Sustainable Energy Solutions in Urban Design

Right, that was whole supply and demand argument. He seemed to be under the impression that more land available=more people moving in the grid. Plus, he was looking at it as a more local planning exercise. If Town A is zoned for one person per square than the excess 900+ people would need to move into Town B, C, D, etc. The grid analogy started to break down quickly once real-world problems were introduced.
 
Patrick said:
Transportation of goods like paper products and office supplies, food, water pumped upwards, etc.
Click to expand...

These arguments seem to be making the same (or similar) flawed assumption that Statler's friend is making. Do smaller buildings not need these products? If the food and office supplies were not being transported to a single tower they would need to be transported to a number of smaller buildings, which would require more gas/energy (and time) than delivery to a single building.
 
^^ Yeah, if you have 1000 people looking for places to live and society accepted cities as the norm, you fill up one square. But your friend says you fill up all of his squares and then kill off anyone else who doesn't fit and then there will be "nature" in everyone's front lawns. And oh yeah, even though there is no one else looking for places to live, developers decide to make the city multiply 100 times just because the city exists...

Ok, I am confused. Your friend there really doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality then.

There are only so many in the world. If EVERYONE lived in high rises and cities, and we left everything else untouched, there would be more available land at this point. But as most of us do, we live on a large pot of land where we cut down trees make a yard and then build a massive house.

Another discussion would be small energy efficient space conservative houses. I have looked into these online and there are forums and communities revolved around them. Basically a small energy efficient house vs. a big ass energy sucking standard house.

IMO small houses are awesome given you have enough room. Less stuff to clean, easier to organize, and less work on outside too. And better for the environment.
 
His point as I understand it, was that humans will expand as long as resources (in this case, land) exist for them to use up. If you give each person a larger portion of the available resources, then fewer resources will be used. The crux of our disagreement lay in whether suburban land planning (lawns, median strips, etc) constitutes 'preservation' or 'consumption' of resources. That's where we agreed to disagree. (Though I'm right, of course)
 
Justin7 said:
These arguments seem to be making the same (or similar) flawed assumption that Statler's friend is making. Do smaller buildings not need these products? If the food and office supplies were not being transported to a single tower they would need to be transported to a number of smaller buildings, which would require more gas/energy (and time) than delivery to a single building.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't necessarily buy these assumptions, but I wanted input from others before making any conclusions of my own. The point of the argument is that, imagining a perfectly dense center city (Vencouver, for example, or New York), then although less land is used to house people, goods like produce have farther to travel than they would if they were delivered along the way to the center city (sprawl). The argument assumes some goods might only be desired by some people, therefore allowing the transport trips to be shorter in a sprawl scenario because they would end as soon as they reached those consumers, without needing to progress farther toward the center city, which they would always have to do in a perfectly dense world. Not saying it makes any sense, just trying to make as much sense out of it as I can at this time.

Statler's friend is on to something, though, when regional land use policies aren't coordinated. In land use law, there is the problem of how to ensure cluster developments never have their resulting open space developed at some later time. Without the proper legal instrument ensuring that the open space remains open, he is right that eventually the whole parcel will develop in a more dense fashion than would have been the case before. However, that said, Statler is also right in that people (demand) don't just appear without vacating other areas (leaving more open space there). Sometimes what seems straightforward isn't. That's what interests me about this stuff. Overall, I can't say I disagree with the points/comments made by either you or statler, and I hope I haven't come across that way. Just trying to stimulate some discussion by raising points I've heard others make.
 
statler said:
His point as I understand it, was that humans will expand as long as resources (in this case, land) exist for them to use up. If you give each person a larger portion of the available resources, then fewer resources will be used. The crux of our disagreement lay in whether suburban land planning (lawns, median strips, etc) constitutes 'preservation' or 'consumption' of resources. That's where we agreed to disagree. (Though I'm right, of course)
Click to expand...

