When Goals Don’t Match

Posted: April 21st, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Comments Off on When Goals Don’t Match

Based on my previous posts about architecture, design and sustainability, I’m certain the casual observer would expect that I’d also appreciate this award-winning design from Peleg/Burshtein Architects.

It’s got solar power, wind power, clean lines..what’s not to like?

Well, the fact that it’s an industrial chicken coop.

Sure, this place generates it’s own power and converts the waste into bio-fuel, but it’s still a coop.  A long hallway that these chickens have to spend their entire life in.

You know what’s an even better, more sustainable way to house them?  Let them be open range.  Earth, already made, naturally ventilated.

(This is Day 28 of the 30 Day Blog Challenge, be sure to check out the other participants at #30DayBC)


Guest Blog: Green Intentions

Posted: April 14th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Comments Off on Guest Blog: Green Intentions

Today I’m participating on 20-Something-Bloggers’ “Blog Swap”.  Below is a guest post courtesy of Courtney from Seriously Wonderful.  If you like what you read below, definately check out her usual stuff and subscribe.  And really how can you NOT dig that blog name?

About two weeks ago, I was invited to the screening of Tapped, a movie about the bottled water industry. I went into the screening being a typical 20-something. I’ve heard all about recycling, and reusable bags and water bottles. And being “green.” But that doesn’t mean I was interested in it. I’d say I was a mild participant in this so called “green movement.” I put paper into the recycle bin at work. And I do own reusable bags, but don’t use them. They sit in my closet at home. And I have a bunch of water bottles. But I don’t use them either. I stick with my standard plastic cup on my desk at work.

I came into the movie with a hint of skepticism. I’m not one of those people wants to be green. It’s just not me. Working in Boulder, CO, I get bombarded with the Green Peace people daily on my lunch hour. I avoid them like the plague.

The movie did have some valid points, and some of the scenes I did feel were over the top. Like when they held a small town riot in Maine over water rights. The people shown in the movie were either the elderly or hippies. And there was a scene about people in Texas who lived near an oil plant and had all sorts of diseases. I’m thinking to myself, why don’t you move then? But that’s just my inner critic talking.

But let’s talk about the points of the movie that gave me goosebumps. I learned that only 1% of the water in the entire world is drinkable and that our entire water system is being monitored by the EPA, which consists literally of one person. How scary is that?? But the most important thing that stuck with me, is that while our tap water gets tested up to 300 times a month, the bottled water that we buy daily, those corporations–Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi–don’t have to test that water. They claim it’s spring water, but for all we know it could be bottled tap water. In one clip I watched online, a VP was asked where Fiji bottled water comes from. The guy responded, “I don’t know…Fiji?” Also in the movie, they had outside experts buy six different brands of bottled water, and what they found in them was really disturbing. Some had traces of a hormone that can cause low sperm count in males, while others had chemicals in them that can lead to cancer. SCARY! Not only is it scary but it’s just plain wrong that no one from outside of those corporations are holding them accountable in regards to testing the water. And it’s sad that most people, myself included before I saw this movie, think that bottled water is really pure and delicious and great for you.


I was lucky enough to meet the producer Sarah Olsen and director Stephanie Soechtig at the screening I attended, where I saw first hand how passionate those women are about this issue. They are driving across the country in a truck, encouraging people to “get off the bottle.” In exchange for a water bottle, they are giving out free stainless steel waterbottles. I don’t know about you, but I love anything that’s free. You can follow them on their journey and make an online pledge to get off the bottle here. I hope you’ll check this movie out. If they aren’t coming to a city near you, the movie is available on iTunes and or you can watch the trailer for the film.


If nothing else, this movie has made me more aware of the issues that we face today. Now I pay attention to the water bottles I have at home to see if they are BPA and PET free. I even bought a new water bottle that is free of those of those chemical causing agents. And when I went grocery shopping this week, I actually used the reusable bags that have been lying on my closet floor for months, and it felt good. I felt like I was making a difference, even if it was just in my own day-to-day habits. I think we all can make a difference, all it takes is one.


America Loves Transit

Posted: April 8th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Comments Off on America Loves Transit

The graph above comes courtesy of Transportation for America’s recent comprehensive survey.  Of course, I’ve been writing quite a bit this month about our road systems, urban living, and the effects commuting can have on our lives, and according to T4A, it looks like the vast majority of Americans can at least agree on one solution: better mass transit.

Of course, when you say “mass transit” a lot of people in our part of the country think about dirty buses with smelly hobos urinating on the seats and/or trying to karate-chop you.

