These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about cities and synergies. I believe that the very basic components of urban sustainability–and education about it–must be grounded in showing linkages between concurrent, parallel,and  symbiotic processes.  We can not talk about anything ecological without discussing the economic or equity component to it. Clearly I’m not the only one thinking about this stuff.

Resilience. via: http://maryjaneryan.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/resilience.jpg

SEED Magazine has an excellent article on urban resilience. Its header reads: Merging complex systems science and ecology, resilience scientists have broken new ground on understanding—and preserving—natural ecosystems. Now, as more and more people move into urban hubs, they are bringing this novel science to the city.

Discussing examples that range from the loss of wetlands around New Orleans–that ironically were destroyed during the construction of the levees as well as natural gas exploration–that ultimately helped contribute to the tragedy of Katrina’s effect, to the spoiling of 25 million liters of raw milk in Australia when natural gas power supply was knocked out, the article discusses the concept of resilience on an urban scale. And while of course there are parallels between ecosystem design and urban design, the fundamental basis of resilience is diversity, redundancy, and variety. These things are often seen as “inefficient” on an urban scale.

This might seem theory heavy to you, but it really was one of the most fascinating articles I have read in a long time. And real life applications–contemporary and existent–examples are used for every sub-heading. So, yes, while there are lofty concepts, the reality of our urban world is the basis for discussion.

And of course the question of climate change is never far removed. A brief excerpt reads:

“A key feature of complex adaptive systems is that they can settle into a number of different equilibria. A lake, for example, will stabilize in either an oxygen-rich, clear state or algae-dominated, murky one. A financial market can float on a housing bubble or settle into a basin of recession. Historically, we’ve tended to view the transition between such states as gradual. But there is increasing evidence that systems often don’t respond to change that way: The clear lake seems hardly affected by fertilizer runoff until a critical threshold is passed, at which point the water abruptly goes turbid.

Resilience science focuses on these sorts of tipping points. It looks at gradual stresses, such as climate change, as well as chance events—things like storms, fires, even stock market crashes—that can tip a system into another equilibrium state from which it is difficult, if not impossible, to recover. How much shock can a system absorb before it transforms into something fundamentally different? That, in a nutshell, is the essence of resilience.”

Take time to read this article. I promise you will be thinking about synergies afterward as well.

In a bad budget year, some things will always suffer.  And environmental services are often in the mix. A few weeks ago, there was talk of cutting funding to all state zoos and botanic gardens. And today, Governor David Paterson and state Parks Commissioner Carol Ash have released a list of 41 park and 14 historic sites that would close altogether, along with another 23 parks and one historic site that would experience “service reductions.”

This language is directly from the New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV). While the Institute for Sustainable Cities will not be formally taking a side on this issue, we tend to agree with the NYLCV that cutting parks is not good for social, economic, or ecological sustainability. So, I will simply paste the words of the NYLCV. You can  voice your opinion through them. Long live our parks! And every living thing that depends on them…

From the NYLCV:

Gov. David Paterson and state Parks Commissioner Carol Ash have released a list of 41 park and 14 historic sites that would close altogether, along with another 23 parks and one historic site that would experience “service reductions.”

By sheer numbers, Central New York would take the biggest hit, with eight state parks closed completely, followed by the Thousand Islands Region, at seven, the Finger Lakes Region, at six, and Long Island, at five.

The Saratoga-Capital Region, which will experience the complete closure of four state parks, also will suffer the most in terms of shuttered historic sites -five.  The Palisades Region ranks next, with four to close.

Along with total shutdown of facilities, the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation will, at various locations around the state, close swimming pools and swimming areas, eliminate classes, sports programs and cultural events, shorten seasons and/or close facilities a few days a week.

Click here for the complete list of proposed closures.

NYLCV strongly opposes the closures, as well as significant staff cuts at the Office of Parks, not least for economic reasons. According to a 2009 report, state parks and historic sites generate $1.9 billion annually in economic
activity statewide. Visitors from outside the community account for about 40% of that activity — visitors and money communities will lose if parks are forced to close.

Additionally, state parks and historic sites account for 20,000 non-park jobs statewide. These are longterm, sustainable jobs that will last as long as our state invests in its parks system. The investment in State Parks is a good one; for every dollar the state spends on parks, it gets back $5 dollars in economic activity.

NYLCV will be joining Parks & Trails NY on Wednesday, March 3, for a Parks Advocacy Day at the state Capitol. Please click here to join this historic effort.

Or so we think. The reality is people (including researchers at the Institute) are still trying to figure out the scale of green house gas emissions coming from dense urban centers on a global level. But big thinkers ranging from Eric Sanderson to Barack Obama think that urban density is a worthwhile goal to work towards. And one extremely important factor in this density equation is transportation.

