For you urbanites out there, check out this podcast with Ryan Avent, author of The Gated City.
Avent's central thesis is that cities in the United States such as Boston, NYC, San Francisco and Washington D.C. are all very desirable places to live but are very expensive to live in. There are many reasons for this including limited and restrictive housing construction which drives up housing costs. Thus, they have not seen the same levels of population growth and housing stock construction as places like Houston, Las Vegas and Phoenix, for example.
Is this a bad thing? Depends on which question you are asking. Avent suggests that the coastal cities that have not seen a growing housing stock and are pricing out a lot of people (including middle class families and skilled labour). These are the people we need to keep our cities productive. As cities become more and more attractive places, demand for housing will inevitably increase.
But if housing supply does not respond to this demand, then how are they suppose to grow? And if one of our goals is to foster vibrant and productive cities by providing skilled jobs for people who cannot even afford to live there (hint hint,Vancouver) then we fail at achieving our main goal.
Avent talks about how self-interested people living in high dense and highly desirably places (like San Francisco) can fight against housing development in their neighbourhoods (classic NIMBYism) which pushes that development away to other places that are more open to housing development such as Houston. Sound familiar? It should be. Ed Glaeser discusses the environmental implications of this at length.
Some statistics and facts from the podcast:
"The median owner-occupied home in Houston in 2009 was just about $130,000 in value. And in San Jose it was over $600,000. And that just dwarfs the difference in wages. And it's not associated with the difference in construction costs. There is a difference in construction costs but it's very small relative to the premium due to the difficulty in building in those areas in the country".
"From 2001-2009, the housing stock in Boston, NY, and the Silicon Valley area, each of those, it grew by a little over 5%. And then you look at a city like Las Vegas, the housing stock grew by almost 40%. And in places like Phoenix and Charlotte it grew by 25%. So it's just a huge difference in growth in the housing stock, which really has nothing to do with demand but has entirely to do with the ease of building in those places".
There is a fascinating discussion in this podcast about city politics, urban planning, how zoning can be problematic, the consequences of distorting public policy and much more.
If you want a more condensed version of this, check out this 10 minute video via The Economist.
Here is a short review of the book.
Showing posts with label Urban talk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Urban talk. Show all posts
Monday, November 7, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Bogata's rise in the 1990s
The video above is a story about the City of Bogota, Colombia and how the city transformed in the 1990s. This transformation took place under the leadership of two mayors: Antanas Mockus and his successor, Enrique Penalosa. Mockus was committed to reducing crime, violence, corruption, traffic congestion and fostering an ethic of citizenry and respect in society.
Peñalosa used the momentum of Mockus to bring about drastic changes to the city through urban design; this involved the creation of parks, public spaces, affordable housing, efficient and well maintained public transportation. The youtube video runs for about 60 minutes. I highly recommend it not least for its inspiration, but how two leaders collectively changed a city through building a sense of citizenship and through urban planning.
Friday, July 8, 2011
A scathing critique of Glaeser's article on the locovore's dilemma
Further to Darlene's well-thought out and well-written response to Edward Glaeser's article, Colin Cureton, a graduate student in Food and Energy Policy at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, offers a critical response on how urban farms do not displace people, decrease density, or increase emissions as much as people think or as much as Glaeser suggests.
Here is an excerpt from his post:
"The biggest assumption is the simplistic (and false) choice between urban land for people and urban land for food. While land is a scarce resource, most urban ag is thriving on what was or otherwise would be vacant urban land. The amount of vacant urban land is vast in cities across the country. For example, the New York City’s Department of City Planning figures show that 6% of NYC is considered vacant. In Detroit, this figure is an astonishing 25-30% (anyone wonder why a revolutionary urban food system is emerging there?). Chicago has 70,000-80,000 vacant lots. This list goes on.
Also, much of urban ag is practiced in spaces that does not disrupt nor would it disrupt urban development. Think boulevards, side yards, public parks, rooftops, and so on. These are the spaces where urban ag thrives. As an urban agriculturalist, all four of my farms are on previously vacant or underutilized land. Two are vacant lots, one is at a church, and one is in a public park. Are my urban farms displacing anyone?"
You can read the full post here.
Here is an excerpt from his post:
"The biggest assumption is the simplistic (and false) choice between urban land for people and urban land for food. While land is a scarce resource, most urban ag is thriving on what was or otherwise would be vacant urban land. The amount of vacant urban land is vast in cities across the country. For example, the New York City’s Department of City Planning figures show that 6% of NYC is considered vacant. In Detroit, this figure is an astonishing 25-30% (anyone wonder why a revolutionary urban food system is emerging there?). Chicago has 70,000-80,000 vacant lots. This list goes on.
Also, much of urban ag is practiced in spaces that does not disrupt nor would it disrupt urban development. Think boulevards, side yards, public parks, rooftops, and so on. These are the spaces where urban ag thrives. As an urban agriculturalist, all four of my farms are on previously vacant or underutilized land. Two are vacant lots, one is at a church, and one is in a public park. Are my urban farms displacing anyone?"
You can read the full post here.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Guest Entry: Beyond the locovore's dilemma, urban farming for the 21st century
A couple of weeks ago, I read an OpEd article by Edward Glaeser titled "The locovore's dilemma". Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars and we have blogged about his ideas a number of times on this blog. However, I didn't agree with many of his points in his OpEd. I passed along the article to my friend, Darlene Seto, to gather her thoughts about the article. She wrote a response to it, which you can view below.
Beyond the locovore's dilemma, urban farming for the 21st century
By: Darlene Seto
As a general admirer of Edward Glaeser’s work, I was most dismayed to see his recent June 16th OpEd for The Boston Globe, where he proclaimed, most erringly, that urban farms do more harm than good to the environment. I disagree.
Glaeser’s principal case against urban farming lies in the carbon output linked to such farms; he equates increasing urban farmland with an automatic reduction in living density, thereby increasing metropolitan sprawl. Yet his homogeneous use of ‘cropland’ fails to differentiate between the more intensive cultivation of vegetables, as more commonly found in urban areas, and the sprawling land involved in the production of commodities like corn, the crop which he uses to cite as a resource intensive no-no for urban agriculture. But not all farming is equal – and Glaeser’s assertions about land density might look a lot different were he to parse out those vast monocultures from his analysis, and especially were he to include the entire carbon life of much industrial corn, which then includes the methane emissions of feedlot cattle and petrochemical plastics.
Glaeser’s main failing, however, is not being able to see beyond the current agricultural paradigm. What agriculture looks like now – in a rural setting - is assumed to be what agriculture is in an urban one. Urban farms, however, are not large crop monocultures plopped down in the middle of a busy and well-utilized urban space.
Here in Vancouver, British Columbia, where I am writing from, a number of urban farms make their existence using vacant land or under-utilized land – spaces such as parking lots, individuals’ backyards (or frontyards!) and similar space. Food is grown in these smaller pieces of land, sometimes solely in hundreds of planters or boxes. By piecing together the yards of cooperative landowners around the city, these entrepreneurial farmers are using the urban context to re-imagine traditional conceptions of agriculture, creating new and vital landscapes in our neighbourhoods. And given the administrative and institutional challenges in which most urban farmers already face in dense urban areas, urban farming hardly imperils the urban densification or the commercial use of prime urban real estate, but rather puts other space into productive use.
Finally, while Glaeser does fleetingly mention some of the other benefits of urban agriculture – such as its educational value to children – such instances do not seem to hold any effective value in his argument. The benefits of having localized food initiatives such as urban farms, however, reach far beyond mere carbon mileage – and indeed are much more important and difficult to quantify. Glaeser’s greenhouse gas focus does not look at the broader environmental impacts of urban food (understanding that the environment is the area in which we live, work and play; another point I would contest in Glaeser’s piece). Increasing food assets in a city through things such as urban farming not only reduces food insecurity and better health outcomes, but promotes greater resiliency in an era of increasing climactic uncertainty, supports local economic activity, and contributes to community development and capacity building.
Take note: If anything, I would agree that the most important benefits to localized food systems are not at all in carbon savings from transportation. But it is through OpEds such as the one to which I am responding, that create an erroneous understanding of the potential for urban agriculture. This is a time where most cities should be attempting to retain all the green space and food assets that they can get. We should be working to understand and support the committed individuals and organizations working in this sector.
Darlene Seto is a graduate student at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, Canada. A keen student of environment policy and governance, her current graduate work revolves around diversity and engagement in alternative food systems.
Beyond the locovore's dilemma, urban farming for the 21st century
By: Darlene Seto
As a general admirer of Edward Glaeser’s work, I was most dismayed to see his recent June 16th OpEd for The Boston Globe, where he proclaimed, most erringly, that urban farms do more harm than good to the environment. I disagree.
Glaeser’s principal case against urban farming lies in the carbon output linked to such farms; he equates increasing urban farmland with an automatic reduction in living density, thereby increasing metropolitan sprawl. Yet his homogeneous use of ‘cropland’ fails to differentiate between the more intensive cultivation of vegetables, as more commonly found in urban areas, and the sprawling land involved in the production of commodities like corn, the crop which he uses to cite as a resource intensive no-no for urban agriculture. But not all farming is equal – and Glaeser’s assertions about land density might look a lot different were he to parse out those vast monocultures from his analysis, and especially were he to include the entire carbon life of much industrial corn, which then includes the methane emissions of feedlot cattle and petrochemical plastics.
