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.

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.

I have a pet peeve. When Californians brag about how much local produce they rely on, I want to say, “Really, that’s funny–the entire country relies on your produce, but it just happens to be local for you.”

Today’s article in the Economix blog on the NY Times, Keeping China (Relatively) Green made me think about this, as it  discusses geographical factors that weigh into environmental impacts. California, for example has the 3 metropolitan areas with the lowest carbon emissions in the nation. Part of that is because they have a moderate climate.

Chengdu from Above. Source: NASA

New Yorkers, who generally like to think of themselves (ourselves) as energy efficient urbanites, are still res ponsible for 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide than the most car intensive cities in China. So where is the gap?

For one, China’s energy use seems to be similar to what ours was 100 years ago, when industry was the major polluter. And in their households, heating from coal are the major source of pollution. In their stage of development, heating is more important than cooling.  And in general, appliances that require electricity are still a luxury. But that might be changing as air conditioning starts to look more attractive with rising incomes.

The article is full of specific emission levels in different Chinese and American metropolitan areas, but overall, the point of the article is that China, while now the largest overall polluter of carbon dioxide, pales in comparison to American, per capita and per household pollution levels. But their energy usage outlook for the next 50 years will change drastically. Can technology move as quickly?