Christopher Miller | 1 Apr 2009 01:13
Picon
Gravatar

Article excerpt on emergent urbanism

Mathieu Helie's Emergent Urbanism blog has a new posting with the
first of a series of excerpts from his upcoming article "The
Principles of Emergent Urbanism", to appear in the International
Journal of Architectural Research (http://www.archnet.org/gws/IJAR/):

http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC Canada

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___
Richard Risemberg | 1 Apr 2009 02:42
Picon
Favicon

Re: trend to smaller houses in USA

Eric Miller and I have an audio conversation covering this on our new
podcasts page on New Colonist:
http://www.newcolonist.com/podcasts.html

See "Living Small."

We are looking for more people to interview regarding urban
sustainability, so if you wish to volunteer yourself or recommend
someone, let me know.

Rick

On Mar 31, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Christopher Miller wrote:

> A not surprising piece of news:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/home/2009-03-16-small-
> homes_N.htm
>
> A quote that relates house size to the nature of the neighbourhood:
> "The key to small homes is connectedness," Cusato says, adding that
> people don't need as much interior space for entertainment or exercise
> if they live near parks, shops or other people. "I grew up in Alaska,
> and we played outside all the time. We could walk everywhere in our
> neighborhood."
>
> =========================================================
>
> Americans are moving on up to smaller, smarter homes
> Updated 3/17/2009 10:46 AM | Comments 189 | Recommend 67
> E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |
>
> ----------
>
>
> (image)
> By Bob Donnan for USA TODAY
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> Sarah Susanka, photographed in her office addition, says Americans are
> embracing living smaller. "There's a shift in the culture," she says.
>
> ----------
>
>
>
>
> ----------
>
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> IMPROVE THE SPACE YOU HAVE
>
> ----------
>
>
>
>
> (image)
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> Sarah Susanka's remodeling tips:
>
> 1. Set priorities. Of three factors -- quality, quantity and cost --
> determine which two are the most important and let the other "float."
>
> 2. Examine your space. Look at what can be done within the existing
> footprint. List activities to be accommodated, recognizing that a
> place is needed but not necessarily an entire room.
>
> 3. Study storage. A little well-designed storage in the right place
> can replace a lot of poorly designed storage, opening up floor space
> in areas that are currently too small to function properly.
>
> 4. Bump out a little. Adding just a few feet to a space can contain
> costs and maintain a house’s scale.
>
> 5. Add on with grace. If none of the above strategies meet your needs,
> and the budget allows, a small addition may be the best option.
> Consider what each exterior face of the house will look like.
>
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
> When architect Sarah Susanka remodeled her kitchen, she didn't use
> pricey granite or edgy concrete for her countertops. She used
> laminate. Her cabinets: Ikea.
> "You can save thousands of dollars" by using simple materials in a
> well-designed space, says Susanka, author of the best-selling 1998
> book The Not So Big House.
>
> For more than a decade, she has urged people to build better, not
> bigger. Now, as the U.S. economy struggles to climb out of a tailspin
> and environmental concerns rise, her message has gone mainstream.
>
> New homes, after doubling in size since 1960, are shrinking. Last
> year, for the first time in at least 10 years, the average square
> footage of single-family homes under construction fell dramatically,
> from 2,629 in the second quarter to 2,343 in the fourth quarter,
> Census data show.
>
> The new motto: living well with less.
>
> FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | California | Houston |Chicago |
> Tucson | iPhone | Census | National Association of Home Builders |
> Industry | Corona | Ikea | Museum of Science| Institute of Architects
> | McMansions | Gopal Ahluwalia |Jeffrey Mezger | KB Homes | Kermit
> Baker | Not So Big House| Sarah Susanka | Marianne Cusato | Michelle
> Kaufmann
> "There's a shift in the culture," says Susanka, whose new book, Not So
> Big Remodeling, helps homeowners use existing space better. She says
> the economy has forced people to rethink McMansions and focus instead
> on what they need.
>
> Other architects agree.
>
> "It's a return to common sense and what really matters," says
> architect Marianne Cusato, who designed the Katrina Cottage, a modular
> kit house for people who were displaced by the 2005 hurricane.
>
> Cusato says the banking collapse last fall prompted her to co-design
> what she calls "The New Economy Home." In 1,500 square feet, it has
> three bathrooms, a half-bath and four bedrooms, one of which can be
> used as a rental unit. "It's a small house that lives large," Cusato
> says. She plans to begin selling the floor plan on her website as
> early as April.
>
> "It's sad that it took a complete economic meltdown" for people to
> appreciate smaller homes, but at least something good can come from
> it, says Michelle Kaufmann, author ofPrefab Green, published last
> month.
>
> Kaufmann, a California architect who designs compact, factory-built,
> eco-friendly homes, says she's busier than ever because "these
> concepts are resonating on a mass level." One of her modern homes is
> on display in the backyard of Chicago's Museum of Science and
> Industry.
>
> She says new gadgets, such as the iPhone, have helped consumers see
> that bigger is not always better. Now, she says, "we want more out of
> less."
