business.” Shortly afterwards, Nike resigned its position on the federation’s board. Tech bellwether Apple has been the most recent departure.

New York Times sentinel, Kate Galbraith, recently reported on two more utility companies steering their business away from coal-fired power. Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility, released a new strategy outline for future production to meet an anticipated 50% rise demand with no new coal plants. Similarly, NV Energy, a utility servicing Nevada and California, decided to postpone production of a 1.5 gigawatt coal plant to change its potential opening from 2012 to 2020. As Ed Mazria of Architecture 2030 often notes, the only true solution to make the difference that we need to, as fast as we need to, when it comes to carbon emissions is attacking coal for power production.

So why the change of heart? Could it be that the widespread chanting of environmental advocates are finally seeping in on the highest level, enough to make corporate executives question their means for making profits in our country? Before we start doling out halos and merit badges, there could be a number of reasons why this turn of events is not quite so surprising.

We are moving into a political state of mind where it is a question of when, not if, climate legislation is going to be passed. With the Copenhagen summit on climate change only months away, fewer want the U.S. to appear as the climate dunce of the developed world. Furthermore, Manik Roy, Vice President of  Federal Government Outreach for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, recently pointed out that 23 states and the EPA are all in the process of reforming their own means of combating emissions. “There is a misconception that no legislation means no regulation. This is just not the case.” Utilities could be facing new laws and regulation on local levels regardless of whether or not the Kerry-Boxer bill passes in the Senate. At this point it is simply smart business for companies with the largest stake in the outcome of climate regulation to play a more central and participatory role in how the laws get detailed.

Most of these mentioned utility players hail from the west coast where states already have healthy goals for requiring renewable power generation by 2020. California prides itself on being at the forefront of sustainability. Supporting a more broadly based action and downplaying coal production can create the appearance of being a green crusader while getting more mileage out of things that they may run into on the local level anyway (which does not make it wrong, I say take all the credit that they want.) It is unlikely coincidence that Exelon is the country’s largest producer of nuclear energy. As pointed out by Robert Peltier from energy blog Master Resource, nuclear energy stands to fair extremely well if climate legislation doles out carbon allowances by percentage of current generation—meaning that nuclear companies could get carbon permits for free that can be sold at market price (since they produce no carbon themselves.) With few people asking questions about what we will do with the country’s nuclear waste issue, it is increasingly easier for nuclear companies to claim green roots.

There may be more than a bunch of born again greenies to explain the growing support for change, but so what? For the challenges that we face now of reformatting a number of social norms, supporters do not have time to quibble over whether or not different people are doing the right thing for the right reasons. If the prospect of imminent climate legislation is causing utilities to re-evaluate beforehand, then process is working just as it should and its integration may be even easier. With goals that are even slightly closer to aligning, more progress can be made on getting initiatives to market and implementation. From consumer education, to smart grid test programs, to quicker resolution to NIMBY sentiments for siting new power generation and transmission; all could stand to benefit from having more utilities on board.

Photo Credit: Flickr davipt

Economic 
11

Alternative Transit is more than High Speed Rail

Alternative Transit DiagramThe stimulus package has helped to renew consideration for updating our national rail system to include high speed trains, devoting $8 billion to funding new projects across the country. The desire for breaking into new territory is clearly there. Forty states have reportedly submitted $103 billion in requests for high speed rail funding (that is over 12 times the available pot.) However, unless we are complimenting these faster means of travel with smaller, more localized improvements to the network of alternative transit these dollars may be paying for a system with limited levels of efficiency.

These sleek trains that can travel in excess of 200 miles per hour are one of the more enticing visions of efficiency in bolstering alternative transportation in the country and limiting car and plane travel. Glances to European and Asian models give tantalizing possibilities of quicker commutes like traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours. Conventional wisdom pegs trains as far more fuel efficient than the energy required to fly a plane and within a radius of 600 miles, the train can actually be more convenient and faster when you factor in the arduous process of air travel (baggage, security, boarding, taxiing, deplaning.)