Glaeser’s main failing, however, is not being able to see beyond the current agricultural paradigm. What agriculture looks like now – in a rural setting - is assumed to be what agriculture is in an urban one. Urban farms, however, are not large crop monocultures plopped down in the middle of a busy and well-utilized urban space.
Here in Vancouver, British Columbia, where I am writing from, a number of urban farms make their existence using vacant land or under-utilized land – spaces such as parking lots, individuals’ backyards (or frontyards!) and similar space. Food is grown in these smaller pieces of land, sometimes solely in hundreds of planters or boxes. By piecing together the yards of cooperative landowners around the city, these entrepreneurial farmers are using the urban context to re-imagine traditional conceptions of agriculture, creating new and vital landscapes in our neighbourhoods. And given the administrative and institutional challenges in which most urban farmers already face in dense urban areas, urban farming hardly imperils the urban densification or the commercial use of prime urban real estate, but rather puts other space into productive use.
Finally, while Glaeser does fleetingly mention some of the other benefits of urban agriculture – such as its educational value to children – such instances do not seem to hold any effective value in his argument. The benefits of having localized food initiatives such as urban farms, however, reach far beyond mere carbon mileage – and indeed are much more important and difficult to quantify. Glaeser’s greenhouse gas focus does not look at the broader environmental impacts of urban food (understanding that the environment is the area in which we live, work and play; another point I would contest in Glaeser’s piece). Increasing food assets in a city through things such as urban farming not only reduces food insecurity and better health outcomes, but promotes greater resiliency in an era of increasing climactic uncertainty, supports local economic activity, and contributes to community development and capacity building.
Take note: If anything, I would agree that the most important benefits to localized food systems are not at all in carbon savings from transportation. But it is through OpEds such as the one to which I am responding, that create an erroneous understanding of the potential for urban agriculture. This is a time where most cities should be attempting to retain all the green space and food assets that they can get. We should be working to understand and support the committed individuals and organizations working in this sector.
Darlene Seto is a graduate student at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, Canada. A keen student of environment policy and governance, her current graduate work revolves around diversity and engagement in alternative food systems.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Planning insights from Zurich
Image credit: Fotolia.com Elizabeth Rosenthal from the NY Times writes about how European cities such as Zurich are creating environments openly hostile to cars.
"Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter".
This certainly contrasts what we've been seeing in North America. While some North American cities have started to add more pedestrian friendly environments (New York City, Vancouver and San Francisco, for example), we still have a ways to go to make our cities more focused on providing livable spaces for people and not simple cars.
"Europe’s cities generally have stronger incentives to act. Built for the most part before the advent of cars, their narrow roads are poor at handling heavy traffic. Public transportation is generally better in Europe than in the United States, and gas often costs over $8 a gallon, contributing to driving costs that are two to three times greater per mile than in the United States, Dr. Lee Schipper said.
"Around Löwenplatz, one of Zurich’s busiest squares, cars are now banned on many blocks. Where permitted, their speed is limited to a snail’s pace so that crosswalks and crossing signs can be removed entirely, giving people on foot the right to cross anywhere they like at any time".
Read more here.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Vertical Farming
The Economist discusses the market implications of vertical farming in our global economy. The article has three videos as well which are informative and explain the concepts and science very clearly.
Right from the Economist:
"Such is the thinking behind vertical farming. The idea is that skyscrapers filled with floor upon floor of orchards and fields, producing crops all year round, will sprout in cities across the world. As well as creating more farmable land out of thin air, this would slash the transport costs and carbon-dioxide emissions associated with moving food over long distances. It would also reduce the spoilage that inevitably occurs along the way, says Dickson Despommier, a professor of public and environmental health at Columbia University in New York who is widely regarded as the progenitor of vertical farming, and whose recently published book, “The Vertical Farm”, is a manifesto for the idea".
"Indeed, even in today’s single-storey glasshouses, artificial lighting is needed to enable year-round production. Thanet Earth, a 90-hectare facility which opened in Kent in 2008 and is the largest such site in Britain—it provides 15% of the British salad crop—requires its own mini power-station to provide its plants with light for 15 hours a day during the winter months. This rather undermines the notion that vertical farming will save energy and cut carbon emissions, notes Mr Head, who has carried out several studies of the idea. Vertical farming will need cheap, renewable energy if it is to work, he says."
Time and time again we hear from the UN that the world’s population is expected to increase to about 9 billion by 2050. To feel such a population will mean increasing food production by 70% according to the FAO. This will undoubtedly require a combination of higher crop yields and an expansion of the area under cultivation. This could take the form of more agricultural land (which is unevenly distributed across the world). 60% of the world's population is expected to live in cities by 2030. This could translate into more innovation in the form of vertical or urban farming to feed such populations locally.
Right from the Economist:
"Such is the thinking behind vertical farming. The idea is that skyscrapers filled with floor upon floor of orchards and fields, producing crops all year round, will sprout in cities across the world. As well as creating more farmable land out of thin air, this would slash the transport costs and carbon-dioxide emissions associated with moving food over long distances. It would also reduce the spoilage that inevitably occurs along the way, says Dickson Despommier, a professor of public and environmental health at Columbia University in New York who is widely regarded as the progenitor of vertical farming, and whose recently published book, “The Vertical Farm”, is a manifesto for the idea".
"Indeed, even in today’s single-storey glasshouses, artificial lighting is needed to enable year-round production. Thanet Earth, a 90-hectare facility which opened in Kent in 2008 and is the largest such site in Britain—it provides 15% of the British salad crop—requires its own mini power-station to provide its plants with light for 15 hours a day during the winter months. This rather undermines the notion that vertical farming will save energy and cut carbon emissions, notes Mr Head, who has carried out several studies of the idea. Vertical farming will need cheap, renewable energy if it is to work, he says."
Time and time again we hear from the UN that the world’s population is expected to increase to about 9 billion by 2050. To feel such a population will mean increasing food production by 70% according to the FAO. This will undoubtedly require a combination of higher crop yields and an expansion of the area under cultivation. This could take the form of more agricultural land (which is unevenly distributed across the world). 60% of the world's population is expected to live in cities by 2030. This could translate into more innovation in the form of vertical or urban farming to feed such populations locally.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Beijing's new subway lines
Just last week Beijing opened up five new subway lines and 108 kilometres of new track. The new subway lines cost $9.4 billion to build and were not supposed to be completed until 2012. The Chinese however, have an impressive track record for completing large scale urban infrastructure projects ahead of schedule.
From the Toronto Star:
“We intend to bring on more new track every year for the next five years,” says Jia Peng, chief spokesman for the transit corporation. “We have the technology, we have the funds; the only thing we don't have much of is time — and time is crucial.
These new subway lines will undoubtedly ease traffic congestion both inside and outside of the urban core. Both congestion and pollution (air and noise) in Beijing have hitherto been an egregious problem with multiple social costs for the populace.
"Last year more than 2,000 new cars flooded into Beijing's streets and highways each day, for a total of nearly 800,000 new vehicles in 2010."
From the Toronto Star:
“We intend to bring on more new track every year for the next five years,” says Jia Peng, chief spokesman for the transit corporation. “We have the technology, we have the funds; the only thing we don't have much of is time — and time is crucial.
These new subway lines will undoubtedly ease traffic congestion both inside and outside of the urban core. Both congestion and pollution (air and noise) in Beijing have hitherto been an egregious problem with multiple social costs for the populace.
"Last year more than 2,000 new cars flooded into Beijing's streets and highways each day, for a total of nearly 800,000 new vehicles in 2010."
"Desperate to curb congestion in the city, the government announced it will restrict new car sales in Beijing this year to just 20,000 per month, holding a monthly public lottery for the privilege of buying one. Annual sales in the capital in 2011 will be capped at 240,000."
Sounds bold and progressive but is certainly doable in China.
The point of the Toronto Star article was to compare Beijing's remarkable progress in public transit expansion with Toronto's abysmally slow progress with new subways, light-right etc. While I commend the Beijing Mass Transit Railway Operation Corp with its success thus far, it operates in a jurisdiction that has much less stringent planning and environmental processes. Indeed, environmental impact assessments for such urban infrastructure projects in Canada can take months if not years.
In Canada, the public input alone is invaluable but incredibly time-consuming. Interest groups, community associations, business organizations, system users and concerned citizens might have reservations or suggestions about the transportation project. They are all important stakeholders and our elected officials must respond to them. It is therefore unfair do compare the two cities simply based on their planning processes.
In Toronto, for example, the urban transportation planning process might establish a vision of what a community wants to be and how the transportation systems fits into this vision. As you can imagine, in Toronto, with such a diversity of people, needs and interests, this process can take eons to complete thus delaying the building of the project be it subway or light-rail.