The reality, though, is that mass transit is whatever we fund it to become.   As American’s, we’ve been fed the “lure of the open road” and “the ultimate driving experience” in 30-second highlight clips for decades.  We could all probably name some features that we consider “must-haves” in an automobile we were looking to purchase (power windows, sun-roof, cruise-control, seat warmer, cocktail mixer, etc), but how long would you have to think to come up with a list of must-have features for mass-transit?

The charts above and below show that a lot of people agree that mass transit is a good idea, especially if we put our tax dollars to fund it.  I don’t know the math behind federal funding for mass transit, but I’m sure it could benefit from some of the programs being used for endless highway build-outs.

More than four-in-five voters (82 percent) say that “the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved transportation system, such as rail and buses” and a solid majority (56 percent) “strongly agree” with that statement. This is a widely held view with overwhelming majorities of voters in every region of the country and in every type of community. Fully 79 percent of rural voters agreed with the statement, despite much lower use of public transportation compared to Americans in urban areas.

When asked about reducing traffic congestion, three-in-five voters choose improving public transportation and making it easier to walk and bike over building more roads and expanding existing roads (59% to 38%). […]

These same respondents would prefer to almost double the allocation to public transportation, saying that 37 cents of every federal transportation dollar is what they think should be the norm. Fully 59% of the electorate cite some amount that is greater than what the federal government currently spends (18 cents or greater). (source)

Think about it, we’ve debated health-care and lack of insurance and how hard it is for working class Americans to get the things they need in life over-and-over-again for the last year.  Here’s a solution that can attack a basic factor in the problem:  Make it easier for someone to get to work/school, and they can use it to get to a better place in life. Instead of addressing the symptoms, let’s attack the disease.

(This is Day 16 of the 30 Day Blog Challenge, be sure to check out the other participants at #30DayBC)


Interesting Idea

Posted: April 8th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , | Comments Off on Interesting Idea

A new “all natural” cigarette, sporting filters packed with flower seeds so it can be either composted or literally planted to grow plants, hopes to counter the harmful effect cigarettes have on the environment.

I don’t smoke cigarettes, but having grown up with parents who do smoke, I can appreciate how much bulk those little filters can become in the long run.  Sort of imagine if I had to roll up a piece of paper everyday, several times a day, and then flung it out over the yard, street, park, etc, when I was done holding it.  So when I read this article, I thought it was pretty cool to at least see someone being constructive about the solution, instead of the usual “stop smoking stop smoking stop smoking” line, since that’s gotten us so far.

EcoRI writes, “Smoking-related materials represented more than 30 percent of what was collected and disposed of by teams worldwide in 2008, according to the Ocean Conservancy’s 2009 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) report. The numbers are staggering. Globally, in 2008, ICC teams collected 3,216,991 cigarette filters on beaches and along coastlines and waterways. That number represented a whopping 28 percent, by weight, of all collected debris. Plastic bags ranked No. 2 at 12 percent.”

So clearly cigarette butts are a HUGE issue for our planet if they were able to over-take plastic bags in terms of volume of litter.  Plus, keeping toxic trash out of the ocean is always a boon.  It does however, look like they should take this product one step further:

Perhaps Greenbutts should have embedded tree seeds – after all, around 600 million trees are destroyed every year just to provide fuel to dry tobacco, equating to about one tree killed per 300 cigarettes. Globally, tobacco curing requires 11.4 million tons of solid wood each year. Seems butts should be turned back into trees at every opportunity.


Road Zombies (Yes, it’s a real thing)

Posted: April 7th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment »

Recently I wrote about freeways and about how much I love urban life.  Then today, while going through my feed reader, I came across an article on TreeHugger talking about “Road Zombies” and “extreme commuters”.

According to census data, there are more extreme commuters than ever, with 3.4 million of them just in the U.S., a number that is up 95% since 1990….. This is what economists call “the commuting paradox.” Most people travel long distances with the idea that they’ll accept the burden for something better, be it a house, salary, or school. They presume the trade-off is worth the agony. But studies show that commuters are on average much less satisfied with their lives than noncommuters. A commuter who travels one hour, one way, would have to make 40% more than his current salary to be as fully satisfied with his life as a noncommuter, say economists Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer of the University of Zurich’s Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. People usually overestimate the value of the things they’ll obtain by commuting — more money, more material goods, more prestige — and underestimate the benefit of what they are losing: social connections, hobbies, and health. “Commuting is a stress that doesn’t pay off,”

Consider the costs involved in commuting: fuel, vehicle maintenance, extra day-care costs because of your commute, less leisure time, impaired eating practices…the list goes on.

