PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Study ties sprawl to climate change



Cirrus
09-24-2007, 07:07 PM
Study ties sprawl to climate change
Advocacy groups call for compact building patterns (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/bal-te.md.climate21sep21,0,2528668.story?track=rss)
Timothy B. Wheeler
Baltimore Sun
September 21, 2007

Suburban sprawl is an often-overlooked cause of climate change, a group of urban planning researchers said yesterday, warning in a report that global warming can be slowed only by changing development patterns to reduce the need for Americans to get behind the wheel.

Living in more compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods actually would do more to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide - the chief climate-changing gas - than driving a hybrid car while staying in a typically spread-out suburb, the report asserts.

"The research shows that one of the best ways to reduce vehicle travel is to build places where people can accomplish more with less driving," said Reid Ewing, the report's lead author and a research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland.

At a news conference in Washington, he predicted that climate change would be the "defining issue" for community planners in coming years.

Funded in part by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Hewlett Foundation, the report was published by the Urban Land Institute, a think tank promoting sustainable communities. Other participants were the Center for Clean Air Policy, another think tank, and Smart Growth America, a group advocating compact development.

The number of miles Americans drive has grown three times faster than the population since 1980, and twice as fast as the increase in vehicle registrations - a trend the report's authors attribute to spread-out development practices.

"We can no longer ignore vehicle miles traveled and the land use that drives it," said co-author Steve Winkelman, manager of the transportation program for the clean air policy center.

Baltimore ranked as only the 64th most sprawling metropolitan area out of 83 in a "sprawl index" developed by Ewing several years ago - compared with Washington's score as the 26th most spread-out. But Maryland commuters yield only to New York State residents for the most time-consuming trips to and from work, Census surveys indicate, while the time area commuters spend stuck in traffic has quadrupled since 1982, according to a separate report issued this week by the Texas Transportation Institute.

The future holds more of the same, the new report's authors predict. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects total miles driven to increase by 59 percent by 2030, which the report's authors say would cancel out whatever reductions in carbon dioxide might be achieved by improving the gas mileage of cars and trucks.

Building homes and businesses closer together, with more opportunities to walk to work and to shop, could reduce driving by 20 percent to 40 percent, the report argues, depending on the neighborhood's accessibilty to other means of transportation. Residents in compact urban neighborhoods with access to public transportation typically drive a third fewer miles than do auto-dependent suburbanites.

The potential for reducing driving, and carbon dioxide emissions, is great, the report's authors contend. They point to an estimate that two-thirds of the homes and other buildings expected to be needed by 2050 have yet to be built.

Making as much as 60 percent of new growth more compact nationwide could prevent 85 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere annually by 2030, Ewing said. The savings would be equivalent to a 28 percent increase in federal vehicle fuel-efficiency standards to 32 mpg - comparable to proposals now being debated in Congress.

If development patterns can be shifted, the report predicts, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions could be curtailed by 7 percent to 10 percent overall - an estimate Ewing called conservative. Improved energy efficiency and green design in buildings, he said, would only enhance the gains from tighter, more walkable community layouts.

To change longstanding development practices, the authors call for changes in local codes to allow more compact growth mixing homes, shops and offices and for promoting alternatives to driving.

For inspiration, they pointed to a 138-acre redevelopment of an abandoned steel mill in midtown Atlanta into a mix of office towers, hotels, stores, restaurants and thousands of homes and condos. Planners projected that residents of the community, known as Atlantic Station, would drive 35 perent less than if they lived in typical suburban developments.

A federally funded study is under way now to assess the driving habits of the residents who have moved in so far, as well as their physical activity and health.

The report also urges federal legislation to require transportation projects be scrutinized for the greenhouse gas emissions they would produce, and to direct federal funds into promoting green development and regional planning, which could curtail leapfrog, car-dependent development practices.

A spokesman for the National Association of Home Builders welcomed the report's embrace of compact development, but warned against a "one-size-fits-all approach."

"We've been saying for years that local governments need to be more flexible in allowing more mixed use development," said spokesman Blake Smith. The industry group also supports green building, he said, but would prefer voluntary guidelines to government prescriptions.

Robert E. Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, praised the report for highlighting the link between development practices and climate change. But he questioned whether building more compact development was the only solution.

If you had plug-in hybrids and you generated the power from solar, wind, or whatever ... who cares what the development looked like?" he asked.

Making it easier to walk to school, shop and eat can reduce driving some, Lang said, but it would be harder to address the lengthy work trips many Americans make - though perhaps more telecommuting would ease that as well, he added.

"Man, you really might want to walk to a Starbucks and connect to work on your laptop," he said.

