Everything new is old again

One need only look at the reappearance of tower cranes in downtown Chicago to get the sense that the real estate market has made at least a moderate comeback since the lowest point of the recession. For years, common logic has told us that the 5,000+ square foot suburban mansion displayed the ultimate in luxury and status, but now we see a different story. We have returned to a circumstance where close proximity to other community members and necessary services provides the highest value.

The typical suburban development layout grew from a philosophy that those seeking luxury did not want to live in something that resembled the city. Instead of adhering to a street grid, developments prevailed with a limited number of entry points, plenty of cul-de-sacs, and winding streets with plenty of distance between houses. In some cases, these developments did not include sidewalks because the design assumed the residents would rarely use them. Those living in these “luxury” neighborhoods would have access to two or more vehicles, so planners assumed the residents would substitute cheap gasoline for proximity when obtaining their necessities. This allowed suburbs (and eventually, even major cities) to build large strip malls with huge anchor retailers like WalMart, Target, or Home Depot to which the locals – and hopefully others outside the suburb – travel to get what they need. In many cases, a trip to a retail development requires driving as much as a mile when a resident lives only a block or two away from the building…except they have no way to get there because of the obstacles that separate these retail corridors from the residential areas.

As transportation costs rise, salaries decrease, and people value their personal time more, a new definition of luxury has come to the forefront. Beginning in the mid-1990s, and except for the downturn in the late 2000s, luxury living has returned to the urban environment. The classic urban neighborhood puts people in close proximity to each other and basic services. The corner grocery store sits within half a mile of every resident, as does a dry cleaner, a hardware store, and several restaurants. The new luxury high-rise developments bring most of these services to the residents in the form of first-floor retail that residents access with only a brief elevator ride. For those seeking a little more variety, they need only walk a block or two to find several other, similar developments containing their own similar retail development. These developments also contain community meeting space, fitness centers, and storage space that mimic services the residents would find in a more conventional urban neighborhood. Those who live in these developments do not need one car, much less two or more, allowing them to afford the level of luxury they desire.

Someday, we will need to revitalize the suburbs and return them to a more traditional, urban or “main street” communities where residents live near services. When we do, we will wonder why we ever built them in the first place.

Friday Five: June 27, 2014

It's not that we do dumb things that screw things up...it's that we do smart, well-intentioned things...

That screw things up.
Everything we know about neonic pesticides is awful
"The pesticides don’t just affect pest species. Most prominently, they affect bees and butterflies, which are poisoned when they gather pollen and nectar. But neonics’ negative impacts go far beyond pollinators. They kill all manner of animals and affect all kinds of ecosystems. They’re giving rise to Silent Spring 2.0."

And then we push it to scale and screw it up even more.
The brutal cost of cheap chicken
"American meat eaters live, for the most part, in happy ignorance of the system that grows animals for slaughter. When that ignorance is interrupted with a bit of information about the meat industry, we typically respond with outrage."

And then we build culture around it so that we hold onto it far longer than is practical.
The death of the American mall
"Dying shopping malls are speckled across the United States, often in middle-class suburbs wrestling with socioeconomic shifts. Some, like Rolling Acres, have already succumbed. Estimates on the share that might close or be repurposed in coming decades range from 15 to 50%. Americans are returning downtown; online shopping is taking a 6% bite out of brick-and-mortar sales; and to many iPhone-clutching, city-dwelling and frequently jobless young people, the culture that spawned satire like Mallrats seems increasingly dated, even cartoonish."

Finally, we do everything we can to try to hold onto it, even when it has never made economic sense. (Although, I will say that two of the points of the article: that there might be a way to produce energy without the damaging waste component, and that nuclear energy has to handle almost all of its waste products...they both have merit.  **Most, because they do not have to restore mined areas to pre-mining condition, and they do not have to account for the impact of the waste heat.**)
Is nuclear power ever coming back?
"According to those in the business of generating nuclear energy, other power producers should have to pay full price for the risks associated with their waste products. The way they see it, they’ve made their plants safer by prohibiting the release of critical, planet-damaging byproducts, and others should too."

I find it heartening when simple, time-tested mechanisms provide a path to a healthier future.  We need more electricity cooperatives and clean energy "building and loan" models to expedite the move to clean, community-based energy systems.  We have the knowledge, the technology, and now the economic incentive.  The only obstacle now are well-funded, obsolete industries.
Buying into solar power, no roof required
"The shared approach has its roots in rural electric cooperatives, said Elaine Ulrich of the Department of Energy’s SunShot program, but has only begun to take off in recent years, and still accounts for a tiny fraction of solar production. There are at least 52 projects in at least 17 states, and at least 10 states are encouraging their development through policy and programs, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the main trade group."

Happy Friday!