But, the urgency around public transportation in Beijing -- notwithstanding the limited planning and public involvement -- still showcases the commitment of the Beijing government to reduce traffic congestion and bring about a healthier and more efficient metropolis.
As the article writes, in Beijing "The government is planner, builder and arbiter all in one."
Read the full version of the Toronto Star article here.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
City Planning: Melbourne and Toronto
I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail yesterday that discussed contemporary city planning issues in Melbourne, Australia and Toronto, Canada. The article, structured in a question and answer format, featured two urban experts discussing what their cities have done and what their cities need to do on the urban planning front. Robert Adams, director of city design for Melbourne is a huge proponent of pedestrian traffic and bike lanes (Don Cherry would call him a pinko). Mr. Adams vehemently lobbied to make public transit in Melbourne free before 7 am and cars were banned from the city's busiest street. A really progressive and visionary leader who has made Melbourne the third most livable city in the world, according to The Economist.
The urban expert interviewed from Toronto is Gary Wright, the current chief planner for the City of Toronto. In my undergrad, Gary spoke as a guest lecturer in one of my geography courses (summary of that lecture found here). Gary is very proud of what the Dundas Square has become (under his leadership) in terms of a public open space in which people can appreciate and gather together to enjoy the city's culture, night life and artistic events. This is what some would call experiential consumption whereby citizens and tourists can experience and enjoy the culture and vitality of the city through public spaces and not through shopping and material consumption.
He also commented on the planning of the forthcoming Pan Am Games in Toronto in 2015. He says that the athletes' village is going to require close collaboration with developers to ensure that everything goes well. The city's waterfront reinvention plan is underway and will have many implications for waterfront development in the coming years. In sum, he supports greater involvement of the developers because of their knowledge and expertise. Last and unsurprisingly, he is a big advocate for better transit in Toronto. Transit is a very salient issue these days but in a time of financial uncertainty, and with a new mayor, we'll have to wait and see how things play out on the transit agenda.
The rest of this post will focus on the great city planning work of Robert Adams and what other cities could learn from him. To begin, as a design enthusiast and supporter for greater pedestrian traffic, Adams recognized the importance of widening sidewalks. Trees were planted along the widened sidewalks which eventually led to a proliferation of sidewalk cafes.
From the Globe: "Adams closed Melbourne's main thoroughfare, Bourke Street, to cars before 7 p.m., transforming it into wide lanes for pedestrians, bikes, streetcars and buses. More than 35,000 pedestrians now walk the street each day, up from 12,000 ten years ago and businesses have returned as well."
Adams says we need more residential development around existing transit lines (something Hong Kong has mastered). He also thinks that municipal plans are too technical and thus non-transparent to the public. Plans need to have more visual components to show people how their communities are going to change in the coming years due to urban development and population growth. Finally, Adams, as a designer and planner, is really effective and engaging and leveraging public sentiment. One example from the article is a time when he announced his desire to pull down a freeway standing between the city centre and the Yarra River. Many thought this was not possible. He slowly developed green spaces around the freeway and Melbourne's citizens, quite some time later, saw the benefits of this and demanded that the road be pulled down.
City planning can drastically transform our cities into healthier, more transit friendly and enjoyable places. Both Adams and Wright have done remarkable things for their respective cities. Planning is inherently a political process with multiple stakeholders and multiple perspectives. This mix of interests is healthy but challenging for the planner who must consult and facilitate disparate and contested views.
Finally, Melbourne and Toronto are unique in that they have historic streetcar systems. Personally, I have come to appreciate streetcars not only because they have contributed to Toronto's identity, but also because they effectively complement other transit forms such as subways, buses and walking. For you transportation nerds out there, I would encourage you to read a paper by Currie and Shalaby on the successes and challenges in modernizing streetcar systems in Melbourne and Toronto. For the paper, click here.
The urban expert interviewed from Toronto is Gary Wright, the current chief planner for the City of Toronto. In my undergrad, Gary spoke as a guest lecturer in one of my geography courses (summary of that lecture found here). Gary is very proud of what the Dundas Square has become (under his leadership) in terms of a public open space in which people can appreciate and gather together to enjoy the city's culture, night life and artistic events. This is what some would call experiential consumption whereby citizens and tourists can experience and enjoy the culture and vitality of the city through public spaces and not through shopping and material consumption.
He also commented on the planning of the forthcoming Pan Am Games in Toronto in 2015. He says that the athletes' village is going to require close collaboration with developers to ensure that everything goes well. The city's waterfront reinvention plan is underway and will have many implications for waterfront development in the coming years. In sum, he supports greater involvement of the developers because of their knowledge and expertise. Last and unsurprisingly, he is a big advocate for better transit in Toronto. Transit is a very salient issue these days but in a time of financial uncertainty, and with a new mayor, we'll have to wait and see how things play out on the transit agenda.
The rest of this post will focus on the great city planning work of Robert Adams and what other cities could learn from him. To begin, as a design enthusiast and supporter for greater pedestrian traffic, Adams recognized the importance of widening sidewalks. Trees were planted along the widened sidewalks which eventually led to a proliferation of sidewalk cafes.
From the Globe: "Adams closed Melbourne's main thoroughfare, Bourke Street, to cars before 7 p.m., transforming it into wide lanes for pedestrians, bikes, streetcars and buses. More than 35,000 pedestrians now walk the street each day, up from 12,000 ten years ago and businesses have returned as well."
Adams says we need more residential development around existing transit lines (something Hong Kong has mastered). He also thinks that municipal plans are too technical and thus non-transparent to the public. Plans need to have more visual components to show people how their communities are going to change in the coming years due to urban development and population growth. Finally, Adams, as a designer and planner, is really effective and engaging and leveraging public sentiment. One example from the article is a time when he announced his desire to pull down a freeway standing between the city centre and the Yarra River. Many thought this was not possible. He slowly developed green spaces around the freeway and Melbourne's citizens, quite some time later, saw the benefits of this and demanded that the road be pulled down.
City planning can drastically transform our cities into healthier, more transit friendly and enjoyable places. Both Adams and Wright have done remarkable things for their respective cities. Planning is inherently a political process with multiple stakeholders and multiple perspectives. This mix of interests is healthy but challenging for the planner who must consult and facilitate disparate and contested views.
Finally, Melbourne and Toronto are unique in that they have historic streetcar systems. Personally, I have come to appreciate streetcars not only because they have contributed to Toronto's identity, but also because they effectively complement other transit forms such as subways, buses and walking. For you transportation nerds out there, I would encourage you to read a paper by Currie and Shalaby on the successes and challenges in modernizing streetcar systems in Melbourne and Toronto. For the paper, click here.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Metro Vancouver Walkability Index
The physical activity of walking is becoming a central part of discussion today in fields such as public health and transportation research. It is a very topical theme in general as cities prides themselves on being "walkable". Indeed, a report on the world's top ten most walkable cities was just released. In June, Chris blogged about urban walkability and a software called Walk Score. Walkability, believe it or not, is becoming very popular because it has economic, social, health and environmental implications.
A team of UBC researchers recently wrote a report titled "Neighbourhood Design, Travel, and Health in Metro Vancouver". The research was led by a professor in my program named Dr. Larry Frank.
Professor Frank and his team developed the Metro Vancouver Walkability Index (VWI) to measure neighbourhood urban form characteristics in Metro Vancouver. The report summarizes results from local studies that have applied the VWI to explore associations between neighbourhood design and travel behaviour, physical activity, obesity, and air pollution exposure.
The walkability index specifically measures residential density, commercial density, land use mix and street connectivity. Without getting caught up in this jargon, the key point is that neighbourhoods that are well serviced by public transit, are in close proximity to amenities (grocery stores, schools, community centres, shopping areas, entertainment), and are close to major street intersections are all conducive for walking.
Generally, compact and mixed use neighbourhoods allow for shorter trips (that can be done by walking or cycling) to access local amenities and services. If amenities are a 10 minute walk from someone's house, cycling and walking become much more desirable options and the physical health benefits of this are enormous.
Image credit: The South Fraser Blog
The map above shows the walkability of Metro Vancouver. It's fairly evident that the City of Vancouver is more walkable than Surrey, or Richmond. There are many reasons why this might be, but I can tell you that Vancouver has higher density than the aforementioned cities and is also better serviced by public transit.
Why is this important? Measuring walkability has implications for public health policy and transportation. Larry Frank's study looks at the relationship between walking and active transportation i.e. adults living in the top 25% most walkable neighbourhoods drive approximately 58% less than those in more auto-oriented (less walkable) areas. They are probably more physically active as a result.
The report also looks at neighbourhood walkability and air pollution exposure. Nitric oxide (NO) levels are highest in urban areas of high residential density and on arterial roads where more vehicles in a smaller area result in higher concentrations of this pollutant. What does this mean for the walkers who are exposed to air pollution?
It is a really dynamic and informative study. I would encourage you to read it if you have some time on your hands. While the focus is on Metro Vancouver, it is critical to understand why walkability is important in our cities so that we can do smarter planning for active transportation and a healthier society.
Check out the report here.