>
> The shrinking dream
>
> Kaufmann and others expect the shift in attitudes to persist even
> after the economy recovers.
>
> "This will remain a trend. I don't expect this (home size) to come
> back up," says Gopal Ahluwalia, vice president of research for the
> National Association of Home Builders. Nine of 10 builders surveyed by
> NAHB this year say they're building or planning smaller, lower-priced
> homes than in the past.
>
> "We don't need big homes," he says. "Family size has been declining
> for the past 35 years."
>
> Home sizes tend to stagnate during recessions, says Kermit Baker,
> chief economist of the American Institute of Architects. He expects
> that when the economy recovers, many first-time or middle-income
> buyers may want more square footage than they can now afford.
>
> Baker says plummeting home values, however, have caused many people to
> stop seeing houses as an investment but rather as a place to live. He
> says home-size declines probably will continue among high-end buyers,
> who began scaling back even before the recession.
>
> Steve Alloy, president of Virginia-based Stanley Martin Homes, says he
> started seeing that shift a few years ago and as a result began
> offering smaller floor plans. In the past eight months, he has
> introduced two models that are each under 2,000 square feet.
>
> In the Tucson area, Jeffrey Mezger says two-thirds of his houses that
> have sold in the past 90 days were less than 1,600 square feet.
>
> "In these economic times, people are more practical," says Mezger,
> chief executive officer of KB Homes, one of the nation's largest home
> builders. He says consumers, who were hit by record gas prices last
> summer, are also more concerned about utility bills, so energy
> efficiency has become more important.
>
> Two years ago, he says, the average KB house was about 2,400 square
> feet, which can easily accommodate four bedrooms and three bathrooms.
> He expects it could drop to 1,500 or 1,600 this year. In many
> communities, his models now start at 1,000 square feet. In Houston, KB
> Homes has an 880-square-foot house for $63,995.
>
> "We could have gotten a bigger home" but chose instead better
> flooring, lighting, countertops and cabinetry, says Jennifer Kovatch,
> 24, an accounting manager. Next month in Corona, Calif., she and her
> fiancé are buying their first home. It has three bedrooms, not four.
> "We traded an extra bedroom for upgrades."
>
> Carole Conley and her husband had $1 million to spend when they went
> house-hunting in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. They could have bought
> a 5,000-square-foot home but decided against it. "We're a couple
> looking to our elderly years," she says, adding they want a house that
> will be easy to maintain when they retire. So they're buying a well-
> designed 2,000-square-foot rambler and plan to add 700 square feet.
>
> As an interior designer, Christine Brun sees a "complete reversal"
> from a decade ago. Now, she says, her clients are clamoring for less
> square footage, and manufacturers are responding with smaller
> furniture and appliances.
>
> "You're almost unpatriotic to live so large," says Brun, author of
> Small Space Living, published last month. She says Baby Boomers want
> to downsize, and young eco-minded adults "don't care if they live in
> 500 square feet. They just want cool stuff."
>
> Between those attitudes and a crashing economy, she sees big prospects
> for smaller houses: "It's like a perfect storm."
>
> "The key to small homes is connectedness," Cusato says, adding that
> people don't need as much interior space for entertainment or exercise
> if they live near parks, shops or other people. "I grew up in Alaska,
> and we played outside all the time. We could walk everywhere in our
> neighborhood."
>
> How to live well with less
>
> For years as an adult, Cusato lived in New York apartments with less
> than 300 square feet. She says she lived outside, in her community, as
> much as inside, where she simplified her belongings. She told her
> family not to give her any more "tchotchkes."
>
> "Build what you need. Build what inspires you," Susanka says. "Don't
> build to impress your neighbors."
>
> As a best-selling author, Susanka could have built a grand home. She
> chose instead a 2,200-square-foot Cape Cod with a big front porch and
> "three perfectly proportioned" dormers on a lot that looks like
> country but is close to the airport, a good grocery store and a
> beautiful lake with walking paths.
>
> "What more could we ask?" she writes in her new book. She later added
> 200 square feet for her office. She and her husband both work from
> home, so office space accounts for one-third of their square footage.
>
> "I don't feel we need more space," she says. If designed right, she
> says, less space can work well. "There are lots of things that can be
> done without spending a lot of money," Susanka says.
>
> She tells readers to think about how they really live and, if they
> feel they're short on space, to repurpose rooms that are rarely used,
> such as formal living and dining rooms.
>
> She says rooms can and should do "double duty." If they still feel
> more space is needed, she says, often a small addition will suffice.
>
> Susanka says the push to living smaller "at some point had to happen,"
> because McMansions use more resources and are not environmentally
> sustainable.
>
> "We're in the midst of a pendulum swing," she says. "What will come of
> this will be a more balanced home."
>
>
> =========================================================
>
> Christopher Miller
> Montreal QC Canada
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___
Christopher Miller | 1 Apr 2009 18:17
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [world-carfree-news_eng] World Carfree News #65 - April 2009