Environmental advocates in Maryland seized on the report to urge the O'Malley administration to follow through with its campaign pledge to reinvigorate the state's decade-old Smart Growth policies, which aimed to preserve dwindling farmland and forests by encouraging development in and around existing communities.

Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland, said the report is a "wake-up call."

"When you think of dealing with global warming, you think of renewable energy and reducing energy waste," he said. "But really, the toughest thing and the most important thing is Smart Growth."

Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, said reining in sprawl has become even more urgent with the projected influx into the state of up to 28,000 households in the next several years because of a nationwide military base realignment, commonly referred to as BRAC.

"BRAC is really a test for the state and for local governments," said Schmidt-Perkins.

"Is this going to get us the kind of development Maryland needs and deserves," she asked, "or is it going to just put us further back, hurting the Chesapeake Bay and contributing to global warming?"

sentinel
09-24-2007, 08:09 PM
Great article, thanks for posting, and not to sound like a b*tch, but my reaction to the article was basicall 'duh'!

Buckeye Native 001
09-24-2007, 08:11 PM
No shit, really!?

mhays
09-24-2007, 08:55 PM
I agree the connection is obvious. The problem is we still have massive industry dollars waging a disinformation campaign, as well as right-wing talk show hosts who drive ratings by telling their suburban publics that their lifestyles are a-ok.

brickell
09-24-2007, 11:05 PM
Living in more compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods actually would do more to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide - the chief climate-changing gas - than driving a hybrid car while staying in a typically spread-out suburb, the report asserts.


This article hints at it, but there seems to be a general sense that blames the home owners for moving into sprawl. The big problem to me is not so much where we are living but where we are working. If communities and business worked together to create transit oriented multi-use business districts you'd cut more traffic than from people walking to the grocery store. Companies like HP have perfected the suburban campus, that not only requires a drive and a 30 minute walk across a parking lot but then effectively isolates you there with no access to the outside world.

To sum up, I'd change the above quote to read "Living and Working". Perhaps that's obvious to some, my hometown is notorious for having spread out business districts. It doesn't matter how many condo's you build downtown if the jobs are in the suburbs.

BnaBreaker
09-24-2007, 11:19 PM
Great article, thanks for posting, and not to sound like a b*tch, but my reaction to the article was basicall 'duh'!

Exactly. That's the same reaction I had. One of the things I love about being a part of this online community is that most of us believe things like this long before science confirms it.

dlbritnot
09-24-2007, 11:20 PM
Exactly, those "industrial parks" are just as disasterous for sprawl as the single-family housing developments. Not to mention, they're often ugly and lack any character at all.

TWAK
09-24-2007, 11:29 PM
Exactly, those "industrial parks" are just as disasterous for sprawl as the single-family housing developments. Not to mention, they're often ugly and lack any character at all.
These "industrial parks" provide much needed jobs to people who can't exactly get employment downtown....
They may be ugly but they serve a purpose, and a very noble one at that (they also pay MY bills)

BnaBreaker
09-24-2007, 11:33 PM
These "industrial parks" provide much needed jobs to people who can't exactly get employment downtown....
They may be ugly but they serve a purpose, and a very noble one at that (they also pay MY bills)

This sentiment always confuses me. So, they provide jobs. What the hell does that have to do with the design of the structure itself? It's like a kid insisting that his mom shouldn't let go of her crack addiction because she feeds him Cheerios in the morning.

zaphod
09-24-2007, 11:57 PM
Exactly, those "industrial parks" are just as disasterous for sprawl as the single-family housing developments. Not to mention, they're often ugly and lack any character at all.

well how else do you build industrial areas but low density, or whatever the particular industries need for that matter:shrug:

Trucks need room to manuever, warehouses must be large, big lots to store objects, etc.

LordMandeep
09-25-2007, 12:05 AM
i agree but homes do not...

homes can still be big like 2000-3000 sq feet and be situated on small lots.

zaphod
09-25-2007, 12:07 AM
yes I am with you on that

I just got confused by the comment on industrial buildings, which can have special needs

mhays
09-25-2007, 12:13 AM
well how else do you build industrial areas but low density, or whatever the particular industries need for that matter:shrug:

Trucks need room to manuever, warehouses must be large, big lots to store objects, etc.

In cities with land constraints, industries tend to be much more efficient with their land.

For example, the Port of Hong Kong's container operation uses about 1/6 the acreage a US port of similar throughput would use, or would if one existed.