A team of UBC researchers recently wrote a report titled "Neighbourhood Design, Travel, and Health in Metro Vancouver". The research was led by a professor in my program named Dr. Larry Frank.
Professor Frank and his team developed the Metro Vancouver Walkability Index (VWI) to measure neighbourhood urban form characteristics in Metro Vancouver. The report summarizes results from local studies that have applied the VWI to explore associations between neighbourhood design and travel behaviour, physical activity, obesity, and air pollution exposure.
The walkability index specifically measures residential density, commercial density, land use mix and street connectivity. Without getting caught up in this jargon, the key point is that neighbourhoods that are well serviced by public transit, are in close proximity to amenities (grocery stores, schools, community centres, shopping areas, entertainment), and are close to major street intersections are all conducive for walking.
Generally, compact and mixed use neighbourhoods allow for shorter trips (that can be done by walking or cycling) to access local amenities and services. If amenities are a 10 minute walk from someone's house, cycling and walking become much more desirable options and the physical health benefits of this are enormous.
Image credit: The South Fraser BlogThe map above shows the walkability of Metro Vancouver. It's fairly evident that the City of Vancouver is more walkable than Surrey, or Richmond. There are many reasons why this might be, but I can tell you that Vancouver has higher density than the aforementioned cities and is also better serviced by public transit.
Why is this important? Measuring walkability has implications for public health policy and transportation. Larry Frank's study looks at the relationship between walking and active transportation i.e. adults living in the top 25% most walkable neighbourhoods drive approximately 58% less than those in more auto-oriented (less walkable) areas. They are probably more physically active as a result.
The report also looks at neighbourhood walkability and air pollution exposure. Nitric oxide (NO) levels are highest in urban areas of high residential density and on arterial roads where more vehicles in a smaller area result in higher concentrations of this pollutant. What does this mean for the walkers who are exposed to air pollution?
It is a really dynamic and informative study. I would encourage you to read it if you have some time on your hands. While the focus is on Metro Vancouver, it is critical to understand why walkability is important in our cities so that we can do smarter planning for active transportation and a healthier society.
Check out the report here.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Bike Lane Debate in Vancouver
Urban bike lanes always face opposition. People say they hurt businesses, they take space away from motorists, they are too expensive etc etc. We had a guest post in the summer from the Executive Director of the Toronto Cyclists Union that challenged many of the conventional arguments made against bike lanes.
On a separate note, I was speaking with a physicist who argued that bike lanes make cyclists less conscious of their surrounding environment and are thus more at a risk of colliding into a motorist. He suggested that bike lanes have rumble strips to make both cyclists and motorists more attentive and aware of their lanes.
My friend and classmate, William Dunn, recently wrote a short and excellent story about a new bike lane in Vancouver that has generated a lot controversy. In short, City Council recently approved the Hornby bike trial which is a protected cycling track in downtown Vancouver.
Will writes:
"The City’s decision to re-appropriate public streets for the creation of a protected cycling track has been one of the most divisive civic issues in memory. News1130 and other media have labeled it a misappropriation of public space and funds, business owners along the routes are furious, and motorists grow increasingly frustrated. With City Council’s October 5 decision to approve the Hornby bike trial, the debate seems destined to intensify".
Read more here.
On a separate note, I was speaking with a physicist who argued that bike lanes make cyclists less conscious of their surrounding environment and are thus more at a risk of colliding into a motorist. He suggested that bike lanes have rumble strips to make both cyclists and motorists more attentive and aware of their lanes.
My friend and classmate, William Dunn, recently wrote a short and excellent story about a new bike lane in Vancouver that has generated a lot controversy. In short, City Council recently approved the Hornby bike trial which is a protected cycling track in downtown Vancouver.
Will writes:
"The City’s decision to re-appropriate public streets for the creation of a protected cycling track has been one of the most divisive civic issues in memory. News1130 and other media have labeled it a misappropriation of public space and funds, business owners along the routes are furious, and motorists grow increasingly frustrated. With City Council’s October 5 decision to approve the Hornby bike trial, the debate seems destined to intensify".
Read more here.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
China's nine day traffic jam...
And you think your daily commute on the 401 is bad. Imagine being stuck on that road for over a week. That, sadly, is what is has come to on one of China's major expressways.
Two days ago, the CBC reported that a traffic jam had entered its ninth day of existence and is well over 100 km long. It could very well still be jammed up. According to the Chinese government, the jam occurred due to insufficient traffic capacity and maintenance issues. So basically, there are too many cars and too few roads.
One might think you could simply jump off the expressway and take another route home, but the jam is so solidly backed up that even that won't work. And really, you can't do much else except wait it out. So what exactly might you do for several days on the road?
Food and drink is very much available as vendors have set up shop to appease the stuck drivers. But a quick review of supply & demand theories will lead you to understand why the food is far from affordable. I'm sure gas is being sold to the poor souls who run out, but again, probably far from the normal price. And we can only hope that most cars aren't idling the whole time.
Emergency vehicles must be screwed, too.
Urban planning institutes and consultants frequently release reports citing the added costs of traffic congestion to the economy, usually in the billions. But North American traffic congestion is nothing compared to what China is experiencing. And apparently, this isn't the first time it has happened.
It won't be the last, either. China is growing outrageously fast in almost every dimension of its existence. People there are getting richer and wanting more cars. Building the infrastructure to house the cars doesn't happen quite as quickly.
So, here are the typical solutions: more public transit, congestion zone charges, toll highways, carbon taxes and voluntary drops in vehicle usage. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't think China really cares that much. Of course, they are implementing all sorts of programs like this. But will they trump the sheer desire to own and drive a car, especially as the economy grows at 9% per year? Doubtful. One can only hope that some lessons are learned from this jam and the future ones that take place.
Two days ago, the CBC reported that a traffic jam had entered its ninth day of existence and is well over 100 km long. It could very well still be jammed up. According to the Chinese government, the jam occurred due to insufficient traffic capacity and maintenance issues. So basically, there are too many cars and too few roads.
One might think you could simply jump off the expressway and take another route home, but the jam is so solidly backed up that even that won't work. And really, you can't do much else except wait it out. So what exactly might you do for several days on the road?
Food and drink is very much available as vendors have set up shop to appease the stuck drivers. But a quick review of supply & demand theories will lead you to understand why the food is far from affordable. I'm sure gas is being sold to the poor souls who run out, but again, probably far from the normal price. And we can only hope that most cars aren't idling the whole time.
Emergency vehicles must be screwed, too.
Urban planning institutes and consultants frequently release reports citing the added costs of traffic congestion to the economy, usually in the billions. But North American traffic congestion is nothing compared to what China is experiencing. And apparently, this isn't the first time it has happened.
It won't be the last, either. China is growing outrageously fast in almost every dimension of its existence. People there are getting richer and wanting more cars. Building the infrastructure to house the cars doesn't happen quite as quickly.
So, here are the typical solutions: more public transit, congestion zone charges, toll highways, carbon taxes and voluntary drops in vehicle usage. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't think China really cares that much. Of course, they are implementing all sorts of programs like this. But will they trump the sheer desire to own and drive a car, especially as the economy grows at 9% per year? Doubtful. One can only hope that some lessons are learned from this jam and the future ones that take place.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The MTR in Hong Kong...
I recently arrived in Hong Kong to begin a two-month internship with a property development company called Cheung Kong Holdings. I start work on June 21st.
As someone deeply passionate about urban planning, my first observations in Hong Kong were: one, its high density environment and two, its extremely adequate public transit system, known as the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). The MTR is an integral part of Hong Kong's transportation system. I took the MTR from the Airport, located in the far west, to Hung Hom Station located in Kowloon (the station closest to where I am staying).
I had to switch trains a couple of times with my luggage (a pain to carry around) but was completely distracted by the MTR's efficiency, good ridership (approx 4 million trips made on the MTR on an average weekday) and intelligent technology. The trains have TVs that provide updates of transit delays, the weather and local news to name a few. Overall, a much more exciting and interesting way to travel than a cab.
Enviro Boys has blogged extensively about public transit in the past. A lot of my posts on public transit have been based on what I have read from academic journals, news articles and other publications. I have first-hand experience with Toronto's TTC, but this system is in need of desperate revitalization.
The MTR is going to be my main method of transit over the next two months. It could take me anywhere I need to go around Hong Kong. I will use it to go from Kowloon (where I live) to Hong Kong Island (where I work). Most impressively, the MTR is incredibly efficient and affordable! Efficient and affordable public transit systems are a rarity in Canada. Of course, Hong Kong's high density and compactness justify the need for an excllent transit system. Nonetheless, there are so many lessons to learn from the MTR, lessons I will bring with me to Vancouver and my grad program.
There will be more posts about the MTR as the weeks progress. Hopefully, these posts will come from observation and first-hand experience, a different approach to my coverage of public transit on this blog.
Photo Image: Picture of MTR West Line Train courtesy of flickr.com
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Sustainable Transportation and Singapore:
A couple of weeks ago, I completed a term paper for my Philosophy of Geography class. I did research on Transport Geography (a sub-discipline in Geography) and found many groundbreaking transportation ideas from the literature. This post will feature one segment of my paper which explored Singapore and the successes it has had in achieving a sustainable transportation system. Good transportation systems will be key for the 21st century, especially for climate change mitigation.
