Image from AS+GG Decarbonization Plan for Chicago

A new plan was recently unvieled for the “decarbonization” of Chicago.  The brain-child of architecture firm Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill (AS+GG), the study hinges upon eight key strategies for meeting the city’s carbon reduction goals of 25% by 2020.  These numbers were set out by the renown Chicago Climate Action Plan and included the especially ambitious standard for all new and renovated buildings to adhere to a 100% reduction by 2030.  As part of the ‘Buildings’ strategy, the decarbonization plan places heavy emphasis on retrofitting old building stock to improve efficiency and implementing new technology to transfer excess energy loads back to the grid.  AS+GG describe some of the other strategies in these terms:

The other strategies include “Smart Infrastructure,” a look at how energy can be generated, stored, distributed and shared; “Mobility,” an assessment of transit and connectivity; “Water,” which examines how this critical resource is used and conserved; “Waste,” an assessment of citywide processes and systems for reducing, recycling and disposal; “Community Engagement,” which proposes various programs to engage citizens in the green agenda; and “Energy,” an examination of existing and new energy sources.

Inhabitat reports that they also suggest publishing a standardized textbook for all city schools that would teach urban design and decarbonization for public school students.  New York has a few initiatives of its own, but that are as ambitious or sweeping.  Maybe we could take a few pages out of Chicago’s playbook?

During the MTA strike of 2005, people picked up random passengers and New Yorkers shared cabs with each other because it made sense. As soon as necessity for such activities dwindled and the MTA started (haggardly) running again, people stopped. It was kind of like when folks jammed into commuter trains and mass transit when gas prices were high. And as soon as they were (foolishly) low again, people stopped.

This week, a new era of common sense begins. Taxi sharing is back. The city is rolling out a plan on Friday to make certain cabs run like buses. They will have designated pick up stations with specific drop off regions. Those all happen to be on Park Ave right now, which I can’t quite make sense of. But I guess they had to start somewhere. From 6AM to 10AM during weekday rush hours, you will be able to utilize this service.

Stops are:

- W. 57th St. and Eighth Ave. with dropoffs allowed on Park Ave. between 57th St. until 42nd St.

- W.72nd St. and Columbus Ave. with dropoffs on Park Ave. from 72nd St. to 42nd St.

- E. 72nd St. and Third Ave. with dropoffs on Park Avenue from 72nd St. to 42nd St.

While this is only a very small slice of the city, it might be a good indication of how this could work on a larger scale. Crosstown traffic = painful experience. And the lack of underground transportation options (the 7 and S excluded) makes above ground situations intense. And half the time it seems that the majority of street traffic is taxis. So perhaps this will help alleviate some of that. Drivers will make more from less driving, which hopefully means they can eventually work less hours, which means fewer taxis on the road at once. And as far as passengers go, we save money and time, which are synonymous in this city. I am however curious about etiquette. I can just see the campaign for, “No cell phone usage in shared taxis!”

I am maybe getting ahead of myself here though. Let’s see how Friday goes.

So don’t deny it of that, please.

More and more research is leading scientists to believe (and engage in further research) that we humans function much better when there is some piece of nature around us. Even if it is just a small patch of grass or a glimpse of a tree, we seem to be able to concentrate better, heal quicker from injury, make better decisions, even live longer, when we have some exposure to natural elements, in our urban world. 

I personally am fascinated by this and it is truly my engine for wanting to be involved in the movement to approach the city as an ecosystem and habitat for humans. Better humans = better cities. As Plato said, “This City is what it is because our citizens are what they are.”

This is a budding field, with plenty more to question, but it is an exciting time for us urban habitat explorers. While I do love to hug trees–and most things actually–the benefits and value of doing so seems to be coming away from the fringes and into more common discussions about what we really can gain when we look at the city from an urban ecology perspective. I love it. It excites me. I could talk about this for hours on end.

And tomorrow night I will talk about it for 6 minutes at Green Home NYC’s Women of Green event. It is Pecha Kucha format, so there are 12 of us speaking, with 20 slides each, and 20 seconds on each one of those slides. Come join us! Should be a good night. And if you can’t make it, stay tuned for more discussions on urban habitats.

I came across a set of animations this weekend that I thought our readers would be interested in checking out.  The first is called “Foodprint Manhattan” and was presented by The Why Factory during last year’s Hudson Quadricentennial events on Governor’s Island.  (I wasn’t able to find a video with audio but the text is completely readable if you set the viewer to full screen):

The second clip features the same idea applied to the Hague and the Netherlands (again, no audio):

I really like these animations because they begin by simply asking “how much do we consume?” and then they go on to explore and visualize the spatial consequences.  I especially like the use of “food group” towers in the Manhattan clip.  I wonder, though, how these animations might change with a thorough and detailed assessment of the capacity of the built environment to produce .  I generally agree with the conclusion that complete food independence is not a realizable (or desirable? ) goal within the city limits of any given city, but a realistic assessment like this one might produce a less fantastical scenario than 22km high food towers.

Or is it Brighton Beach? It depends on who you ask.

A Heated Community Board Meeting. Via Brooklyn Vegan

What to do with the 9 acre park that is the official merging place of Brighton Beach and Coney Island? Residents in the neighborhood claim that the space–Asser Levy Park–is actually in Brighton Beach only and many of them are the primary opposition to what the borough president, Marty Markowitz wants to do with the space. Currently, it stands as a slightly rundown park with a small amphitheater. Markowtiz has visions of grandeur. A brand new amphitheater that would seat 8,000 people–the largest in the city–would become a neighborhood attraction. Markowtiz dreams of Neil Diamond rocking out in there. Others are not so keen on this idea.

The NY Times has an article with different perspectives from various community members on the issue, but essentially, the city says parks are a public asset. They do not belong to one neighborhood in particular. And the borough president wants to revamp the aged Coney Island. Folks from the area say there is no reason their residential neighborhood should become a loud venue for outsiders and they would like to keep it the way it is. I personally am with the city in theory. Parks are limited and so we should be willing to share them. HOWEVER, in practicality, I don’t understand why economic development and recreational space improvements always have to do with stadiums or music venues. My two cents: Keep it a mellow park. Invite artists to design sculptures that might talk about rising coastlines or other water front issues.  Invite residents from other neighborhoods to come and discover what is there, but keep it public, people.

Issues of open space and development are not absent. According to the article, “New York City lags well behind other cities in green space. It offers 4.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, compared with a median of 6.8 acres in the nation’s 13 most densely populated areas, according to the Trust for Public Land. Of the five boroughs, Brooklyn has the second least amount of parkland per person, after Manhattan, officials from the parks department say.” More reason to keep it open and public rather than concrete and private.

Opponents seem to have found a loophole they can certainly try and exploit. Amplified sound is not permitted within 500 feet of a school or place of worship during their open and functioning hours. A nearby synagogue will seek to have this applied during the sabath, Friday nights and Saturdays, prime warm weather concert times.

This debate is going to heat up…We will try and keep up on it.