You are right. Suburban development even though it has "green space" really just fragments the rural landscape in what some call a "leapfrogging" development pattern. Although it looks green, animals usually need more continuous land coverage to thrive. Connecticut has one of the highest tick counts in the country, and some suspect this is because of the "edge zones" created by suburban developments that fragment woods, leading deer to locate there, and thus bring with them deer ticks.

However, your friend, Statler, has his point rooted in some interesting theory about the rationale for privatizing property ownership. I won't patronize anyone by pretending they don't know about the tragedy of the commons concept, but please google it for anyone who is unfamiliar with the idea. Giving people larger portions of available land (i.e., privatizing ownership) does indeed result in more wise use of the land, but I think where you disagree is in this concept's application to land use planning as regards suburban vs urban development patterns. The rationale for privatizing land is correct, in my opinion, but your friend's conclusion doesn't logically follow. I think that's where your disagreement comes in.
 
I don't think it's all that complex. Take 1000 people and 10 square miles. You can concetrate the people in one small area and leave the rest of the land pristine, or spread all those people over the ten square miles. If you let the people spread out they will chop down many trees and drive off any animals that arn't squirls or birds. They can also alter water patterns big time. And supplies for a 1000 people can either go to one location, which may or may not be as close to the source as a couple of the suburban houses, or it could have to go to all these different locations, or one strip mall that every one then has to drive to. Also think of all the additional pipes that would be needed to be put in to cover the entire area and the energy needed to push water through a much bigger system.
 
essentially you are making the arguments for smart growth, and I agree. My only point is that it's not always cut and dry, and some people come up with creative arguments to make that clear. I do agree with you about infrastructure costs. I wish I could find the article to which I keep referring (saying density and high rise development is less environmentally sound), because it makes the argument much stronger than I (someone who is biased in favor of cities for design and pleasing aesthetic reasons) can just going from memory.
 
One downside of 'my' model is that places like Falling Water shouldn't exist. Exceptions could be made, I suppose, but on what basis?
 
I guess they could exist in ex-urban or rural landscapes, where despite the zoning scheme you have alluded to, there aren't that many people anyway...fallingwater farmhouse anyone?

There is an interesting article in Metropolis Mag that I want to discuss...its about retrofitting a famous skyscraper in chicago to be sustainable. Only some of the recommendations have been implemented due to cost constraints, but I think it would fit well in this thread...actually, it may be online I'll post if so.
 
We will however run out of space faster with the suburban style.

My town, Salem NH now requires new land to be at least 2 acres to sell as residential. Although in theory this is good, I do not think it is great.

I would rather see something in place where a new development is required to at least 35% of the land preserved as conservation or preservation land.

Ideal development IMO would be large cities with suburban towns fairly dense around them with PLENTY of conservation land, not just wetlands.

Here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&i....812875,-71.213293&spn=0.010814,0.027874&z=16

So that is a neighborhood in my town where the developer wanted to incorporate a bunch of preserved woods into the development of the neighborhood. It is very nice and I think every development should be like this minus city builds. But I think cities need to have more in terms of open land (no parks, but untouched land)

Edit: And thanks Patrick, that was a cool article.
 
This isn't so much for urban areas, but more for suburbs and especially rural areas:

How much energy could we save if streetlights came on only when necessary. But how can we accomplish this? I have this idea where streetlights come on only when a car is within say ~500 feet. To do so, we could employ the same technology used in stoplights which turn green when a vehicle is waiting. I'm not sure what to call that, really, but I hope you know what I'm talking about! All lights would be connected in one network, and as a car comes within 500 feet of a light on this network, it will go over one of those magnetic square strips, tripping that light, at the same time, the light 500 feet behind the car will turn off.

I really wonder how much energy we could save that way, though.
 
My questions:
1. does a light use more energy stopping and starting than when it is just on?
2. does the mechanism that is monitoring the need for light use energy?
3. does it monitor all needs for light: pedestrians, bicycles, people stepping out of buildings for a smoke, etc

It's kind of cool to think about a city as a dynamic lightboard that maps all movement, but also it seems like it would overwhelm our delicate senses....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top