I am a complete supporter of high speed trains, but too many people are beginning to see them as the silver “bullet” for our travel woes and if they are not running between cities that have continued to build a network of alternative transit, their usefulness will be capped and keep us from the success that other countries have found.

Alternative transportation is an ecosystem of its own, encompassing every scale of travel from door to door. High speed rail is at the largest scale, great for covering large distances with as few stops as possible and performing well on a scale of transportation efficiency, but no matter what they are only part of the journey. Getting to and from the station in a sensible way is part of what makes the concept viable and attractive. Smaller, more localized systems must be installed to facilitate local access to high speed travel. Spending the money to connect cities without this infrastructure is jumping the gun.

Regional or commuter train lines offer the first level of integration of alternative transit, giving more people easy and cost-effective access to prime transport nodes of major cities. Unlike their high-speed brethren, these trains can make more local stops while still easily trumping the time and energy required of car travel. From there, local lines can take the form of subways, light rail or street cars that give easy maneuverability in urban settings and exponentially increase the amount of accessible destinations. Still further are bus and bike infrastructure that provide an efficient way for short, local trips while remaining efficient in both energy and space.

A true system that utilizes all of these components would drastically decrease the need, and convenience, of traveling by car—which is part of the idea. The more convenience that the system can sell, the more passengers will change their travel habits, allowing the cost of the service to drop, perpetuating the cycle.

Not transit programmed?

Our problem in America is that our cities (and perhaps more importantly, our suburbs) are not designed to accept these systems. The last half-century has been spent crafting our environment around car travel, making it no surprise that many people feel reluctant to consider alternatives. Most of our cities do not have these integrated systems, or even pieces of them, and remain slaves to roads, highways and viaducts. This is why some experts assert that, as of now, the Northeast is the only truly viable site for high speed rail where cities that have matured transit infrastructure can benefit. Having a high speed train stop in Los Angeles makes far less sense than one stopping in New York City.

Although I am a proponent for getting people to change, at a certain point the request becomes unreasonable if the extra effort is less convenient with no time saving and a higher cost. Critics of new rail systems point to existing infrastructure like Amtrak and its failed attempt to remain a profitable source of travel. The costs in construction and maintenance of railroads are extremely high and in a recession no one wants to sign onto a plan that will create black holes of tax dollars.

Their complaints are not entirely unfounded. Amtrak has yet to succeed in convincing enough people ride to keep the prices noticeably low, but what can we expect? As a country we have not succeeded in building our communities around alternative transport—we have not really tried. But if we are going to try then it has to be a holistic effort. That being said, the situation is improving. Amtrak has seen increasing record ridership for the past 6 years and running. The progress can be compliment by our cities, towns and suburbs being re-conceived with less deference given to automobiles. Picking the regions to receive funding for high speed projects could hinge on whether local municipalities can do parallel efforts to promote transit-oriented development on a local scale to increase the health of the entire network.

I am reminded of conservationist Willie Smits and his rebuilding of rain forests. As he explains, there is more to the forest than just the trees—an entire system at different heights, sizes and light levels that is mutually and intricately co-dependent. True rehabilitation efforts must address them all and alternative transit is no different.

Infrastructural 
5

Sustainability vs. Luxury: Can McMansions be green?

Waterfront Green HomeThe housing boom of the 90’s brought the explosion of “McMansions” across U.S. suburbs leaving us with hundreds of thousands of examples for a new wave for upper class living. While the recession may have created a lull in the construction of these shrines to excess, there is no data to suggest that Americans have outgrown their hunger for raw square footage and the public perception that space equals societal stature. The idea of a green home two, three or four times the size of the average house is a bit of an oxymoron with notions of efficiency and excess instantly butting heads, but perhaps there are ways for the lives of the luxurious to follow a more sustainable path. Continue Reading…