A time to start repairing

I recently read the thoughtful and inspiring piece that Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote in the Atlantic regarding his reversal on the concept of reparations for the African-American community.  Although I agree wholeheartedly with his arguments in that article and a subsequent defense, I write not to argue the merits of the case, but rather to offer a potential piece of the solution.  As Coates' article points out, governments and pillagers used housing as a way to extract wealth from the African-American community throughout most of the 20th century.  In order to begin to recognize this harm and make amends, I propose that we truly make the cost of living easier for those due these reparations...

Pay their energy bill for the duration of their time in the building.

The most optimal form this would take would include permanent installations of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency technology.  Although we can easily set up a trust from which regular distributions would pay for energy bills, we would soon find it much more lucrative to use the fund to invest in eliminating (or nearly eliminating) the energy bill altogether.  This would have three primary benefits to the African-American community:

First, it would provide relief to the resident.  For homeowners, it would immediately reduce the cost of ownership, freeing up resources to ease the cost of living and to allow for savings and future investment.  For renters, as long as the process included the proper oversight, it would mean immediate relief in out of pocket expenses.

Second, it would create value in the community.  Buildings that use little energy and have renewable energy improvements have greater value than those without.  In addition, extending the opportunity to all black-owned buildings would incentivize the movement of capital to black-owned buildings.  This could provide an opportunity for some communities to fight off gentrification by encouraging black investors to take advantage of the opportunities in real estate.  When selling these buildings, those black owners can receive a greater return, and use the marketplace to their financial benefit.

Third, it would provide several ancillary opportunities to increase capital flows into the black community.  Fearing the inefficiency of governmental program management, the funds that provide the capital for this program would best use community cooperatives to manage the development of energy assets.  The community would then set the parameters for which technologies get adopted, who performs the work, and how the profits get invested and dividends get distributed.  These cooperatives can make sure that local contractors and businesses get the opportunity to do the work, that local community members get the opportunity to invest, and that capital flows to manufacturing jobs that maximize the return to those for whom the reparations are intended.

We have debated the case for reparations for over a century, and will continue to do so for a long time to come.  In the meanwhile, we have the opportunity to start recognizing that we as a country have taken wealth from one race to the benefit of others.  This is not a chance occurrence, but one specifically executed by our society for hundreds of years.  Investing in the clean energy and energy efficiency can improve quality of life, and in this case, can begin to heal the wounds that 300 years of racism have inflicted.  More importantly, it respects those who receive the benefit, because it trusts them to turn the investment into permanent wealth.  Lastly, it provides the tools to end the erosion of communities so that we might finally deliver on the promise that all are created equal.

We are our own worst enemy

Last week, I spoke at a conference that addresses the ways we can build better buildings and do it in a way that means better, more stable business opportunities.  My presentation focused on ways that we can look to nature for inspiration to overcome the obstacles to designing and building structures that have no net negative effect on our quality of life.  Thanks to my friend and business partner Amy Coffman Phillips' help, the audience and I had a great discussion about the opportunities and challenges with improving our buildings.

In our discussion, we identified the largest perceived obstacle to zero-impact buildings...

Economics.

We did not leave it stand at that, however.  Economics must have some basis in reality, so we looked further at some of the underlying root causes for increased cost of buildings that fully support quality of life over those that provide comfort for occupants, but cause quality of life issues for others.  In that analysis, we decided that the availability of materials drove costs up.  This natural influence on prices - the limited availability of materials - gets to the heart of why we have an economy...the distribution of scarce resources.  After that, however, we found that almost all the other limitations had roots of our own making.

Two of these man-made economic drivers present obstacles without easy solutions: first, that we all want to belong to something bigger than ourselves, and second, that we crave consistency.  One could argue - as we did - that although these fall under "man-made" as opposed to "natural" phenomena, in some ways we as humans have these traits as part of our nature.  That said, we also noted that part of the reason these traits form such a rigid economic obstacle comes from the exploration of them by the marketing and advertising complex in our country.  In many ways, the traits themselves do not lead the economics of life-centered thinking to look bad compared with more conventional ideas...but the entrenched marketing of the status quo plays on our desire to belong and to have stability.

Overcoming these obstacles presents no easy task.  In part, we need regulation to force us away from damaging activities and toward beneficial ones.  Also, business can play a role by following industry ethics and being transparent about the effect their activities have on human quality of life.  Lastly, we must continue to expand our definition of community and belonging.  One thousand years ago, we thought in terms of clans and tribes.  Then we moved toward city-states, and eventually nations.  That evolution continues as we seek a more global idea of what it means to have connections with others.  Hopefully, along with this expanding idea of community, we can also expect of ourselves actions that will protect all people.

Otherwise, we may have "good" economic decision making that leads to our collapse.