I *do* trust that Toronto will revert to Canada once we clear the  
first of this month...

Although I must say having to clear US customs on the various roadway  
entry points must be a formidable and effective alternative to a  
congestion charging scheme - as long as they allow people coming in on  
the GO trains special dispensation for easy entry!

Coming to think of it, if this annexation *does* extend through May,  
two full months of car commuters of having to deal with customs might  
change some habits...

On 1-Apr-09, at 7:52 AM, bulletin@... wrote:

> ____________________________________
>
> WORLD CARFREE NEWS >>>
> ____________________________________
>
> Edition 66 – April 2009 - English version
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Contents:
>
> QUOTATION OF THE MONTH

> (...)

> GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
>
> - Urban Transportation 2009, Abu Dhabi, UAE (April 26-29)
> - Bike Summit, Toronto, US (May 28)

> (...)

> - Bike Summit, Toronto, US (May 28)
> Join leading thinkers, practitioners and decision-makers who are on  
> the fast
> track to creating bikeable communities. Topics include: sharing  
> international
> and Canadian best practices and perspectives of cycling; how to  
> address
> barriers and implement bicycle-friendly policies; and recent best  
> practices in
> bike parking and bike stations.
> http://www.torontocat.ca/main/bikesummit2009

(...)

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:carfree_cities-digest@... 
    mailto:carfree_cities-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Christopher Miller | 1 Apr 2009 18:19
Picon
Gravatar

Detroit

Live by the ---, die by the ---.

http://www.themotorlesscity.com/

DenverInfill Blog: Lessons from Detroit
http://www.denverinfill.com/blog/2008/12/lessons-from-detroit.html

=========================================================

Saturday, December 27, 2008 Lessons from Detroit
I've just returned from a week of visiting family out of town, and one  
of those trips took me to Michigan, where I once again had the  
opportunity to drive through Detroit.

In the 1950 census, the city of Detroit's population peaked at  
1,849,568. In 2000, the city's population was 951,270, and SEMCOG,  
metro Detroit's equivalent to Denver's DRCOG, estimates Detroit's 2008  
population at 860,521. Physically, what happens to a city when it  
loses half its population in 50 years? The answer is visible from  
driving along Interstate 94 as it cuts through the heart of the city,  
where one can see hundreds of vacant or burned-out buildings  
overlooking the sunken freeway. But to really appreciate the degree to  
which many of central Detroit's neighborhoods have been abandoned,  
explore the city using GoogleEarth. First, find Downtown Detroit along  
the Detroit River, then venture northwest, north, and northeast from  
there, and you will be shocked at what you see:

(pictures at URL above)

Talk about infill opportunities! These images represent just a few  
examples of the extent of urban abandonment in Detroit. It's surreal  
to see block after block of a city grid with virtually no homes or  
buildings lining the streets. Between 1970 and 2000, over 161,000  
homes and buildings were demolished in the city of Detroit, with  
thousands more razed every year. Nature is reclaiming many of these  
empty blocks, with native grasses and trees thriving and turning these  
once-dense inner-city neighborhoods back into greenfields. One Detroit  
city councilperson even suggested that the city should relocate any  
remaining residents from these abandoned neighborhoods, fence the  
areas off, and let them transform into nature preserves.

To give you an idea of the expanse of these empty inner-city Detroit  
neighborhoods, here are three aerial images from Denver taken at the  
same scale (eye altitude). From left to right: the West Highlands  
neighborhood centered on 32nd & Lowell, the West Washington Park  
neighborhood, and Capitol Hill west of Cheesman Park. Can you imagine  
these Denver neighborhoods being virtually empty of buildings or people?

(pictures at URL above)

For an in-depth look at Detroit's sad situation, check out this  
article, Disappeared Detroit, from Lost magazine.

(Link: LOST Magazine - Disappeared Detroit
http://www.lostmag.com/issue2/detroit.php)

My purpose in discussing Detroit is not to compare that city to  
Denver, but to emphasize, using Detroit as an example, the importance  
in being vigilant in maintaining the vitality and quality of our urban  
core. I'm sure no one in Detroit in the early 20th century during the  
peak of that city's wealth and prominence could have believed that  
Detroit could decline in a free-fall so far, so fast. Such is the case  
in Denver today, as we mostly dodged the bullet of severe urban decay  
that struck so many other cities in the 1970s and 1980s and now find  
ourselves twenty years into an era of great revitalization and  
investment in our urban center. We cannot rest on our laurels and  
assume that Denver will forever remain the thriving heart of a  
sprawling metropolis. Every day, we must work hard to make sure that  
what happened to Detroit never happens to Denver. That is one of the  
reasons why I created DenverInfill.

We are blessed here in Denver to have such a solid fabric of stable,  
historic urban neighborhoods: Capitol Hill, Highlands, Sloans Lake,  
Washington Park, Park Hill, Berkeley, Baker, Hilltop, Bonnie Brae,  
Cherry Creek... just to name a few. Can you imagine Denver without  
them? I hope everyone reading this finds some way to help keep Denver  
the vibrant, beautiful city that it is.

Posted by Ken  <at>  Saturday, December 27, 2008

=========================================================

Lead poisoning maps for Detroit and other US cities and a discussion  
of the problem:
http://www.urbanleadpoisoning.com/

Another blog reproduces a now "Error 404" article from the Detroit  
Free Press on suggestions about what to do with the city's vast swaths  
of abandoned land:
Acres of barren blocks offer chance to reinvent Detroit
http://www.cityfarmer.info/acres-of-barren-blocks-offer-chance-to-reinvent-detroit/

=========================================================

Acres of barren blocks offer chance to reinvent Detroit
Linked by Michael Levenston

  ----------

The map above by Dan Pitera, a professor of architecture at University  
of Detroit Mercy. About 30% of Detroit is now vacant land — about 40  
square miles, by one estimate — as the city’s population has shrunk  
from a peak of 2 million in the early 1950s to 900,000 today.  
Abandoned houses dot empty lots that were once blocks of homes and  
businesses. Farms, forests, hobby gardens and recreation areas are  
some suggestions urban planners are considering for using the space.

By John Gallagher
Detroit Free Press
December 15, 2008

Detroit’s thinning population is vividly - some would say disturbingly  
- illustrated in a new map that is creating a buzz in local planning  
circles.

The map shows how to tuck the land mass of Manhattan (23 square  
miles), San Francisco (47 square miles) and Boston (48 square miles) —  
and their combined populations of nearly 3 million people — into  
Detroit. All three urban areas fit snugly within Detroit’s 139 square  
miles with room to spare.