Another good lesson can be had from any elevated rail line in Europe. When rail lines pass industrial districts, as they often do, you can see into companies' yards. These yards tend to be much tighter than similar US yards. Basically they stack things a lot more, keep much less product waiting around, park more tightly, and so on.

totheskies
09-25-2007, 12:35 AM
Thanks for this great article.

Yeah, most of us are saying "duh", but it's this type of argument that could actually dissuade the NIMBY nation from their suburbanite ways. Houstonians might be a hard sell (Texas' "wide open spaces" mantra and general southern cultural precedent), but Phoenix and Las Vegas could be swayed by this debate.

david23
09-25-2007, 02:53 AM
While I believe in global warming(increase in Earth's temperature), I agree with Patrick Moore(founder of Greenpeace) that scientists have no way to prove what percentage of today's global warming is caused by human activity, simply because of Earth's natural cycles of cooling down and warming up. The reason why I say this is that human GHG emissions have been rising fast since the industrial revolution and Earth has had many cool downs in that 200 year period, most recent one in the 1970's. Due to this fact our contribution to global warming is impossible to measure.

mhays
09-25-2007, 03:46 AM
The scientific community is as close to sure as they ever get on something this complicated. Basically, the leading scientists on this issue got together and said, if I recall, that they're 90% sure humans are a leading cause of global warming. I bet scientists aren't at 90% on the big bang, or lots of other stuff we take for granted.

The level of agreement is roughly where "do cigarettes cause cancer" was in, say, the 1980s. Everyone knew cigarettes kill, despite a vast industry conspiracy to downplay it (resulting in an astonishing $250 billion settlement in the 1990s, which is still a big help for many state budgets). The science wasn't as detailed then as it is now, but did we wait for 100% agreement before deciding to try to save people's lives? No.

david23
09-25-2007, 04:42 AM
The scientific community is as close to sure as they ever get on something this complicated. Basically, the leading scientists on this issue got together and said, if I recall, that they're 90% sure humans are a leading cause of global warming. I bet scientists aren't at 90% on the big bang, or lots of other stuff we take for granted.

The level of agreement is roughly where "do cigarettes cause cancer" was in, say, the 1980s. Everyone knew cigarettes kill, despite a vast industry conspiracy to downplay it (resulting in an astonishing $250 billion settlement in the 1990s, which is still a big help for many state budgets). The science wasn't as detailed then as it is now, but did we wait for 100% agreement before deciding to try to save people's lives? No.

I know that this is the common consensus among scientists, but what is the percentage of global warming caused by humans and how did they come up with the figure?

Altauria
09-25-2007, 06:05 AM
This sentiment always confuses me. So, they provide jobs. What the hell does that have to do with the design of the structure itself? It's like a kid insisting that his mom shouldn't let go of her crack addiction because she feeds him Cheerios in the morning.

I almost fell off my chair; very funny analogy - but you do come up with humorous ones often enough.

About the industrial parks. All one has to do is scope out Will County (south of Cook....Chicago, that is). Essentially, thier admitted long-term plan is to make it into a warehouse center. The interesting part about this, is that they've formulated little to no plans on widening and improving roads. What this means is that you have a county FILLED with two-lane country highways being shared by hundreds of thousands of auto commuters AND semi-trucks. Remember, this is the county that placed 8th in the whole freakin' nation for worst commute times.
Anyway, what does this all mean? Well, the more traffic jams, the more we all sit in our cars with our brakes on burning gas - needlessly. Hooray for air-quality. Zoning in this county seems to have been intentionally designed around keeping people from moving.

mhays
09-25-2007, 06:53 AM
I know that this is the common consensus among scientists, but what is the percentage of global warming caused by humans and how did they come up with the figure?

You'd have to ask them. Presumably someone has a ballpark estimate.

It would help to know that, but we can't wait for it. When a fat overeater wants to lose weight, they don't sit around doing calculations about what percentage of their weight is due to genetics vs. stress level vs. calories. It's ok to start with "stop eating so much ice cream".

Evergrey
09-25-2007, 10:40 AM
The American way of life is non-negotiable.

SuburbanNation
09-25-2007, 06:12 PM
it seems like people are mixing up industrial parks and business parks that look rather industrial. i work in a business park and its isolation of use is just obscene.

mhays
09-25-2007, 07:05 PM
The American way of life is non-negotiable.

A lot of people actually think that! Basically anything that might require change must be "wrong".

I only wish the effects of GW (global warming or george walker bush, your choice) would fall on these people only.

MolsonExport
09-25-2007, 08:47 PM
A lot of people actually think that! Basically anything that might require change must be "wrong".

I only wish the effects of GW (global warming or george walker bush, your choice) would fall on these people only.