A Greener Place Architectural 
5

Constructive Reforestation: Lecture by Willie Smits

Willie Smits

A colleague pointed me to a lecture on TED given by conservationist Willie Smits who organized an effort to regrow a site of clear cut rain forest and restore a population of orangutans that had been threatened by deforestation. I was left thoroughly impressed with not only the level of task that he had taken on, but his striking process in approaching, analyzing and then attacking a complex problem. There are many activists and organizations trying to stem the damaged caused by deforestation around the world, but far fewer are finding ways to repair the damage that has already been done. Dubbed Samboja Lestari, this testing ground has found staggering results in turning a swath of fire-ridden, Indonesian grasslands  into a new budding forest landscape in under five years. His efforts have renewed levels of biodiversity, increased local rainfall and cloud cover, and provided a new industry base that has given jobs to hundreds of people.

“The real key to doing it, to give a simple answer, is integration.”

He says “integration,” I say “interconnection,” but the minor difference in semantics points to the same result of recognizing the vast number of reactions that comes from any one event and how integral, but sometimes difficult, it is to strike the important level of environmental balance.  Smits’ words and anecdotes highlight many valuable perspectives concerning sustainability and the tackling of large, seemingly insurmountable issues, but Smits’ is not just throwing around theory for the proof of his success in Borneo bears a complexity and resilience that few have been able to achieve. Within, there are a number of lessons that can be extracted and used for addressing our own series of dilemmas on any scale.

“It is the diversity that makes it work.”

Willie walks through the complicated task of creating a base of permaculture by integrating hundreds of species of plants so that each will offer a reflexive benefit to the others planted around it. Some plants are fast-growing to offer shade. Some are fruit-bearing to yield food for animals. Some are small but integral for rejuvenating nutrients in the soil. This kind of integration cannot be achieved without thoroughly analyzing the problem and all the components of each option for a solution.

The current state of our economy and the desire for progress has made the risk of throwing money at problems with the goal of reaching solutions as fast as possible. Healthcare, transportation, education, the environment; all complex issues for which hasty action could lead to short-lived relief. Throwing wind turbines everywhere to combat global warming without developing viable means of power storage is what leads to rolling blackouts in Germany. The real energy answer is a combination of renewables (with storage), coal conversion to biomass, nuclear, natural gas, a smarter grid system and increased efficiency to lower our national consumption.

There are few simple problems and even fewer simple solutions. At all scales we should be taking the time to study the solution as much as the problem to increase the likelihood of meaningful, lasting results.

“At every step of the way the local people were going to be fully involved”

Willie Smits decided early on that any chance on true revitalization of this landscape could not simply be his grand vision imposed on an indigenous society. Even if his test was successful, he alone could not maintain the project indefinitely. The rebuilding of a rainforest had to be inextricably tied to the local people who would share both the costs and rewards of the effort. Those that helped plant and manage the forest found jobs, land for homes and eventually crops as the beginning of a new life seamlessly tied to re-growth. The success of the forest became the success of all participants.

A devastated rainforest is only separated by a few degrees from many of our post-industrial cities around America. These small cities that exploded in the first quarter of the twentieth century had their momentum crash with the evaporation of domestic industrial production. These urban ecosystems failed—leaving streets of vacant homes, deflated populations and depleted tax revenues that left them struggling for survival. New efforts to rehabilitate our ailing cities must include and utilize local citizens, yielding them a stake in both the risk and reward of a new cityscape.

“If I can do this on the worst possible place that I can think of, where there is really nothing left, no one will have an excuse to say, ‘yeah but….’”

It is important to note success stories like this one to recalibrate our own idea of challenges that need to be overcome. If Smits can find progress in a society with 50% unemployment where 22% of the average income is spent on fresh water then we are without room to give the “it cannot be done” rebuttal to any dilemma that we currently face in the U.S..