To be perfectly honest, I first enjoyed this article because I thought it validated some of my arguements.  But then I got to thinking, and realized how happy I am to know that I don’t have stress levels that suburban commuters do.

I’ll take my city life with street-lights and parks and coffee shops and the occasional hobo over your big lawns and lives spent in cars anyday.

(This is Day 15 of the 30 Day Blog Challenge, be sure to check out the other participants at #30DayBC)


Great New Solar Idea

Posted: April 2nd, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Comments Off on Great New Solar Idea

I’m continuously baffled by the lack of solar-energy policy and particularly how little it’s been adopted by public & government buildings here in Phoenix.  With 300+ (feels like 400+) days of sunshine a year, we’re literally letting money trickle into the gutter.

The best I can think of is that people don’t like the look of solar panels on the roof, and nobody has been daring enough to build solar panels into the walls of our high-rises.

So I was pretty psyched when I saw this product reviewed in INHABITAT:

Windows are a two-way street when it comes to efficient green building. We need them for light, fresh air, beauty, and the connection they create to the outdoors, but even the most efficient windows, installed perfectly, are akin to having a hole in the wall as far as energy is concerned. Enter Peer +, who has developed a new type of energy-generating smart glass that can change its opacity to filter sunlight, significantly reducing the energy costs of solar over-exposure. You can select settings from bright to dark to private (scattering), and the windows will actually generate electricity from the blocked sunlight. Pretty nifty!

Why not use that which makes us least comfortable (incredible heat) to power our recreation?  Hell, even if solar technology hasn’t reached a point for us to be able to power buildings entirely from solar, consider at least the costs that could be avoided, and/or profits that could be made, by capitalizing on what we can grab?

(This is Day 10 of the 30 Day Blog Challenge, be sure to check out the other participants at #30DayBC)


"Zombie Highways"; Not as cool as they sound

Posted: April 2nd, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 1 Comment »

Here’s a fun side-note follow-up to last week’s freeway discussion.  From GOOD.is:

Why Are We Paying States to Build Highways Expensively and Indefinitely?

GOOD Blog > Siobhan O’Connor on August 11, 2009 at 8:23 am PDT
In the 1960s, a system was authorized by LBJ that put lots of money in Appalachian state coffers. Aiming to reduce the isolation and inconvenience of some of America’s poorest areas, the Appalachian Development Highway System was going to accomplish this by building thousands of miles of blacktop, largely at the federal government’s expense. On approved projects, the feds fork over four dollars for each one spent by the state. Four and a half decades have passed and, guess what? The system still exists. It’s the subject of a new piece by our friends at WNET called Zombie Highways.

The program has been informally dubbed “cost-to-complete,” which tells you a little something about how it works. “States have an incentive to add more and more highways to the program, build them as expensively as possible – and never finish them, because doing so would ‘turn off that federal spigot of money,'” writes WNET’s Rick Karr.

This episode, which you can watch here, looks at a proposed 52-mile Alabama stretch of road that would cost taxpayers over $3 billion. Talk about a questionable allocation of resources.

Sort of explains why they’re “always building something”.  Additional lanes that don’t reduce traffic at all, just so that the state can keep getting funding.  How about a law that gives dollars for NOT building wasteful projects?

“You said to never take the freeway”

Posted: March 25th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Sorry, any chance to use a Matrix quote has to be capitalized on, right?

So, to follow-up on yesterday’s blog, I thought I’d take a look at one of the most ridiculous inventions of the last century: freeways

Before I give my opinion, let’s list some facts:
1.)  Freeways cost money to build and maintain
2.)  Freeways cost more money for highway patrolmen and/or the nefarious speedcam
3.)  Freeways are often noisy and unsightly
4.)  They don’t accomplish their stated goals

That last one may have been a surprise to some, so I’ll back it up.

A recent study by Brown University economist Nathaniel Baum-Snow shows that building a freeway to serve the residents of a community actually reduces that population by 18%.  No, the massive concrete beast didn’t eat up the area that those people’s houses used to be in.  But by creating a new tool for their commute, you’ve now told them that with a few adjustments, they could live somewhere else and still make their same commute.