Detroit, where the population peaked at 2 million in the early 1950s,  
is home to about 900,000 today and is still losing people. The  
depopulation and demolition of abandoned properties has left the city  
dotted with thousands of vacant parcels, ranging from single home lots  
to open fields of many acres.

The map is the handiwork of Dan Pitera, a professor of architecture at  
University of Detroit Mercy. He says he created it as a simple and  
dramatic illustration of how underpopulated Detroit has become.
To see for yourself: Use Google Earth or a similar computer program to  
fly over the city and see how many vacant parcels you can find. Pitera  
estimates that all that empty land adds up to about 40 square miles —  
nearly the land mass of San Francisco.

His conclusion: Hopes and plans to repopulate the city and to  
redevelop all the city’s vacant land, are unrealistic, at least for  
another generation. Some redevelopment deals will succeed, but  
realistic Detroiters should seize the opportunity to become a leaner,  
greener city for the 21st Century.

“What if a lot of the vacant land was allowed to begin to become  
green?” Pitera said. “Could Detroit truly become the greenest city in  
the United States?”

This abundance of vacant land has people talking about new uses, such  
as urban farming, reforesting the city, and large-scale recreational  
areas. Urban farming is getting the most buzz. Michigan State  
University’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources is among the  
groups touting urban farms as a solution for Detroit’s vacant land.

“Given the amount of open land, I think there’s a real opportunity for  
Detroit to provide a significant amount of its fruits and vegetables  
for its population and the surrounding area,” said Mike Hamm, the C.S.  
Mott Chair of Sustainable Agriculture at MSU.

Besides providing nutritional value for Detroiters, Hamm said, “I  
think it can help create jobs and some small businesses in the city,  
with the potential for spin-off businesses in processing and  
distribution.”

(...story continues at the link above...)

..........................

"Detroit with Reference design overlay"

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cKDSSUu7IaTzCyvIyeB7V3D-iF_m03jsQQhBp9EmUoB5f_7dc7357sgyFYpbeOjqx1Op2cyLIYI62dChEAZ8djY9rJc5jg/Detroit%20with%20Reference%20design%20overlay.jpg

=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:carfree_cities-digest@... 
    mailto:carfree_cities-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Christopher Miller | 1 Apr 2009 18:26
Picon
Gravatar

Message sent by mistake - "Deroit"

Hi all,

I just sent off a message that I hadn't finished editing, about
Detroit. I had just sent off another one but seeing an open email
window still on my desktop, I thought I had missed the "Send" button
so clicked it again. Turned out I *had* sent the other one off, and by
clicking again, sent of the "Detroit" one by mistake.

As of now, it is a jumbled mix of links and quoted blocks of text
without any uniting commentary. I'll try to put together my comments
about what I find a propos there sometime over the course of the day.

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC Canada

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___
rickrise | 1 Apr 2009 19:18
Picon
Favicon

NYTimes.com: The Price Is Not Right

This page was sent to you by: rickrise <at> earthlink.net.

Not what you'd expect from Friedman, one of the more conservative economists....

OPINION | April 01, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist: The Price Is Not Right
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
It's obvious that the reason we're experiencing meltdowns in both the financial system and the climate system is because we have been mispricing risk in both arenas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01friedman.html?emc=eta1

----------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help <at> nytimes.com.

NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___
kyle3054 | 2 Apr 2009 11:55
Picon

resistance to carfree

Over on TheOilDrum there's an article about electric cars. [http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5137] Ugo Bardi writes,

"this is the way all cars should be: silent, cheap and zero emission."

When I (posting as "Kiashu") suggested that the quietest, cheapest, and lowest emissions car of all was no car, quite some hostility erupted.

"It's impossible, and even if it's possible it's not what we really want," and so on. The usual points I make are what's been discussed so often here and in the newsletter, to point to the examples of relatively carfree neighbourhoods and cities. Places with open squares, few or narrow roads, lots of public transport and services, and few or no cars, these are the places with the highest real estate values, and the great tourist cities.

Since these places exist, they must be possible; and since people will pay millions to live in these places and sit in cramped metal tubes for hours on end to visit them, this suggests they're desired.

Yet there's such resistance to the idea, people become quite hostile and defensive. It's strange.