This is a pretty lengthy post. For anyone wishing to read more about transport geography, you can access my paper here.
A general trend in Asian countries like India and China is that increased wealth means more production and subsequent purchasing of automobiles. This process is problematic from a socio-economic status perspective as more vehicles are being purchased and used by the wealthy which exposes the poor to even more emissions and pollutants, or as one scholar puts it: “mobility for some will be at the expense of immobility and disease of others”. It is difficult for the government to discourage automobility when mobility is perceived to be better and public transit might be unpopular because it is uncomfortable, dirty, inconvenient and less enjoyable.
The critical challenge is to balance motorization with public transit. Singapore has been successful with such an endeavour through bringing about a sustainable transportation system. Their system fosters mobility because it allows users to choose their mode of transportation subject to a range of well-coordinated policies to control car population and usage, and at the same time to provide high quality public transport facilities.
Roads have received substantial public investment; from 1986 to 1996 the road surface area increased 27%. Between 1996 and 2000 $3 billion was invested to construct a 300 km highway and from 2001-2005, another $570 million was used to further road expansions. Public investment in the public transit network has occurred simultaneously through the mass rapid transit (MRT) and the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) networks.
Promoting motorization and public transit has involved a set of innovative management policies to achieve a sustainable transport system. The first is a vehicle quota system (VQS) which combines state planning and market mechanisms to allocate vehicles to users and so manage the vehicle population. This management tool is effective in controlling the vehicle population in Singapore as it limits car ownership. Ownership of a vehicle requires a certificate of entitlement and the quota system is based on categories of vehicles differentiated by engine size. The VQS has reduced the annual growth rate of vehicles to three percent because citizens feel inclined to have more control over their transportation choices either through walking, busing, cycling etc.
The other innovative policy is road pricing. The country uses electronic road pricing (ERP) which is a sophisticated combination of radio-frequency, optical-detection, imaging and smart-card technologies. ERP is a method of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) which has gained popularity in places such as North America, Europe and South-East Asian nations like Singapore. These technologies have been championed by civil engineers but have required input from transport geographers and planners in terms of situating them in transportation networks. Pricing roads is a really effective approach to discouraging automobility.
With ERP, the share of private cars over total commuters declined from 48% to 29%. Public transportation has received many benefits from the ERP scheme. Indeed, buses have become faster, more efficient and have seen ridership rates go up. Singapore was the first city in the world to implement an electronic road toll collection system for purposes of congestion pricing.
Mobility has been advanced in Singapore because policies have promoted public transit. Policies have made the quality, frequency and diversity of the public transit system and its services a viable alternative to the car for a wide array of the population. One progressive and emerging idea is to install intelligent traffic lights to detect approaching buses so the lights turn green automatically, this will also come with more bus lanes. This is meant to increase efficiency and mobility as a bus carries more passengers than an automobile.
Low fares in Singapore’s rapid transit system ensure that anyone can access public transport. Low-income commuters are assisted by the “many helping hands” approach, with the government, local communities and the public transport operators all extending their help in various ways such as government income redistribution schemes and transport vouchers. The rapid bus transit system provides low fares in general and continuously seeks input from the public about quality of service, price level, waiting and walking time in a trip. Last, road pricing has been effective because it controls usage of cars i.e. making automobility less attractive because it is more expensive and rapid bus transit more popular because it is cheaper and highly efficient.
Key message: Singapore provides a model for an excellent transportation system. While many cities and countries have their own unique geography, economy and public policies- there is always ample room to revamp transportation systems insofar as the political will is in place.
This is a pretty lengthy post. For anyone wishing to read more about transport geography, you can access my paper here.
A general trend in Asian countries like India and China is that increased wealth means more production and subsequent purchasing of automobiles. This process is problematic from a socio-economic status perspective as more vehicles are being purchased and used by the wealthy which exposes the poor to even more emissions and pollutants, or as one scholar puts it: “mobility for some will be at the expense of immobility and disease of others”. It is difficult for the government to discourage automobility when mobility is perceived to be better and public transit might be unpopular because it is uncomfortable, dirty, inconvenient and less enjoyable.
The critical challenge is to balance motorization with public transit. Singapore has been successful with such an endeavour through bringing about a sustainable transportation system. Their system fosters mobility because it allows users to choose their mode of transportation subject to a range of well-coordinated policies to control car population and usage, and at the same time to provide high quality public transport facilities.
Roads have received substantial public investment; from 1986 to 1996 the road surface area increased 27%. Between 1996 and 2000 $3 billion was invested to construct a 300 km highway and from 2001-2005, another $570 million was used to further road expansions. Public investment in the public transit network has occurred simultaneously through the mass rapid transit (MRT) and the Light Rapid Transit (LRT) networks.
Promoting motorization and public transit has involved a set of innovative management policies to achieve a sustainable transport system. The first is a vehicle quota system (VQS) which combines state planning and market mechanisms to allocate vehicles to users and so manage the vehicle population. This management tool is effective in controlling the vehicle population in Singapore as it limits car ownership. Ownership of a vehicle requires a certificate of entitlement and the quota system is based on categories of vehicles differentiated by engine size. The VQS has reduced the annual growth rate of vehicles to three percent because citizens feel inclined to have more control over their transportation choices either through walking, busing, cycling etc.
The other innovative policy is road pricing. The country uses electronic road pricing (ERP) which is a sophisticated combination of radio-frequency, optical-detection, imaging and smart-card technologies. ERP is a method of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) which has gained popularity in places such as North America, Europe and South-East Asian nations like Singapore. These technologies have been championed by civil engineers but have required input from transport geographers and planners in terms of situating them in transportation networks. Pricing roads is a really effective approach to discouraging automobility.
With ERP, the share of private cars over total commuters declined from 48% to 29%. Public transportation has received many benefits from the ERP scheme. Indeed, buses have become faster, more efficient and have seen ridership rates go up. Singapore was the first city in the world to implement an electronic road toll collection system for purposes of congestion pricing.
Mobility has been advanced in Singapore because policies have promoted public transit. Policies have made the quality, frequency and diversity of the public transit system and its services a viable alternative to the car for a wide array of the population. One progressive and emerging idea is to install intelligent traffic lights to detect approaching buses so the lights turn green automatically, this will also come with more bus lanes. This is meant to increase efficiency and mobility as a bus carries more passengers than an automobile.
Low fares in Singapore’s rapid transit system ensure that anyone can access public transport. Low-income commuters are assisted by the “many helping hands” approach, with the government, local communities and the public transport operators all extending their help in various ways such as government income redistribution schemes and transport vouchers. The rapid bus transit system provides low fares in general and continuously seeks input from the public about quality of service, price level, waiting and walking time in a trip. Last, road pricing has been effective because it controls usage of cars i.e. making automobility less attractive because it is more expensive and rapid bus transit more popular because it is cheaper and highly efficient.
Key message: Singapore provides a model for an excellent transportation system. While many cities and countries have their own unique geography, economy and public policies- there is always ample room to revamp transportation systems insofar as the political will is in place.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Waste-to-energy is a heated topic these days…
Waste-to-energy is a euphemism for incineration, which is that process where a plant will burn municipal solid waste using thermal treatment which in turn can be used to generate electricity. At the “Waste-Based-Energy” industry conference in November 2009, delegates learned about several new incineration plant proposals including one in the Durham/York Region (not too far from Peterborough). The facility’s price tag is roughly $272 million and will be operated by New Jersey based Covanta Energy Corp.
There are some advantages to this plant that I should note. Considering the large population growth of the Durham/York Region, and given the implications of their growing electricity demand, the incinerator could very well provide electricity for thousands of homes. It could also be a solution for neighbouring municipalities who are currently stressing over their landfill sites due to overuse and leachate problems (i.e. when a lot of organic wastes end up in the landfill, sometimes they can leach from the landfill carrying other toxic wastes into the groundwater supply). Other parts of Canada including Metro Vancouver, Ottawa and Edmonton are all on the path to building more incinerators, many of which are being done by public-private partnerships.
So, I have touched on the “good” and now I turn to my cynicism and pessimistic take on the proposed incinerator. Firstly, there are numerous health issues associated with incineration. The burning of waste releases thousands of toxic emissions implicated in asthma and respiratory illnesses, autism, dyslexia and Parkinson’s disease just to name a few. These sites are often built on Greenfield sites or in agricultural communities thereby eroding the viability of the farmer’s land and well-being. Tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic ash are generated annually from the burning of waste, and o yeah, that ash is often sent to the landfill.
These sorts of projects are highly controversial because the companies that operate them do not often account for their negative externalities. For example, when these plants spew out toxic emissions, those living within close propinquity suffer great respiratory illnesses. Indeed, the Durham/York Region is growing tremendously and an incinerator is bound to pose health issues which can potentially add even more pressure to a health care system that already has too much.
I think the Province should mandate that all new incinerators built in Ontario have “scrubber systems”. These systems are a diverse group of air pollution control devices that can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial emissions. This would account for some of those externalities and put the accountability right on the company that operates the plant.