Indeed. :tup:

Xelebes
09-25-2007, 09:01 PM
I know Edmonton's industrial parks are running out of space to the point that you can't move out any further and still be feasible for the workers. The furthest one is the Redwater "Industrial Heartland" an hour north of the city, where they plan to build North America's largest refinery. Further than that and you wouldn't get any workers out to it to work.

bricky
09-25-2007, 09:43 PM
The American way of life is non-negotiable.

I suppose this was meant to be sarcastic, but in practice, it's true. Americans will keep overwhelmingly living in suburbs as long as conditions permit. And conditions are likely to permit for a long long time. Rising oil prices? Hybrids and compacts will rule the roads well before there's any large scale movement back to the cities. Generalized energy shortages? We'll build lots of nuclear or even coal plants, finally take research in solar energy seriously, etc. Rising temperatures? "Them's the breaks", will likely be the mainstream response, and mitigation (seawalls, encouraging smaller cars, smart appliances, farm subsidies for drought-stricken farmers etc) will be the order of the day. Don't expect huge lifestyle changes in the direction of spartan living or downtown Buffalo.

There is one thing that troubles/amuses me. It seems like a lot of people here look at tackling global warming as a great excuse to push suburbanites into the cities. Not that pushing suburbanites into the cities is a good way to tackle global warming. From the mainstream American perspective, a very weird fetishization of urban living.

malek
09-25-2007, 10:10 PM
I suppose this was meant to be sarcastic, but in practice, it's true. Americans will keep overwhelmingly living in suburbs as long as conditions permit. And conditions are likely to permit for a long long time. Rising oil prices? Hybrids and compacts will rule the roads well before there's any large scale movement back to the cities. Generalized energy shortages? We'll build lots of nuclear or even coal plants, finally take research in solar energy seriously, etc. Rising temperatures? "Them's the breaks", will likely be the mainstream response, and mitigation (seawalls, encouraging smaller cars, smart appliances, farm subsidies for drought-stricken farmers etc) will be the order of the day. Don't expect huge lifestyle changes in the direction of spartan living or downtown Buffalo.

There is one thing that troubles/amuses me. It seems like a lot of people here look at tackling global warming as a great excuse to push suburbanites into the cities. Not that pushing suburbanites into the cities is a good way to tackle global warming. From the mainstream American perspective, a very weird fetishization of urban living.


exactly

Frisco_Zig
09-26-2007, 05:30 AM
I take it you feel this urban push into the suburb is figurative?

What level of redesign would you consider pushing city on ya?

Or are you saying people think a move literally back into places like Buffalo is eminent?

I am not sure if you think the objection has to do with design or you think the objection is social but at least in popular suburbs I am familiar with in the inner Bay Area they are well on their way to basically urbanizing naturally. Though there is opposition it is clear that market forces mean this march is happening.

Chicago103
09-26-2007, 06:05 PM
These "industrial parks" provide much needed jobs to people who can't exactly get employment downtown....
They may be ugly but they serve a purpose, and a very noble one at that (they also pay MY bills)

Why the hell couldn't these people get employed downtown or at least somewhere in the urban city?

Sure I am speaking from a Chicago perspective with a strong downtown and city employment base but it points to how a city could be run and how they used to be run.

Its not like city employment was designed for just executives, it used to be that manufacturing was near the heart of the city. Its stupid to assume that attacking suburban industrial parks is akin to attacking blue collar jobs or anything like that. I am against how they are commonly built today and not the fact that people want jobs. One way to combat this problem is to encourage cities to have incentives (Industrial Corridors in Chicago) that encourages industry to stay or move into the city, another way is if job seekers have options in their city to seek work in more urban locations sending a message to employers that is what potential employees want.

J. Will
09-26-2007, 06:16 PM
I would rather keep heavy industry out of the inner city myself. I prefer an inner-city of office, residential, and retail space.

brickell
09-26-2007, 08:43 PM
I'm not sure how suburban corporate campuses morphed into industrial parks but either way, there's no reason they have to be so spread out. Even Chicago has it's edge city corporate campuses. In all but a few select cities, if you want to keep your job opportunities open you have to have a car. There's no way around it. If we were better able to centralize the jobs the residential sprawl would take care of itself in my opinion.

Chicago103
10-02-2007, 06:22 AM
In all but a few select cities, if you want to keep your job opportunities open you have to have a car. There's no way around it. If we were better able to centralize the jobs the residential sprawl would take care of itself in my opinion.

NYC and Chicago are the only cities I can think of that are the exception, maybe a few other cities like Boston where I am not familiar with how the jobs are concentrated.



Forums Directory