Daily Decisions: O Christmas Tree

Throughout 2013, Adding Light will take a look at practical decisions that everyone can take to contribute to making our communities more ecologically and economically resilient. Everything in this Daily Decisions comes from experience or research applied directly by our family or people we know directly.

This decision has a decidedly regional slant to it, but the concept can extend to anywhere. Each year, many communities purchase real trees for use in decorating homes at Christmastime...and ours is no exception. I know that other, more sustainable options exist, but one of the environmental luxuries we allow ourselves is the smell of real pine tree in the traditional shape. Later in the year, I will review the purchasing of the tree, and have some lessons learned. For today, I want to discuss the "disposal" of the tree...or really, the repurposing of it.

One of the long-term programs in the city of Chicago has allowed residents to bring their tree to one of several local parks at which the City will grind up the tree into mulch. Residents can then come back for the free mulch to use in their landscaping.

This concept can be further scaled to a block or quadrant of a community that might not be in direct proximity to the centralized location by either renting a chipper from an equipment rental company, or contracting for a Saturday morning with a local landscaper. Although it would not be "free" (or in the case of the City doing the work...included in property or sales taxes), it would eliminate the need to transport the tree over long distance, and would provide for a single trip to "dispose" of the tree and receive the mulch. With the neighbors all sharing the cost of about $300 per day, a block of 20 houses can get the work done at about $15 per family.

Some areas are lucky to have pickup services that include lawn waste, and some may pickup the tree as part of that service. If your community does not already have such a service, you should look into advocating for your city or municipality to do so. As an example, San Francisco has one of the premier waste management programs that includes recyclables, yard waste/compostables and landfill material. They reach citywide recycling rates of over 75%, with a three can system where residents pay only for the landfill material pickup.

Whatever method you choose, do not just throw your tree to the curb to be placed in a landfill. It takes just a bit more work on your part, and many times little to no more money, to allow that natural material to work its way back into the earth.

Friday Five: July 6, 2012

Thankfully, from a resource efficiency point of view, we are returning to more density in our urban areas.
Central cities now growing faster than suburbs, confirming trends for walkable lifestyles, shorter commutes
"But the biggest change of all may be demographic: the portion of the housing market claimed by families with children, the prime market for suburban living, has been shrinking at the same time as the Millennial generation, which strongly favors walkable lifestyles and urban living, has been coming of age. Retiring baby boomers are also in many cases giving up large-lot living in favor of city life."

And as we find ways to provide quality food even in low income areas through creative social entrepreneurs....
Let them eat kale: In Harlem, a farm share for the people
"The folks behind Harlem-based Corbin Hill Farm don’t see sustainably grown local produce as a passing craze for the foodie elite; on the contrary, they’re figuring out a way to make it accessible to low-income communities on a large scale."

Hopefully we can understand how tenuously we currently organize our communities...
Another Way of Looking at the Blackouts
"In some ways, America is much richer and stronger relative to the rest of the world than most people think. But in lots of aspects, to a degree that many Americans really have a hard time imagining, the U.S. has become a backward place. (Roads are bad; cell phone coverage is really bad; internet access is slow compared with Japan or Korea; health-care system is a PITA.)"

And adopt solutions that make us stronger.
Utility Works to Unlock Smart-Grid Potential of Solar-Storage
"It's day six of the storm-induced power outage that has crippled much of the Eastern United States under unrelenting heat and painfully slow repairs. The unmistakable irony for more than 1 million people still without power on Thursday is that the sweltering sun that followed the brutal storms was tailor-made for rooftop PV with battery storage — a combination that keeps the lights on even in a blackout."

In honor of Independence Day, I admit that for all their negative impact, I love fireworks, and would welcome any change that makes them less damaging.
Green Fireworks-Environmentally Safe, That Is
"One rarely gives much thought to the toxic environmental pollution that accompanies a fireworks display. Amidst the choking black-powder smoke and sulfurous stench of a pyrotechnic Independence Day celebration, pounds of volatile compounds and heavy metals go up in smoke to make colorful explosions that pollute the air and contaminate ground water."

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: June 22, 2012

Do we have the right to make the choice to be unhealthy?
If Every Country Were As Heavy As Ours the World Would Have 1 Billion Extra Mouths to Feed
"Until now, we've generally thought of overpopulation in terms of numbers of people on earth, with milestones for 5 billion, 6 billion, and so on. But one of the paper's authors suggests that measure may soon be superseded -- or at least rivalled -- by the sustainability of our growing waistlines."