Cultural 
10

Renewable Energy Battles for New Sites

NIMBY Wind Farm

Sometimes the products of technology and infrastructure have a certain beauty that compliments their functional necessity, but all too often our aversion to the appearance of key service components conflicts with our desire for their services to be readily available. Renewable energy production, such as wind turbines and solar power stations, are increasingly becoming the targets of backlash, even from environmental supporters, when it comes time to locate them. A new strategy for overcoming the next generation of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment is imperative to avoid our recent progress in sustainability from hitting a wall.

Polling from numerous sources repeatedly points to a growing population of U.S. citizens supporting the need to address climate change and transfer our production of energy to renewable sources. People will sign petitions, click “yes” on websites and maybe even call their Congressman in support of green energy. But in true American style, when it comes to actually implementing the goal the discussion turns into a barrage of finger-pointing with no one wanting to have to look at the finished product.

The lack of willingness to actively participate in the necessities of society is one of our blaring moments of shortsightedness. As a country that enjoys an elevated standard of living, its rise has been paralleled not only by an increasingly complex and expansive array of technology necessary to sustain it, but also a lack of responsibility for making it possible. Having a water treatment facility within a block from your home is a fallacy, but blame is thrown instantly at the onset of an E. coli breakout. No one wants to see high voltage power lines but brownouts are unacceptable.

One of the more famous examples is the repeated stalling of the Cape Wind Project that meant to erect 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound with a maximum capacity of 420MW. The program claims that in average winds the wind farm could provide 75% of the energy for Cape Cod and its surrounding islands. However, local residents have opposed the project due to the possibility of tarnishing their ocean view. Keep in mind that the wind turbines will be 5 to 13 miles from shore so that an onlooker could reportedly extend an arm and cover one with the fingernail on a thumb.

Unsurprisingly, continuously pushing renewables to the outskirts of society increases the amount of transmission (materials, land, installation, maintenance, replacement) needed to transport the power, increasing the amount of power lost in transit and raising the price of the power that gets there (which in turn compounds the problem.) Heaven forbid we need to pay more for power that is more sustainable and less polluting. Who would think that in a capitalistic economy the cheapest solution is not always the best?

One option is to give the federal government more power in making decisions for renewable energy sites and new transmission lines, but the prospect of increased government intervention is already causing politicians to butt heads on the Climate Bill. Another option is to use government policy that sweetens the deal for proximity to new energy solutions. (For Liberals, this would mean tax people the farther they get from renewable energy. For Conservatives, it would mean provide subsidies for those willing to live next door. For me, I would say do both.)

Yet another possibility is to redesign these facilities for a new aesthetic reading. After all, most of the time these components of infrastructure are designed by engineers. As an architect, I can respect and appreciate the simplicity and functional efficiency of how engineers design. Their goal of streamlined products that serve a specified purpose can be seen in old warehouses, factories and power stations. Nonetheless, they are usually not trying to win beauty contests. Some of these creations could not get a facelift to draw a different impression from surrounding onlookers.

Trash and Recycling CenterSpanish architecture firm Abalos and Herreros has a portfolio of work that has reinvestigated the appearance and nature of industrial programs like their recycling center in Valdemingómez, Spain. Contrary to the American standard of cheap metal siding and standing seam roofs, their facility is wrought with light to illuminate a terraced interior designed with an elegant order for industrial function. Solar farms and biomass plants could conceivably be realized in a second generation that is more viewer-friendly.

I do not believe that the largest impediment in the path of environmental stewards is convincing people that changes should be made. Regardless of the debate on climate change, sustainability and efficiency just make sense. Preserving our resources, keeping our air, water and land clean; it is just smart and more people realize that everyday. The impasse is instilling not the notion, but the drive for everyone to contribute and accept part of the collective onus to change—and make no mistake, things will need to change. Sustainability is not a technological fix. Our levels of consumption cannot be supplemented with gizmos.

Personally, I think that wind turbines and CSP plants have their own manner of beauty to them, like an ipod or a 40” Samsung LCD television, but I do not know if my sentiment has reached the majority yet.

Photo Credit: Flickr via AbracaDebra

Economic