Cheers,
Kyle
http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___
Christopher Miller | 2 Apr 2009 21:35
Picon
Gravatar

Re: resistance to carfree


On 2-Apr-09, at 5:55 AM, kyle3054 wrote:

> Over on TheOilDrum there's an article about electric cars. [http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5137
> ] Ugo Bardi writes,
>
> "this is the way all cars should be: silent, cheap and zero emission."
>
> When I (posting as "Kiashu") suggested that the quietest, cheapest,
> and lowest emissions car of all was no car, quite some hostility
> erupted.
>
> "It's impossible, and even if it's possible it's not what we really
> want," and so on. The usual points I make are what's been discussed
> so often here and in the newsletter, to point to the examples of
> relatively carfree neighbourhoods and cities. Places with open
> squares, few or narrow roads, lots of public transport and services,
> and few or no cars, these are the places with the highest real
> estate values, and the great tourist cities.
>
> Since these places exist, they must be possible; and since people
> will pay millions to live in these places and sit in cramped metal
> tubes for hours on end to visit them, this suggests they're desired.
>
> Yet there's such resistance to the idea, people become quite hostile
> and defensive. It's strange.
>

I know exactly what you're talking about! I follow Treehugger for the
often worthwhile pieces they post on environmental issues.
Unfortunately, they are as stuck in the "green cars" mindset as the
mainstream, so much so that I sometimes think they should just call
themselves "Carhugger" instead. From time to time I post comments to
the effect that there is no such thing as a "green car" unless that
describes its paint job. I go over the same kind of pints as you did,
to the effect that leaving aside the relative environment-friendliness
of the energy source used to power personal automobiles, they by their
nature force us into wasteful land-use patterns which are inevitably
more energy-intensive to maintain (and so on...). (See http://www.buildinggreen.com/press/transportation_energy_intensity.cfm
for statistics showing that transportation energy use to get to and
from buildings exceeds their operational consumption by some 30 per
cent.)

I'm probably one of the more vexatious gadflies on the list, and my
comments are inevitably met with rejoinders like "cars aren't going
anywhere - get used to it", that cars mean freedom and what I'm
proposing is communist tyranny and the like... Treehugger's audience
is mainly from the US, as opposed to Oil Drum Europe, of course, so
much of the opposition to my postings comes from cultural assumptions
imbued in much of the American public over more than a half century.

Yet even from the standpoint of energy efficiency, moving to an all-
electric fleet of private automobiles seems to have as many weaknesses
as any of the biofuels or hydrogen scenarios that were the flavour of
the day at the beginning of this decade. Two such problems I see with
happy electromotoring:

1. The assumption seems to be that we will all plug in our spanking
new e-mobile at night (this being when electric consumption is
typically lower) to recharge it for a day's worth of motoring. But at
the same time, a full battery apparently only gives you about 100
miles (i.e. 160 km) of driving, which certainly put a crimp on long-
distance driving unless an infrastructure is put in place for daytime
recharging or (and this will only be dependable if a narrow range of
standard battery technologies and formats are adopted) battery
exchange, both solutions I have seen proposed. I *really* have a
difficult time believing that people would not take to recharging
their e-mobiles in the daytime, thereby increasing the demand for
electrical generation.

I have yet to see anyone really explore all the implications of what
battery-powered electric cars would mean for electric consumption and
compare that with what can safely be sustained.

2. What are the power requirements for private electric automobiles to
carry a given proportion of the population compared to those of a
fleet of electrically powered public transit vehicles to carry the
same proportion? Just as less space is required for a mass transit-
based system (think of the famous Münster cars/bus/bicycles poster
here), I suspect that less energy is required to carry the same number
of people in a single tram, metro or bus than in individual cars (and
of course it is a given that it will be far less if a significant
number are using human powered wheeled transport or walking because of
better urban design). I don't know if anyone has done the numbers to
compare the modes: anyone here know?

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC Canada

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Groups

Everyday Wellness Zone

Check out featured

healthy living groups.

All-Bran

Day 10 Club

on Yahoo! Groups

Feel better with fiber.

Y! Groups blog

the best source

for the latest

scoop on Groups.

.