Do the manufacturers bear any responsibility?
Pop Goes the Weasel: Can Good Deeds Help Keep the Soda Industry Super Sized

"These companies are not afraid to push the boundaries. In fact, if there’s a particularly disconcerting element to soda company CSR campaigns, it’s that many seem designed to get around restrictions on selling soda in schools. As the report observes: 'While soda companies agreed to remove full-calorie drinks from U.S. schools, CSR programs like the Refresh Project keep the brand in front of young people with promises of grants for children’s schools, parks, or other programs.'”

Should a person speaking a common sense truth have to defend themselves?
In defense of walking
"And you emailed and commented and tweeted that I had it all wrong and I wasn’t thinking about the disabled, or that I was discounting every transportation advancement since we learned to ride horses. But I was considerate of genuine use cases (read: disabilities) and I maintained that my main point was valid: we should walk!"

Can we make other decisions that help us to engage in more healthy behavior?
Urban Renaissance Driven By Thinking Small
"In a way, thinking small is the next logical step in America’s urban renaissance. When cities really started changing 10 or 15 years ago, the economy was booming and the Internet was a newfangled gizmo. Today, cities have less money but more ways to communicate, two conditions perfectly suited to more focused, low-cost planning."

Or will changing our relationship with food be the answer?
What Farms Can Do For Cities
"Gardens are becoming a more integrated piece of what it is to responsibly build a single-family residence, or an apartment building, or even a mall. More people are seeing gardening as a public health solution because you get both healthy food and physical activity out of it."

Happy Friday!

The trouble with resources

Humans require resources in order to maintain our existence, namely water, air, and a consumable energy source. Without these, we die. In addition, because of our size and fragility relative to other creatures in nature, and in some cases, nature itself, we need resources to maintain shelter from threats. These shelters includes the physical (housing) and the virtual (healthcare). Lastly, we need resources to transport other resources to us, or us to them, and to maintain the quality of the resources we have.

Everything in our economy supports (or should support) the allocation of resources in a manner consistent with the values of the population. We need this allocation because almost all of our resources have limits. By definition, an economy manages resources of a community with a view towards maintaining members of the community so they can add value back to that community, i.e. maintain a quality of life. The toughest questions within that management center around how much of an obligation any community owes toward other groups of people, and how much of an obligation any community owes towards the future generations of its own members. A community that manages resources only for itself and only for the present will have a very different approach to its economy than a community that seeks to live in cooperation with others and wishes future generations to have access to a similar level of resources to support a similar quality of life.

As I just mentioned, almost all resources have limits. Sunlight and ingenuity stand as the only two limitless resources. Although the sun does not shine all day for everyone, it remains an infinitely continuing resource from our frame of reference; the minute it goes, we go. We cannot measure human ingenuity in a quantifiable manner, so to say it has no limit has somewhat of a ring of semantics, but in the resource discussion, this refers to our ability to make choices, adapt, and replace failing or disappearing resources with others that can maintain our quality of life with the same level of efficacy. For example, an area flush with apple trees that experiences a fire that decimates the tree population can shift to the growing of a lower-level crop to survive.

Within this framework of limited resources, I want to examine the effectiveness of our ability to manage resources, and the impact of our present course of management. Over the coming weeks, I will look at several of the necessary resources to our lives, our current management, and the impact of maintaining that method over the coming years. The analysis will have three main assumptions:

1. The American way of life should stand as a goal for the quality of life that any population on the planet should hope to attain.

2. We want future generations to have, at minimum, the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.

3. People will act in a rational manner that promotes equity of opportunity, as long as that action does not threaten their immediate survival.

Assumptions 2. and 3. address the questions of obligation raised in the discussion of economy, and assume that as long as our immediate existence remains in tact, we will hold ourselves to make sure that other communities and our future generations have access to the resources they need. Assumption 1. will cause consternation for some, and I do not throw it out there as a stumbling block to the discussion, but just as the starting point for the frame of reference. Advocates on all sides of the environmental debate spend energy fighting over what to do or not do, but I think they agree that we currently have, in general, a high quality of life in this country. Going into this analysis, I accept that one of three possibilities may result:

* We can support a high quality of life for all people in this country and the rest of the world on the resources currently available to us and in the way we currently manage them,

* We can support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available but we need to adapt the way we currently manage them, or

* We cannot support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available to us and we have to adapt our expectations or our behaviors to ensure continued survival.

In the weeks ahead, we will start the discussion with the basic resources of water, food, and air as (excluding a major scientific breakthrough) these currently stand as irreplaceable resources to our existence. After this, I will look at stored chemical energy and other physical resources. Although possible, an exhaustive discussion of every resource would overstate the point, so I will focus on a total of eight reasonably ubiquitous resources: water, food, air, fossil fuels (stored chemical energy), structural metals (copper, aluminum, iron, steel), technology metals (eg. platinum, gallium, cadmium), silicon, and wood.

First up...next week - Water.