As a response to Obama’s State of the Union, wherein he mentioned the necessity for investing in the infrastructure of tomorrow, Vishaan Chakrabarti–a local big thinker involved in the Moynihan Station project as well as the Hudson Rail Yards, while serving as the Marc Holliday Professor of Real Estate and the Director of Real Estate Development program in the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia University–wrote a piece on Urban Omnibus about Doubling Down on Density.  In it he talks about the potential for high speed rail construction to provide a real economic stimulus that has lasting benefits. Vice President Biden has stated that the new high speed rail investment of $1.25 billion in the Tampa-Orlando corridor, will generate more than 23,000 jobs over four years. Put these numbers to a national scale and we can see job generation rocket to 2.3 million. “Now that would be stimulus,” he claims.  He questions Mr. Obama’s pledge of $8 billion to high speed rails when really, we probably need more like $150.

The article itself is great. A pleasure to read, an interesting analysis of Obama’s infrastructure plans–which in itself is refreshing to read about instead of health care woes–, and most importantly, it is just plain common sense. It asks us to think about the barriers to creating and planning for productive, dense cities and it evokes William Holly Whyte’s sentiments on sprawl, who asked why we use multiple acres of land and space for what we can do in 1.

One small glitch: No mention of our consistent cultural tendency toward acreage and automobiles.  In another article authored by Chakrabarti, “A Country of Cities,” he jokingly asks if there is an asphalt lobby in D.C. as new planning projects, largely a product of stimulus money, are heavy on the highways.  Highways = cars. Cars = suburbs?

While there is a lot more to be said about this, I can’t help but feel like the biggest of thinkers can talk common sense and sustainable planning for a very long time. But right now, when we hear “shovel ready,” we think in the way we–as a collective–have since WWII’s end. Build highways, manufacture cars, let people own their homes. Until we can move urbanism deeper into American consciousness, our shovels will hit the asphalt.  The question is, how can we do this?

Michele Pierre-Louis, former Prime Minister of Haiti and current director of the Open Society Institute’s (OSI) reconstruction efforts in the country wrote a piece called, “My Pride and Hope for Haiti,” which was published in the Huffington Post and on OSI’s website.  In it, she talks about the apocalyptic and inhumane conditions that people have been forced to live in since the earth quake struck. But also about the pride and sense of community that is just as visible. Her closing line, which has stuck with me since I first read it was, “I am more convinced than ever that we should put the country back together not as it was but as it should be.”

The tragedy of “natural” disasters of course is that they aren’t necessarily natural in their damage.  Yes, in the Siberian tundra or the middle of the ocean, bad storms can happen, trees will fall, but once there are heavily populated areas involved, the exponential destruction stemming from that single natural event becomes the real issue. Multiply population density by existing socio-economic conditions that have at times led to less than sound construction (and inhumane living conditions before a quake) and your disaster seems like the opposite of natural. It is beyond belief.

There has been no shortage of opportunities to witness the situation on the ground. Photoblogs, articles, even google-earth have allowed the most distant onlooker to see the events unfold. But once the debris is cleared, services are somewhat restored and mourning for the lives lost becomes tangible through tributes, memorials and other initiatives, Haiti has an opportunity to rebuild itself the way it could have been.  Much of the built environment was lacking structurally sound components. Buildings with too much sand in the concrete mix were the norm. Reinforcement beams were scarce. Architecture for Humanity has started a fund raising campaign to bring their design services to the country once it is ready to reconstruct. But for now, there are a few signs of (solar) light shining.

Yesterday, Earth2Tech delivered some heartening news for folks following the Green Tech industry.  In the first week of 2010 nine firms managed to raise at least $113 million!  Here are some of the details:

Clean Power Finance, which connects residential solar installers and developers online, says it’s raised $6.9 million in a round co-led by Claremont Creek Ventures and Clean Pacific Ventures, and including Sand Hill Angels and investor Gary Kremen. The San Francisco-based company says it will use the funds for more development of its software and to move into other clean power verticals (maybe wind?).

Founded in 2002, Innovalight, a thin-film solar startup developing photovoltaic silicon ink, says it has raised a new round of $18 million from EDB Investments (EDBI) of Singapore, Vertex Venture Holdings, the venture subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, Apax Partners, ARCH Venture Partners, Convexa Capital, Harris & Harris Group, Sevin Rosen Funds and Triton Ventures. Whew. That’s a lot of investors and the company has raised a whole lot of money over the past few years, including $5 million in debt financing, $5 million in equipment lease financing, a $28 million Series C round, and $14 million in its Series A and B rounds. Innovalight says the new funding will be used to “expand the company’s proprietary silicon ink production for customers.”

Read more