__,_._,___
Richard Risemberg | 2 Apr 2009 21:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: resistance to carfree


On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Christopher Miller wrote:

> Yet even from the standpoint of energy efficiency, moving to an all-
> electric fleet of private automobiles seems to have as many weaknesses
> as any of the biofuels or hydrogen scenarios that were the flavour of
> the day at the beginning of this decade.

The space cars take up may be a bigger issue than energy use or
pollution. (GHG gases are another huge issue, present with electrics
too, just less so.) I wrote a little blurb on that long ago:

http://www.bicyclefixation.com/meth.htm
>
>
> 2. What are the power requirements for private electric automobiles to
> carry a given proportion of the population compared to those of a
> fleet of electrically powered public transit vehicles to carry the
> same proportion? Just as less space is required for a mass transit-
> based system (think of the famous Münster cars/bus/bicycles poster
> here), I suspect that less energy is required to carry the same number
> of people in a single tram, metro or bus than in individual cars (and
> of course it is a given that it will be far less if a significant
> number are using human powered wheeled transport or walking because of
> better urban design). I don't know if anyone has done the numbers to
> compare the modes: anyone here know?

I don't know what it is for passenger vehicles, but freight trains
typically use 1/3 to 1/4 the energy per ton-mile as do trucks.
--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.bicyclefixation.com
http://www.newcolonist.com
http://www.rickrise.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Give Back

Yahoo! for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___
Christopher Miller | 2 Apr 2009 22:04
Picon
Gravatar

Re: resistance to carfree


On 2-Apr-09, at 3:45 PM, Richard Risemberg wrote:

> On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Christopher Miller wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> The space cars take up may be a bigger issue than energy use or
> pollution. (GHG gases are another huge issue, present with electrics
> too, just less so.) I wrote a little blurb on that long ago (...)
>

Oh, I don't think we're likely to come to fisticuffs over that point  
any time soon! :-)

I am pretty much convinced that mitigating demand by increasing  
mobility by proximity plus making mass transit the dominant distance  
mode is the only truly sustainable answer. The BuildingGreen.com page  
I linked to amply illustrates the external costs rarely if ever  
factored into "green building", even if this is only one of many  
issues with the way we currently manage urban infrastructure. I'm  
pasting the content of that link into the end of this message.

My point is that even if we put aside this obvious (to us at least)  
problem, the whole rush to electric cars as the latest way of saving  
The Sacred Right to Drive Everywhere seems to me to pose as many  
insoluble difficulties with respect to energy consumption as the  
"hydrogen economy" or biofuels did for that and other reasons. I am  
pretty sure my hypothesis would turn out right with respect to  
increasing demand on the electric grid, but as for anything else, the  
proof of the pudding is in the eating and I'd really be interested in  
seeing actual figures that would bear out my hunch.

Here's the text from the BuildingGreen.com page I cited:

=========================================================
http://www.buildinggreen.com/press/transportation_energy_intensity.cfm
9/5/07
Contact:
Jerelyn Wilson
802-257-7300 ext. 102
Jerelyn@...

Energy Consumption Getting to and From Buildings Exceeds Energy Use  
for Operations
Brattleboro, VT — An examination of the “transportation energy  
intensity” of buildings has found that getting people to and from  
buildings uses more energy than the buildings themselves consume. The  
lead article in the September 2007 issue of Environmental Building  
News shows that for an average office building in the United States,  
30 percent more energy is expended by office workers commuting to and  
from the building than is consumed by the building itself for heating,  
cooling, lighting, and other energy uses. For an office building built  
to modern energy codes (ASHRAE 90.1-2004), more than twice as much  
energy is used by commuters than by the building.

“This was a huge surprise,” says Environmental Building News (EBN)  
executive editor Alex Wilson, author of the article. “I knew that  
transportation energy requirements were significant, but I was amazed  
at the differences.” For the article, Wilson collected average U.S.  
data for commute distance, vehicle fuel economy, the split among  
different commuting options, and the number of square feet of building  
per office worker to normalize transportation energy intensity in Btu/ 
square foot per year. He was then able to compare that transportation  
energy intensity to the average building energy use (also in Btu/ft2- 
yr) for average existing office buildings and energy code-compliant  
buildings (see table below).