Finally, the plant is proposing to have a $140 per tonne tipping fee (the charge for accepting waste at the site). I think that 50% of this fee should go directly towards the region’s recycling and composting programs. This would be imperative because empirical evidence suggests that when a city sees the construction of an incinerator, there is less of an incentive for keeping a well-maintained recycling system because incinerators are expensive! Also, taxpayers pay for them.
Key message: Companies that run these incinerators must be held accountable for their emissions. Indeed, they should be required to have mandatory scrubber systems to really minimize the health impacts of emissions. Our health care system is already stressed, let’s keep our innovative waste management programs like recycling and composting which pose no real health effects, unlike incineration.
There are some advantages to this plant that I should note. Considering the large population growth of the Durham/York Region, and given the implications of their growing electricity demand, the incinerator could very well provide electricity for thousands of homes. It could also be a solution for neighbouring municipalities who are currently stressing over their landfill sites due to overuse and leachate problems (i.e. when a lot of organic wastes end up in the landfill, sometimes they can leach from the landfill carrying other toxic wastes into the groundwater supply). Other parts of Canada including Metro Vancouver, Ottawa and Edmonton are all on the path to building more incinerators, many of which are being done by public-private partnerships.
So, I have touched on the “good” and now I turn to my cynicism and pessimistic take on the proposed incinerator. Firstly, there are numerous health issues associated with incineration. The burning of waste releases thousands of toxic emissions implicated in asthma and respiratory illnesses, autism, dyslexia and Parkinson’s disease just to name a few. These sites are often built on Greenfield sites or in agricultural communities thereby eroding the viability of the farmer’s land and well-being. Tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic ash are generated annually from the burning of waste, and o yeah, that ash is often sent to the landfill.
These sorts of projects are highly controversial because the companies that operate them do not often account for their negative externalities. For example, when these plants spew out toxic emissions, those living within close propinquity suffer great respiratory illnesses. Indeed, the Durham/York Region is growing tremendously and an incinerator is bound to pose health issues which can potentially add even more pressure to a health care system that already has too much.
I think the Province should mandate that all new incinerators built in Ontario have “scrubber systems”. These systems are a diverse group of air pollution control devices that can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial emissions. This would account for some of those externalities and put the accountability right on the company that operates the plant.
Finally, the plant is proposing to have a $140 per tonne tipping fee (the charge for accepting waste at the site). I think that 50% of this fee should go directly towards the region’s recycling and composting programs. This would be imperative because empirical evidence suggests that when a city sees the construction of an incinerator, there is less of an incentive for keeping a well-maintained recycling system because incinerators are expensive! Also, taxpayers pay for them.
Key message: Companies that run these incinerators must be held accountable for their emissions. Indeed, they should be required to have mandatory scrubber systems to really minimize the health impacts of emissions. Our health care system is already stressed, let’s keep our innovative waste management programs like recycling and composting which pose no real health effects, unlike incineration.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Some thoughts on air pollution in Toronto…
Air pollution is an egregious urban health issue of our time. In Toronto, on-road and off-road vehicles are estimated to generate 38 percent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 38 percent of sulphur dioxide (SO2), 74 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) and 15 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. These are all of the emissions that contribute to poor air quality and respiratory illnesses. Toronto has the highest summertime levels of fine particulates and the highest annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide levels.
According to the Pollution Probe, smog alert days have been on the rise for the city and this is largely attributed to an increased number of vehicles on the road. There were 27 smog alert days in 2002, up from just 3 in the year 2000. Since the 1980s, there has been a steady increase in ozone levels in Toronto. Ozone triggers asthmatic attacks among those suffering chronically from the disease. Also over the last two decades, the number of vehicles entering the city each weekday morning increased by 75 percent.
An increase in the number of vehicles entering the city has numerous implications. Toronto finds itself situated in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As the region continues to grow in population, urban sprawl may lead to the worsening of air quality conditions for many municipalities.
It is estimated that 3.5 million people will join the Greater Golden Horseshoe by 2035; this will lead to an expanding transportation sector that is conducive to automobility and hopefully public transit. However, public transit will have to be given policy weight not only for reasons of smart growth and providing for densification, but alleviating the pernicious air pollutant sources derived from motor vehicles.
From an urban and regional planning perspective, we have to better optimize regional transportation. To obtain high efficiency and environmental quality, we have to start planning (increasing ridership rates) our alternative transportation systems i.e. Go Transit, Via Rail and light-rail transit. These transit services are gaining popularity in an era of high gas prices and highway traffic congestion- but we can do better especially if we are concerned about public health and air pollution issues.
Epidemiological research has conclusively proven that exposure to air pollution can exacerbate asthma conditions, induce heart attacks, reduce overall lung function, trigger cardiovascular diseases and bring about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), just to name a few. Air pollution is a complex issue; expanding regional public transit for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is something that must be aggressively pursued.
I provided some stats at the beginning of the post to really illustrate how automobiles contribute greatly to air pollution. Our elected officials have heard numerous arguments and have seen empirical examples of how public transit helps increase regional efficiency, transportation flow, create jobs and is "good for the environment". What is not heard as much is the air pollution argument and how regional public transit can drastically decrease "regional air pollutant output".
Key Message: Population growth will add more pressures to regional public transit systems and if they are not managed well, as in we see ridership decrease, then air pollution and the nasty symptoms of climate change are bound to worsen. Urban planning needs to address this more clearly. Civil servants and leaders of our cities must allocate more resources into public transportation.
According to the Pollution Probe, smog alert days have been on the rise for the city and this is largely attributed to an increased number of vehicles on the road. There were 27 smog alert days in 2002, up from just 3 in the year 2000. Since the 1980s, there has been a steady increase in ozone levels in Toronto. Ozone triggers asthmatic attacks among those suffering chronically from the disease. Also over the last two decades, the number of vehicles entering the city each weekday morning increased by 75 percent.
An increase in the number of vehicles entering the city has numerous implications. Toronto finds itself situated in the heart of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. As the region continues to grow in population, urban sprawl may lead to the worsening of air quality conditions for many municipalities.
It is estimated that 3.5 million people will join the Greater Golden Horseshoe by 2035; this will lead to an expanding transportation sector that is conducive to automobility and hopefully public transit. However, public transit will have to be given policy weight not only for reasons of smart growth and providing for densification, but alleviating the pernicious air pollutant sources derived from motor vehicles.
From an urban and regional planning perspective, we have to better optimize regional transportation. To obtain high efficiency and environmental quality, we have to start planning (increasing ridership rates) our alternative transportation systems i.e. Go Transit, Via Rail and light-rail transit. These transit services are gaining popularity in an era of high gas prices and highway traffic congestion- but we can do better especially if we are concerned about public health and air pollution issues.
Epidemiological research has conclusively proven that exposure to air pollution can exacerbate asthma conditions, induce heart attacks, reduce overall lung function, trigger cardiovascular diseases and bring about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), just to name a few. Air pollution is a complex issue; expanding regional public transit for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is something that must be aggressively pursued.
I provided some stats at the beginning of the post to really illustrate how automobiles contribute greatly to air pollution. Our elected officials have heard numerous arguments and have seen empirical examples of how public transit helps increase regional efficiency, transportation flow, create jobs and is "good for the environment". What is not heard as much is the air pollution argument and how regional public transit can drastically decrease "regional air pollutant output".
Key Message: Population growth will add more pressures to regional public transit systems and if they are not managed well, as in we see ridership decrease, then air pollution and the nasty symptoms of climate change are bound to worsen. Urban planning needs to address this more clearly. Civil servants and leaders of our cities must allocate more resources into public transportation.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Can Brownfield redevelopment take off?
The Wikipedia definition of Brownfield sites is "abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for re-use." In certain parts of the U.S., Brownfield sites are becoming more popular and accepted in this era of environmental sustainability. With Brownfield sites, there is massive potential for increasing density and optimizing land uses in an urban environment. By re-using land that is closer to the urban core, you can effectively increase urban density, allow people to live closer to their workplace (assuming they work downtown) and minimize urban sprawl (which is environmentally disastrous).
Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.
So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.
This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.
In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.
Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.
A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).
It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.
Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties
Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.
Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.
So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.
This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.
In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.
Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.
A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).
It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.
Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties
Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Delivery Groceries: A greener approach to food shopping...
In his book Heat, George Monbiot talks about all the stuff we do as human beings that contribute to climate change and some of our craziest behaviour actually comes from our supermarkets.
Yes, these things are absolutely massive. But this is not unique to supermarkets; huge buildings can be found everywhere. But it is the inner workings of these things that are very astounding. When you first enter the building, you are normally smashed by a fan of either very cold or very hot air (depending on what the temperature is like outside). And when you get in, the lights are among the brightest available on the market. Why? All the food needs to look pretty and the best way is with pretty lights. And lots of them. Everywhere. That day-old fillet of tilapia not look so appetizing? Just toss some extra lights on top of it. Perhaps the most ridiculous thing you'll find at the supermarket are the open freezers & fridges (a friend of mine refers to them as bunkers). Do you ever leave your freezer open all day at home? It's probably the biggest waste of energy you'll find at a supermarket.
