The folks here at the institute are keenly interested in the practice of urban farming.  In the last year we have posted more than a few pieces on the subject which gave a big nod to Detroit as a leader in the movement to cultivate derelict urban space.  Many people have attributed this success, in part, to the widespread prevalence of vacant lots and abandoned buildings.  According to recent reports, the Detroit’s Mayor, Dave Bing, is taking aim at this unused space and considering plans to actually return it to rural or semi-rural land-use.

Bing’s proposal is based, in large part, on a study produced by Data Driven Detroit.  Pasted below is text from an NPR interview with Kurt Metzger, director of Data Driven Detroit.

Downsizing is a word you hear a lot in these economically troubled times. It usually applies to tight budgets or lost jobs. In Detroit it also now describes a controversial plan from the mayor’s office.

Mayor Dave Bing wants to reshape the city by getting rid of buildings that are vacant or in shambles. He also wants to transplant residents who live in neighborhoods that are desolate and dilapidated beyond repair. He says it’s too expensive to provide city services in areas that are much like urban deserts.

Much of the proposal is based on data collected by Kurt Metzger. He’s a demographer and the director of Data Driven Detroit, an organization that collects data for the city and for nonprofits. It’s also called D3.

Mr. Metzger, welcome to the program.

Mr. KURT METZGER (Director, Data Driven Detroit): Thank you so much. It’s great to be on.

NORRIS: You undertook a block-by-block study of Detroit, 139 square miles. What did your study find?

Mr. METZGER: We had surveyors go out and actually collect information in every single parcel in the city of Detroit. And just to give you the real quick analysis, we found better than a third of the land – and that’s of 139 square miles – we estimate better than a third of the land in the city of Detroit is either vacant land right now or contains buildings that need to be torn down. It’s amazing. I mean, New Orleans is about 70 square miles. We’re talking that better than 40 square miles, better than half of New Orleans is vacant land.

Now, of course its interspersed around the city, so that’s where the issues about going into neighborhoods where there’s a lot of vacant land. But a lot of one or two homes still left on streets. These are neighborhoods that are going to have to be gone into and trying to think about how do we start to move people into other areas.

NORRIS: When you were doing this survey, what did you hear from people who are in the neighborhoods? I imagine that some of the homeowners have been there for a very long time and have watched their beloved neighborhood slowly deteriorate. And they’re probably worried about finding themselves now on some sort of relocation hit list. When you were working on the survey, what did you hear from people?

Mr. METZGER: There is a general fear that I’m going to be uplifted and put someplace else. I’m really comfortable in my home regardless of what’s happened to the neighborhood. What are you going to do to me?

NORRIS: But they are going to be uplifted…

Mr. METZGER: Well…

NORRIS: …and moved someplace else.

Mr. METZGER: Yes. Yes. But I think there’s a way to work with them and help them to understand that this will be better for them in the long run.

NORRIS: How do you compensate people who have to move? Because as I understand it, they’re entitled to 125 percent of taxable value for their property. But their property values have plummeted; have deteriorating along with the surrounding property, so how do you make them whole?

We made it through February. Hooray! And while March can still be a month to savor and simultaneously curse the last days of winter, it is certainly time to start thinking about gardens. 

And we have some very ambitious friends who are imagining putting a small patch of concrete near NYC City Hall to good use.  DC’s most important lawn–perhaps the nations most important lawn– is gearing up to carry its 2nd season of fresh produce. This is the first time The White House has had a productive yard since Eleanor Roosevelt’s WWII victory garden graced the premises. At that time, 40% of America’s produce was grown on small plots that made up the victory garden movement. I can’t quite think of a parallel in today’s patriotism. But New Yorkers! Pay attention to this and sign yourself onto the movement.

From the NY Times Diner’s Journal:

But today, “The hope is that a vegetable garden can be planted in front of City Hall in time for a nice tomato harvest this summer,” said Daniel Bowman Simon, who is organizing a petition drive to hand over to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

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 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.

While nations talk…

There is a chorus of media coverage on what is going wrong in Copenhagen. From walk outs to private jetting to arrested protests, it really is starting to look a bit like an act of the Theater of the Absurd. The most basic definition of absurd in this reference, “takes the form of man’s reaction to a world apparently without meaning or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by an invisible outside force.” I leave this open to you for interpretation.

But beyond the theatrics and arrests, a somewhat more quiet–and active–group of people are meeting to talk about the role of cities in climate change and sustainable development. The Copenhagen Climate Summit for Mayors began today. CISC Director Bill Solecki is there and will be participating in tomorrow afternoon’s panel discussion on the work being done in NYC. He joins the Mayors of 80 cities ranging from leaders of Dar Es Salaam to Delhi, from Melbourne to Mexico City.

The work of local and municipal governments plays an interesting role when their goals and standards are potentially higher than that of state, federal, or international ambitions. New York City  is a particularly interesting example when it comes to the energy leviathan that is the United States. Residents of the Big Apple already have about one third the carbon footprint than that of their fellow Americans. And we are seeking to cut these emissions further.  Perhaps these initiatives are possible because there is political–and scientific–support for the cause. Seventy eight percent of New Yorkers believe climate change is happening compared to 36% nationally. And 60% of us say that we worry a great deal about climate change. I wonder if there are similar differences in national and city specific numbers elsewhere. (Any information on that would be appreciated if readers have it. The Guardian reports that 3 out of 4 Britons fear climate change, so I guess London or other cities would need to be 4 out of 4 for this to hold true in England…)

There are a lot of political and socio-economical considerations to take into account for why this divide might exist, specifically in the United States. Purely from anecdotal evidence–although there is rigorous methodology that shows the same thing–cities and their metropolitan regions are generally wealthier and sometimes more politically progressive than their suburban or rural counterparts. Is that why climate change and sustainability legislation is more successful here? Constituents see climate change as real, current, and dangerous, which means they have an interest in addressing it–or they have support for their leaders to address it. Elsewhere, if people are not immediately concerned, political will diminishes.

This is all speculation. But I doubt we will see walk outs from the Mayors Conference similar to the likes of what we have seen in the general summit. Beijing and New York won’t spar on differences. Rather they might learn something from each other. Perhaps it is because their constituents want them to…If I was in Copenhagen, I would focus on the cities. And the art.