Pointing fingers is always easier than taking an introspective glance on how one contributes to a given problem, but it is something we all need to do more of, especially when it comes to sustainability. Throwing the spotlight on large offenses of environmental degradation is part of the discussion and pressing for their solutions is equally valuable, but there should be more conversations happening on a smaller scale that assess what we consider to be the mundane aspects of our daily lives. Despite growing verbal support for sustainability in polling numbers and cocktail conversations, Americans have countless ways to alter their own actions knowing full well that we control the marketplace for an economy that hangs on consumer spending. Continue Reading…
Archives For sustainability
There is a crucial pivot point when something changes from a passing fad to a cultural trend. Be it a product, a practice or a belief, its time in a small select group ends and matures into the minds of enough people to elevate it to “the mainstream.” For Americans, sustainability has yet to make this leap, remaining in the forefront of a small group of hardcore proponents that champion its cause. In order for it to gain hold on the national level, sustainability must achieve a key percentage jump of support known as “The Chasm.” Instead of trying to appeal to the entirety of the nation, sustainability advocates may be better off trying to gather the most likely candidates to achieve the force needed for broader endeavors. Continue Reading…
In the heart of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a hop, skip and jump away from Harvard University, presiding over the restored Joan Lorentz Park, the Cambridge Public Library now stands with a new image of modern grace. Attached to the existing library designed in 1887 by Van Brunt & Howe, the new work of metal and glass offers us a model for sustainable, public projects. Designed by William Rawn Associates, the building is not only a case study of integrating sustainability into a house of knowledge, but moreover, the product of diligent research by a team that is interested in sharing that knowledge and progress with the profession at large.
Use of the term is growing. As focusing on our effects on the environment becomes more publicly accepted/pertinent/politically correct, sustainability continues to be a label that is slapped on the side of another box and fit into another soundbyte with less and less of a care as to how it is defined and ultimately received by the public. While having more people become part of a larger discourse about sustainability is a good thing, if we do not take the time to step back and realize what values and concepts we are trying to instill in the word then we run the risk of confusing and ultimately deterring potential allies and supporters. I thought I would take a stab at a definition for what sustainability has come to mean to me as an architect and a writer thus far.
Most major transit initiatives can currently be divided into two camps: those that want to make our transportation landscape greener by creating alternatives to car travel vs. those that want to create a greener generation of automobiles. Arguably, both pursuits can lead towards the same goal of reducing environmental impact but each option brings with it significant directional decisions as to the future of our culture and how we design the built environment. In the end there may not be one universal option that fits a country like the U.S., but different courses whose implementation should follow the demands between urban and suburban development.
Continue Reading…
Tight economic times have a way of recalibrating priorities. According to a recent study, although the economic weight of the recession has caused a small retreat in sentiment for green building in design and construction professionals, the vast majority still promote building sustainably to their respective clients, helping to stoke a global green building industry worth $558 billion in 2009. Fewer, however, remained supportive of seeking LEED certification for buildings as a means for a more public display of green efforts.
There are a number of encouraging examples of cities trying to slowly evolve themselves into a vision of urban sustainability. Implementing bike infrastructure, upgrading the ecology of alternative transit, increasing recycling and addressing the state of our energy production systems are all noteworthy efforts being tackled by numerous cities around the world. But despite the show of goodwill, there are other examples that force one to wonder if we are simply taking two steps back for each that we take forward. The city of Dubai, rising in defiance to the surrounding environment of coastal deserts in the United Arab Emirates, stands as the hallmark of a digressing trend taking us farther away from the goals of a new cultural reality. As a poster child of modern ingenuity driven by the perpetual desire of humanity for unbounded excess, the city of Dubai casts a long shadow over our path to a greener future.
Over the last decade the term “Upcycling” has been coined and worked into the discourse of sustainability efforts. It appeared in William McDonough’s book, Cradle to Cradle. It has yet to earn itself mainstream popularity, but its necessity as a goal for how we should be progressing makes its definition important. Like so many things in sustainability, I come across many enthusiasts who are trying to promote the practice but may be passing around an incorrect meaning.
Sustainability is still young enough in the minds of Americans for most of us to think of it as only being associated with buying hybrids, using CFLs and recycling our bottles and cans. In reality, sustainability is an encompassing topic that affects every aspect of how we live in a perpetual search for balance. When it comes to sustainability, our economy has a long way to go, but having Americans revert from their incessant spending of money (that we often don’t have) and actually saving so that we can afford things that we want is a step in the right direction.
An article in the Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the fact that credit card borrowing in the U.S. decreased for an 11th month in a row—an unprecedented occurrence since the Federal Reserve Bank began keeping track of the figures in 1943. According to the Fed, borrowing in the fourth quarter decreased at an annual 4.75%. Not only were Americans borrowing less, but saving more to boot. The article reported that savings as a percentage of personal income had risen to 4.6% in 2009 from 2.7% in 2008.
Even before I went to London, I had heard tales about its extensive subway system. Known as “the Tube,” many boasted that the infrastructure was easier to understand, cleaner and safer than New York’s MTA service. In short, I was hearing it labeled as “better.” While the Tube is an impressive system, a closer look at its operation and costs draw into question its existence as a system of “public transit.”
New York:
New York’s underground subway system began in 1904. Over a century later, it is made up of 26 different subway routes on 9 different lines with a total of 468 individual stations. It spans across four of the five boroughs with a total of 229 miles of route track distance and 842 miles of track bed (most of New York’s system are three or four tracks across.) Transporting an average of 5 million passengers every weekday, the system carries over 1.6 billion people annually.
London:
Beginning in 1863, the Tube is made up of 11 different subway lines with a total of 270 individual stations. 250 miles of track spread across the neighborhoods of London. An average weekday hosts 3 million passengers, bringing an annual total to around 1 billion patrons. Like New York, the Tube began as a series of privately funded ventures that were eventually encompassed by municipal oversight and direction.
The train cars, also called “rolling stock”, of the Tube feature cloth-covered seats and colored handrails. Every car I traveled on was clean. The speakers announcing stations were clear. Comfort was a clear goal in the cars’ design and it was achieved. Averaging 8’6” wide, the average train is approximately 437’ long. New York’s cars are often wider at 10’across with trains as long as 600’ to provide a larger average capacity. Though New York subways can transport more passengers per ride, once inside the digs are not plush, merely smartly infrastructural with plastic seat surfaces easily cleaned. Finding a car where one can actually hear the announcements is hit or miss.
While the street grid of New York provides for fewer crossings of train lines, London’s web of streets forces many tracks be carved deeper beneath the road surface. Most tunnels in the Big Apple are 15-20’ underground, but London’s can go as deep as 65’ (a healthy five story building.) Not only can getting down to the tracks take longer, but air movement at such depths becomes more difficult. In the London heat wave of 2006, the temperature in Tube tunnels reached 117 degrees Fahrenheit.