So Monbiot proposes something very different. Rather than driving to the supermarket, we could have it delivered to us. No more need for bright lights, high-powered entrance fans or open freezers. And no more need for such massive building footprints. Instead, there could simply be a warehouse with delivery vans. The energy savings would be enormous. According to a supermarket chain executive interviewed in Heat, the food storage section takes up only 5-10% of the entire building's energy usage. Wow.
Energy savings for the suppliers wouldn't be the only advantage of this type of system. People would no longer have to drive to the supermarket (gas & time), find a parking spot (imagine not needing those massive parking lots), spend valuable time in the grocery store (some spend hours) and stand in line. Rather, you could just have it delivered at a time that was convenient for you. Sure, there would be a fee, but it would certainly outweigh the hours spent driving, shopping and unloading. When both my sister and I were still living back home with our parents, my dad would go grocery shopping almost weekly and fill up the entire cart. He would be gone for several hours. Imagine if he were able to stay home, work more or just go out for the hours he would have spent shopping. And as a student with no car but a large appetite, I wouldn't have to go through the struggle of hauling all the food -- after buying far more than I can reasonably carry -- back by foot.
You would simply go online and shop like you would on Amazon.com and create your shopping list. You could submit your order and choose a time to have it delivered. A delivery truck would later come by with your delivery as it makes the rounds for other houses, too. The net energy benefit would be fantastic, as a fleet of delivery trucks would surely be more efficient than a ton of individuals driving their own cars. You could even develop a relationship with the delivery guy, like there used to be with the milk man.
So why don't we have these everywhere?
I'll first dismiss one argument I've heard. That is, the romantic notion that the supermarket is a place where the community gathers and you see folks from around town that you know. This is gone in most supermarkets in North America. I never see anyone I know when I go to the supermarket and I expect people might run into one or two people they know, but very rarely. And other than the proverbial cute girl you're supposed to meet in the supermarket, it certainly isn't the type of place that you make lifelong friends.
The bigger deal is that we, as a society, are bent on seeing our food before we purchase it. If it is delivered, how on earth will we know the quality of it. There is some legitimacy to this, but only some. Yes, with fruits, veggies and meat, I'd rather not have rotten or bruised food delivered to me. With some element of quality assurance, this could be easily be avoided. But the majority of other foods we buy are packaged and preserved in one way or another, so it doesn't really matter if we see it or not.
This is not a new idea and Monbiot (at least in this respect) is not a revolutionary. A group out of Toronto called Grocery Gateway has been doing delivery groceries for years, but it has taken a long time to catch on and it is still far from overtaking the major chains. They serve a rather niche market and serve only premium foods (thus allowing for quality control). And even greater niche markets exist for this. Throughout Peterborough, several groups exist that will deliver locally grown produce from nearby farms weekly to you. But again, these are niche and small operations.
Now I should also mention that not every store should do this. The small markets in the neighbourhood and the farmer's markets are wonderful. In these places, those romantic notions of community still exist. Going to the Farmer's market is one of my most pleasant experiences and such a view is shared by many I know. And you will frequently need to go to certain places to pick up only one or two items, which wouldn't be worth paying delivery for.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have supermarkets and we would all grow our own food. But then we couldn't have mangoes in January and some people wouldn't like that. The reality is that we have and are going to continue to have large, centralized food sources with a great variety of choice. People are too used to it to revert back to only community gardens and farmer Ed's cows down the road. We can't simply make a massive transition in how we purchase and grow our food, but we can certainly make our current system work a hell of a lot better.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Mixed land uses: Downtown Peterborough...
As part of a class assignment, I recently submitted a letter to Peterborough’s Director of Planning and Development Services. It was a letter regarding Peterborough’s downtown and how it can greatly benefit from incorporating mixed land uses. By mixed land uses, I mean combining commercial and residential units together to optimize space and make the downtown more compact. Below, you will find a compressed version of the letter:
As a student studying geography and the environment and learning about the importance of urban densification for sustainability and economic efficiency, the present growth in Peterborough concerns me. I recommend that the city use an intensification strategy to bring about more mixed land uses in the downtown area. Intensification is a common urban planning strategy for achieving compactness, using land more efficiently by increasing the density of development and activity.
I believe that such an undertaking will help boost the economic vibrancy of the local economy and increase the densification of the urban growth centre, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy.
Without stifling the city’s housing market, new commercial development in the city should be mixed with residential units. Mixed land use reduces the probability of using a car for commuting, shopping and leisure trips because jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located nearby. This would be a win-win for Peterborough’s local economy as residents would be living closer to local business and retail stores and farther away from the Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart and Future Shop.
As an example, Harvey’s fast food restaurant at the corner of Sherbrooke and Water Street has tremendous potential to turn into a mixed land use development. Located next to the Otonabee River and in the heart of downtown, it can integrate local businesses, retail, restaurants and residential uses. In addition, such a development would replace the eye-sore that currently occupies the land and turn it into a more compact, liveable and sustainable form.
By mixing commercial and residential units, not only would the city increase the densification of the downtown, but it would be ensuring that many services are within a reasonable distance, thus encouraging cycling and walking. Other environmental benefits to this would include a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion, as well as to stimulate the interaction of residents, by increasing pedestrian traffic and generally improving neighbourhood charm.
By mixing land uses, we are increasing the number of people concentrated within an existing urban area, and thus these people are now living closer to businesses, public amenities and even recreational activities. Recreational activities would include parks, beaches and campgrounds. Therefore, this might generate more revenue for the restaurant, and stimulate more business activity for other services and commercial establishments, thereby directing a greater flow of capital towards Peterborough’s local businesses and less towards Big-Box stores around the sub-divisions.
One of the main objectives of Peterborough’s new amendment to their Official plan is to provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life. I would challenge developers by saying that housing and commerce will increasingly be concentrated in the urban area; so exploring multi-unit housing complexes near the downtown can be profitable.
As other cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe increase their urban densities through more compact and mixed use development, Peterborough will face pressures to follow suit.
Key message: Developing Peterborough into a more economically and environmentally sustainable city is a process that might take many years; however, engaging private developers on this matter is a good first step.
As a student studying geography and the environment and learning about the importance of urban densification for sustainability and economic efficiency, the present growth in Peterborough concerns me. I recommend that the city use an intensification strategy to bring about more mixed land uses in the downtown area. Intensification is a common urban planning strategy for achieving compactness, using land more efficiently by increasing the density of development and activity.
I believe that such an undertaking will help boost the economic vibrancy of the local economy and increase the densification of the urban growth centre, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy.
Without stifling the city’s housing market, new commercial development in the city should be mixed with residential units. Mixed land use reduces the probability of using a car for commuting, shopping and leisure trips because jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located nearby. This would be a win-win for Peterborough’s local economy as residents would be living closer to local business and retail stores and farther away from the Big-Box stores like Wal-Mart and Future Shop.
As an example, Harvey’s fast food restaurant at the corner of Sherbrooke and Water Street has tremendous potential to turn into a mixed land use development. Located next to the Otonabee River and in the heart of downtown, it can integrate local businesses, retail, restaurants and residential uses. In addition, such a development would replace the eye-sore that currently occupies the land and turn it into a more compact, liveable and sustainable form.
By mixing commercial and residential units, not only would the city increase the densification of the downtown, but it would be ensuring that many services are within a reasonable distance, thus encouraging cycling and walking. Other environmental benefits to this would include a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion, as well as to stimulate the interaction of residents, by increasing pedestrian traffic and generally improving neighbourhood charm.
By mixing land uses, we are increasing the number of people concentrated within an existing urban area, and thus these people are now living closer to businesses, public amenities and even recreational activities. Recreational activities would include parks, beaches and campgrounds. Therefore, this might generate more revenue for the restaurant, and stimulate more business activity for other services and commercial establishments, thereby directing a greater flow of capital towards Peterborough’s local businesses and less towards Big-Box stores around the sub-divisions.
One of the main objectives of Peterborough’s new amendment to their Official plan is to provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life. I would challenge developers by saying that housing and commerce will increasingly be concentrated in the urban area; so exploring multi-unit housing complexes near the downtown can be profitable.
As other cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe increase their urban densities through more compact and mixed use development, Peterborough will face pressures to follow suit.
Key message: Developing Peterborough into a more economically and environmentally sustainable city is a process that might take many years; however, engaging private developers on this matter is a good first step.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
How Green roofs can increase the health and well-being of urban residents…
Enviroboys has blogged about green roofs before, citing their numerous advantages for urban environments. The main environmental benefits associated with them include minimizing air pollution, reducing the urban heat island effect and improving stormwater management. Noting these benefits, Toronto recently adopted a by-law to require and govern the construction of green roofs on new development in the city. The bylaw is quite comprehensive and rigid leading Toronto in a sustainable direction and demonstrating its commitment to urban greening projects.
A PhD student at U of T is doing research on how urban greening projects like green roofs can increase the health and well-being of employees in the workplace. One major dimension of the PhD student’s research is whether employees in workplaces can actually see green roofs and roof top gardens from their workplace windows. Just being able to see greenery can have important health benefits.
Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have done extensive research on the “role of nature in the context of the workplace”. What has emerged out of this research is the indispensable fact that employers need to invest in programs that are oriented to prevention and enhancing well-being of their employees. In workplace settings, employees experience stress, mental fatigue and occasionally burnout when things get really overwhelming. What becomes fatigued is one’s capacity to focus attention to demands that require effort, thus decreasing their level of productivity… in theory.
Rachel and Stephen Kaplan came up with a theory called attention restoration theory. This theory emerged out of their 1980s book "The experience of nature: A psychological perspective”. This theory asserts that people can concentrate better after spending time in a wilderness, or even looking at scenes of nature. Thus, natural environments have a restorative function for human-beings and we don’t always realize this. In one of their studies of an office environment they reported that “almost 50% of employees thought that the lack of windows affected them or their work adversely”. Job satisfaction and work attitudes were significantly related to the presence of windows for their sample of 123 office workers and health care providers.
In throwing together a nice interdisciplinary analysis of green roofs, we know that they have the potential to improve the health and well-being of urban residents. They have important environmental benefits and from an economic point of view, they can help minimize the energy costs associated with building heating and cooling. The health benefits though, are still nebulously defined, but we can speculate that they do play a role based on the work from the Kaplan’s. Parks and gardens have long been noted for their restorative effects on both mental and physical health. Toronto’s new bylaw can gain way more popularity from developers, residents and hospitals if the health benefits are made clearer.
Finally, if green roofs do corroborate “attention restoration theory” just think about the economic advantages workplaces would accrue. Less stress and mental fatigue among employees can undoubtedly lead to better workplace productivity and job satisfaction. But above all, if green roofs do take off because of their ostensible health benefits, employees would have to have access to them. On breaks and lunches, employees could go to these urban green sites and interact with colleagues.
Key message: Nature can help reduce a person's stress, as well as improve attention. Do green roofs constitute nature? And if so, how do workplace employees perceive them? Interesting how this will play out for Toronto considering its new green roof bylaw.
A PhD student at U of T is doing research on how urban greening projects like green roofs can increase the health and well-being of employees in the workplace. One major dimension of the PhD student’s research is whether employees in workplaces can actually see green roofs and roof top gardens from their workplace windows. Just being able to see greenery can have important health benefits.
Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have done extensive research on the “role of nature in the context of the workplace”. What has emerged out of this research is the indispensable fact that employers need to invest in programs that are oriented to prevention and enhancing well-being of their employees. In workplace settings, employees experience stress, mental fatigue and occasionally burnout when things get really overwhelming. What becomes fatigued is one’s capacity to focus attention to demands that require effort, thus decreasing their level of productivity… in theory.
Rachel and Stephen Kaplan came up with a theory called attention restoration theory. This theory emerged out of their 1980s book "The experience of nature: A psychological perspective”. This theory asserts that people can concentrate better after spending time in a wilderness, or even looking at scenes of nature. Thus, natural environments have a restorative function for human-beings and we don’t always realize this. In one of their studies of an office environment they reported that “almost 50% of employees thought that the lack of windows affected them or their work adversely”. Job satisfaction and work attitudes were significantly related to the presence of windows for their sample of 123 office workers and health care providers.
In throwing together a nice interdisciplinary analysis of green roofs, we know that they have the potential to improve the health and well-being of urban residents. They have important environmental benefits and from an economic point of view, they can help minimize the energy costs associated with building heating and cooling. The health benefits though, are still nebulously defined, but we can speculate that they do play a role based on the work from the Kaplan’s. Parks and gardens have long been noted for their restorative effects on both mental and physical health. Toronto’s new bylaw can gain way more popularity from developers, residents and hospitals if the health benefits are made clearer.
Finally, if green roofs do corroborate “attention restoration theory” just think about the economic advantages workplaces would accrue. Less stress and mental fatigue among employees can undoubtedly lead to better workplace productivity and job satisfaction. But above all, if green roofs do take off because of their ostensible health benefits, employees would have to have access to them. On breaks and lunches, employees could go to these urban green sites and interact with colleagues.
Key message: Nature can help reduce a person's stress, as well as improve attention. Do green roofs constitute nature? And if so, how do workplace employees perceive them? Interesting how this will play out for Toronto considering its new green roof bylaw.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Vancouver should be more pro-active with green roof development...
Vancouver is a “great opportunities city”- it has enormous potential to revitalize its environmental and economic environment. Vancouver’s city policies have thus far supported numerous urban sustainability solutions such as increased urban density, mixed-use developments, buildings that preserve special green space and infrastructure for transit, cycling and walking to provide non-automobile options for living in and moving between Vancouver.
What the city needs to do is bring about green roof technology through policy tools such as market-based instruments. Why? Vancouver receives a higher than average amount of precipitation than other Canadian cities. Climate change, in particular excess rainfall, can pose numerous challenges for Vancouver in the future.
Vancouver’s urban hydrologic system will have to cope with a highly fluctuating amount of surface runoff water, which can become extremely high during periods of rainfall. Climate change has the potential to intensify rainfall patterns resulting in increased risks with flooding.
When a high percentage of the city’s residents live in these compact urban areas, flooding will cause massive displacement and be an economic nightmare. Market-based instruments such as direct financial incentives, serve as the necessary policy tools to promote this technology and make it affordable. Green roof technology will serve to help the city with stormwater management and reducing risks of floods.
Market-based instruments like direct financial incentives can help make them popular and environmentally attractive. More importantly, the utilization of market-based tools can help determine if there is sufficient demand for green roof development and the economic viability of them.
Toronto recently adopted a by-law that will govern the construction of green roofs on new development. However, before this regulatory requirement came about, the city ran a program called “Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program”. This program offered a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs and proved to be popular. Vancouver should run a similar program.
As mentioned, over the past 10 years, a large percent of the metropolitan region’s new housing units were built within the existing urban area. Such density is important for the city, but there must still be a sufficient amount of permeable surfaces to capture and drain rainfall so it does not runoff and cause flooding. Thus, stormwater management must be optimal to avoid flooding of a highly dense urban core.
Green roofs can help capture rainfall and ultimately improve the urban hydrologic system. This environmental reason alone should suffice and act as an impetus to begin a green roof pilot project program as done in Toronto.
Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than by simply resorting to regulatory measures. While regulation sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability, it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives.
As stormwater management gains more salience, policy-makers will realize the benefits of providing incentives to developers and building owners to bring about green roof technology. Also, energy prices are increasing for building heating and cooling and green roofs have proven to be efficacious at minimizing these costs.
Key message: Green roofs will help Vancouver promote healthy and sustainable communities.
What the city needs to do is bring about green roof technology through policy tools such as market-based instruments. Why? Vancouver receives a higher than average amount of precipitation than other Canadian cities. Climate change, in particular excess rainfall, can pose numerous challenges for Vancouver in the future.
Vancouver’s urban hydrologic system will have to cope with a highly fluctuating amount of surface runoff water, which can become extremely high during periods of rainfall. Climate change has the potential to intensify rainfall patterns resulting in increased risks with flooding.
When a high percentage of the city’s residents live in these compact urban areas, flooding will cause massive displacement and be an economic nightmare. Market-based instruments such as direct financial incentives, serve as the necessary policy tools to promote this technology and make it affordable. Green roof technology will serve to help the city with stormwater management and reducing risks of floods.
Market-based instruments like direct financial incentives can help make them popular and environmentally attractive. More importantly, the utilization of market-based tools can help determine if there is sufficient demand for green roof development and the economic viability of them.
Toronto recently adopted a by-law that will govern the construction of green roofs on new development. However, before this regulatory requirement came about, the city ran a program called “Toronto’s Green Roof Incentive Pilot program”. This program offered a grant of $10/m² to eligible green roofs and proved to be popular. Vancouver should run a similar program.
As mentioned, over the past 10 years, a large percent of the metropolitan region’s new housing units were built within the existing urban area. Such density is important for the city, but there must still be a sufficient amount of permeable surfaces to capture and drain rainfall so it does not runoff and cause flooding. Thus, stormwater management must be optimal to avoid flooding of a highly dense urban core.
Green roofs can help capture rainfall and ultimately improve the urban hydrologic system. This environmental reason alone should suffice and act as an impetus to begin a green roof pilot project program as done in Toronto.
Through pilot projects, knowledge and experience is gained and the city becomes more familiarized with how green roofs operate. These steps are important for bringing about green roofs because everyone benefits through increased knowledge. These sorts of policy instruments are more effective for environmental change than by simply resorting to regulatory measures. While regulation sets a precedent for the city’s commitment to sustainability, it is too precipitous to implement right now and does not provide the developer with sufficient incentives.
As stormwater management gains more salience, policy-makers will realize the benefits of providing incentives to developers and building owners to bring about green roof technology. Also, energy prices are increasing for building heating and cooling and green roofs have proven to be efficacious at minimizing these costs.
Key message: Green roofs will help Vancouver promote healthy and sustainable communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)