Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Conservation" is a more applicable word in most cases, because "sustainability",
to be more than just a catch-phrase, would require true ecologically-sourced
perpetual production or yield of some sort.
There was nothing wrong with the word "conservation". "sustainable" was only
used intitially to present modified use (lower use of land, energy resources)
as in "sustainable development" as a cushion-the-blow, make-you-feel-better
selling point, in other words, "b.s." is what it amounts to. Damage is damage.
Probably the best, most accurate and worthy sort of "sustainability" is to be
found in permaculture. Permaculture is not popular because it is a low-yield,
but high-diversity. It requires nurturing and design, not "roundup" and fertilizer.
The bottom line is that there will be overdevelopment and exploitation until
it is stopped politically. When the power people start valuing trees and animals more
than money, I cannot say. What I can say is that municipal recycling does not
make your local ecology "sustainable".
I can't really say how sustainability (or "being green," if you prefer) relates to urban planning. But, I can assure you that #1--at least--is happening, even in construction that is not making the claim to be sustainable. (or "green," if you prefer) For example, wood is a renewable resource, and is used in just about any kind of construction. The development of plywood, oriented strand board, engineered lumber, etc. allow for more efficient use of the wood that's harvested.
I can understand your point that you think sustainability is the wrong word, because "sustainable" projects still use more resources than if the project hadn't happened at all. But, to say that sustainability (or "being green," if you prefer) has no substance, and is just a marketing ploy, is just nonsense! Again, maybe it's more correct to use "green" instead of "sustainable." But, the design, construction, and operation of new "green" buildings are approached in a way to reduce the resources that building uses, and pollution that building generates.
More efficient, perhaps, but is as much wood being grown as is being harvested? I know things have improved in that regard since Pennsylvania was clear-cut in the late 19th/early 20th century. ExplorePAHistory.com - Stories from PA History
If the question is building vs. not building then sure, not building stuff uses less resources. But in a city growing by 10-20% per decade, stuff is going to be built. And the buidings we have need to be upgraded periodically.
So there are two major focuses we can have. One is to build less stuff by (a) not having 3,000 sf houses, renovating rather than tearing down, etc. The other is to make new and renovated buildings more efficient, and put them in places where transportation is efficient.
Personally I follow the former pretty closely, with neither house nor car though I could afford them. And I'm pretty vocal about infill vs. sprawl.
As I've said, turning every building into its own primary power generator and sewage recycler doesn't sound very efficient. Some things are more efficient when done centrally.
Meanwhile I'll argue that making office buildings use 30% less power is still worth doing. It's better than designing things to the old standard.
Further, the process is advancing things to where actual net zero is getting closer. There's a lot of innovation going on in design, and a lot of progress in building codes.
Further, the process is advancing things to where actual net zero is getting closer. There's a lot of innovation going on in design, and a lot of progress in building codes.
When it gets to zero, then it will be "sustainable", not before.
If the question is building vs. not building then sure, not building stuff uses less resources. But in a city growing by 10-20% per decade, stuff is going to be built. And the buidings we have need to be upgraded periodically.
...but why should the approach be densifying within an artificial boundary? ...and exactly what aspect of is "sustainable"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
So there are two major focuses we can have. One is to build less stuff by (a) not having 3,000 sf houses, renovating rather than tearing down, etc. The other is to make new and renovated buildings more efficient, and put them in places where transportation is efficient.
Who are you to dictate what size housing people should have and who do you think "we" is? The growing population was your excuse to build stuff so you aren't proposing building "less stuff". You are proposing imposition of hamster-style living quarters on the population.
There are other solutions to handling population growth - not everyone is interested in being dependent upon public transportation, being a renter, or committed to hamster-style living arrangements. One approach is spreading out - there is no force vector tying people to living within some arbitrary distance from a city center. Traffic problems can be improved via decentralization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Personally I follow the former pretty closely, with neither house nor car though I could afford them. And I'm pretty vocal about infill vs. sprawl.
So you want taxpayers and property owners to provide convenience for you. You want other property owners to suffer from "infill". You're not committed enough to invest there but you want or expect a greater say than those who have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
As I've said, turning every building into its own primary power generator and sewage recycler doesn't sound very efficient. Some things are more efficient when done centrally.
You were the one claiming "sustainability" and yet there was nothing supporting that claim. The resources required and the source of them wasn't considered, the waste product wasn't considered, there was no consideration as to what the building or project would be producing other than perhaps more consumption, etc. "Sustainability" is a marketing pitch/buzz word and a deceptive one at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Meanwhile I'll argue that making office buildings use 30% less power is still worth doing. It's better than designing things to the old standard.
From whose perspective, at what cost, and who is paying? You can argue it all you want. If you start throwing around words like "sustainable" others will challenge the use of the word.
IC_delight, some of this boils down to ethics on environmental stuff. Either you have them or you don't. In being a sprawl advocate, you don't.
Most of your reading ability and/or logic escapes me. Who's requiring anyone to live in a rental or to take transit? I didn't say take roads or houses away. How are taxpayers involved?
As for who pays...um...the tenants. Who did you think? In my region they tend to value this stuff, even if it's sometimes just for lower energy bills.
More efficient, perhaps, but is as much wood being grown as is being harvested? I know things have improved in that regard since Pennsylvania was clear-cut in the late 19th/early 20th century. ExplorePAHistory.com - Stories from PA History
I think it depends on the species, and where it's grown. Wood from South American rainforests probably isn't harvested sustainably. But typical American lumber almost certainly is. Recently, I saw a documentary about sequoias, and it was stated that the trees were now being replaced even faster than they were being harvested, for example.
Not every city is losing population like Detroit. In fact, most aren't. Sometimes the best properties get developed.
Usually the best properties belong to someone else. Not you. And it is really irritating when someone tries to tell you what to do with property that you worked hard for and in some cases suffered a lot to get and hold onto. Then when you want to developed it in an effort to get your investment back and earn some money, And in many cases do a service to the city, you are generally dictated to by others what you can and cannot do with your own property.
IC_delight, some of this boils down to ethics on environmental stuff. Either you have them or you don't. In being a sprawl advocate, you don't.
Your personal preferences don't render other people's preferences "unethical". Keep in mind that you aren't living in 300 story condos at Plymouth Rock today.
There is nothing particularly environmentally, socially, or financially special about cramming people into a city. In many places in the country, lower density is taken as environmentally friendlier because of resources (water) and waste disposal limitations. What you deride as "sprawl" is simply a snobby city-centric viewpoint.
IC_deLight.
I lived in Tokyo in what is called a 1K condo. (One room and a kitchen and of course a small unit bath. They call them Mansions) It was in a building called a pencil building. They are typically between 10 and 20 stories tall with a footprint of about the size of 3 standard parking spaces. 12 x 30. Calling them shoeboxes is giving them credit. It was the most miserable place I ever lived. One window viewing the street and that was it. You couldnt get away from the noise no matter what you did. and it was only a one way single lane street. You could hear your neighbors and all the noise from the street all hours of the day and night. I was afraid of buying anything because there was no place to put it it the condo. It cost $350,000 dollars. In the few years I was there, 3 other occupants of the building committed suicide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