Comparing Transportation and Operating Energy Use for an Office Building

U.S. Units

Metric Units

Average U.S. commute distance – one way (1)

12.2 mi

19.6 km

U.S. average vehicle fuel economy – 2006  (2)

21.0 mi/gal

  8.9 km/liter

Work days

235 days/yr

Annual fuel consumption

273 gal/year

1033 liters/year

Annual fuel consumption per automobile commuter (3)

33,900 kBtu/yr

9,890 kWh/yr

Transportation energy use per employee (4)

27,700 kBtu/yr

8,100 kWh/yr

Average office building occupancy (5)

230 ft2/person

21.3 m2/person

Transportation energy use for average office building

121 kBtu/ft2

381.2 kWh/m2

Operating energy use for average office building (6)

92.9 kBtu/ft2-yr

292.7 kWh/m2-yr

Operating energy use for code-compliant office building (6, 7)

51.0 kBtu/ft2-yr

160.7 kWh/m2-yr

Percent transportation energy use exceeds operation energy use for an  
average office building

30.2%

Percent transportation energy use exceeds operation energy use for an  
office building built to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code

137%

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Energy Data Book  
26th Edition, 2007, Table 8.6
2. U.S. EPA Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends:  
1975 Through 2006
3. Assumes 124,000 Btu/gallon of gasoline, DOE Energy Information  
Administration data
4. Assumes 76.3% commute in single-occupancy vehicle, 11.2% carpool (2  
per car) and no other energy use (commuting transportation modes from  
U.S. DOT Transportation Energy Data Book 26th Edition, 2007, Table 8.14.
5. U.S. General Services Administration
6. This includes site energy only, not source energy. U.S. DOE Energy  
Information Administration Commercial Building Energy Consumption  
Survey (CBECS) data for 2003, published June 2006.
7. Bruce Hunn, ASHRAE, personal communication
Source: Environmental Building News, September 2007
“The green building community has expended tremendous effort to reduce  
the operating energy use of buildings,” notes Wilson, “but very little  
effort to reduce the transportation energy use of those buildings.” He  
would like to see this change. “To achieve widely shared goals for  
dealing with climate change,” says Wilson, “we simply can’t ignore the  
energy consumption getting to and from our buildings.”

Many of the strategies for reducing the transportation energy  
intensity of buildings relate to location. The September EBN article,  
“Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of  
Buildings,” reviews a wide range of strategies for reducing vehicle  
use. Such strategies are often lumped under the heading “transit- 
oriented development” and include increasing development density,  
creating mixed-use development, providing various forms of public  
transit, restricting parking, and creating more pedestrian-friendly  
streetscapes. “Although progressive urban planners have been  
advocating for such development features for years,” says Wilson, “the  
building industry has only recently begun paying attention to these  
issues.”

In an editorial in the same issue of EBN, Wilson calls for changes to  
the LEED Rating System to make the credits relating to location and  
transportation performance-based, rather than prescriptive. “While the  
prescriptive approach in LEED to site and transportation issues has  
served an important role,” Wilson says in the editorial, “it’s time to  
provide a more rigorous basis for these credits.”

The full article on transportation energy intensity and the  
accompanying editorial can be accessed at www.BuildingGreen.com. These  
articles are part of BuildingGreen Suite, a leading online resource on  
green building. While this is a paid-access site (with members paying  
$199 per year) these articles are provided free as a sampling of  
content. Environment Building News is the oldest and one of the most  
respected sources of green building information in North America.  
Celebrating its 15th year of publication in 2007, EBN has never  
carried advertising and is supported entirely by subscription revenue.  
For information, visit www.BuildingGreen.com, or call 800-861-0954  
(outside the U.S. and Canada, call 802-257-7300). BuildingGreen is an  
independent, socially responsible, 20-person company based in  
Brattleboro, Vermont.

Editors: BuildingGreen president Alex Wilson is available for  
interviews on the issue of transportation energy intensity of  
buildings. To arrange an interview, contact Jerelyn Wilson  
(802-257-7300 ext. 102; Jerelyn@...).

=========================================================

Christopher Miller
Montreal QC  Canada

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:carfree_cities-digest@... 
    mailto:carfree_cities-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Gmane