If suburb A builds a highway to connect to suburb B, that’s going to effect the distribution of commutes not only between those suburbs but also the commutes in the region as a whole. So there are going to be these externalities where someone in suburb C has a faster way to get to work, so they’re going to start using it and filling up this new highway. And a business downtown might say, hey, there’s this new infrastructure, let’s go locate out there and I can have a lot more space to work with. So anytime one part of a region changes something, it’s going to effect population and employment throughout the metropolitan area. So I think it’s important to engage at the regional level.

——————————–

For some anecdotal evidence, consider our freeway growth in Phoenix over the last 15 years, and how our suburbs look now.  More than once I’ve turned slightly to my left or right and asked Anie “why the hell are there business out here”.  Well, the answer of course is because there are people living out here.  So then you consider why do people live out there.  Certainly nobody moved to the suburbs in the hopes that someone would come along and build a Wal-Mart out there for them to work at.  No, of course, they moved there because they were working in the “city” and were okay with commuting from the suburbs to their jobs.

So lets consider the radius each of us would drive for a commute in terms of a number of minutes instead of miles.  Myself, I don’t like the idea of a commute that’s over 30 minutes at most.  Spending an additional hour of unpaid time just to get to my job and back comes out to an entire day I’d lose each month just in commuting.

To me that’s not worth it.

But let’s just work with that number.  In 30 minutes, I could drive X number of miles on surface streets.  30 Minutes = X Miles – W wait at lights.  Well now, that’s a second variable and sometimes I might be late if I lived exactly 30 minutes away from my work.  Plus I wouldn’t have time to get my coffee or chat up someone I met in the hallway… Better idea to give myself a buffer.

Then along comes the freeway.  Well now, if I take the freeway, I don’t have to wait for traffic lights.  Now I can get my coffee, flirt with Suzie in reception, and even check my fantasy baseball team before my boss gets in.

Except after a little while I realize that the freeway is SO FAST, I could move a bit further out and still get to work in the same 30 minutes.

Then later on, another freeway gets built that connects to the first one, and now I can live really far and maybe my commute only increases to 45 min, but I get to live in a “new” neighborhood and have a slice of the suburban dream.  Plus I’m sure my kids don’t mind that besides the 10-hour days at work, I’m spending another couple of hours on the road to and from.  Plus errands.  Those are always fun to run late at night.  Or pawn off on the spousal unit.

And best yet, I can always look back and chuckle at the years when we had to live in “the city”.  Oh, how dirty it was, being a train rider.  Running to the corner shop instead of the Galleria.  And imagine trying to parallel park our mini-van in those old neighborhoods.  Oh my, that WOULD be terrible!!  Ha ha, the comedy.

Yes, the suburbs are my distopia.

More from Baum-Snow:

A lot of people think that decentralization is about fleeing to the suburbs out of central cities, but if you look at the change in the spatial distribution of the population across large metropolitan areas, you find that it’s really much more of a spatial phenomenon. You see that the population density in the more peripheral regions of central cities actually went up quite a bit over the last 50 years, while the population of the central business districts went down.

Of course, as Baum-Snow admits, there has been a welfare gain from the implementation of major roadways in several cities simply by allowing industrial workers to not have to live so close to the plants they worked at.  If they worked hard, they could save up and move out of the slums into one of those great George Bailey houses and raise their kids there.  This is true in places like Detroit, Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc.

This was never true in Phoenix or most of California.  Here, our use of freeways is only to supplicate the developers and consumers who were enticed by the allure of “cheap” land.  If we’d been interested in using a decent amount of urban planning 50 years ago, we could have avoided a large chunk of the sprawl we have.  Instead, we’re spending more and more money to build freeways to neighborhoods that:

1.) don’t need to exist
2.) aren’t “neighborhoods”, just a collective of houses and commuters.

In part 2 of this, I’ll look at how freeway-related sprawl impacts our neighborhoods.

(this is Day 2 of the 30 day blog challenge. )


Sometimes an Idea is almost Too Novel

Posted: March 24th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 2 Comments »

borrowed infographic from GOOD.is:

The inner-environmentalist in me think that this is exactly the kind of great idea we need to make happen.  Imagine if Chicago, LA, Miami, Phoenix…all these big, sprawling cities weren’t needed anymore.  Have one Megapolis with all the finance and creative and any other urban industries, and let the rest of the US go fallow.

We already know that NYC is one of the greenest cities because of it’s use of mass transit.

Now imagine you have a huge vacuum and you could suck out all the pollution from all the cars in bumper-to-bumper traffic in LA, all the smog that hover over Phoenix every day (and all that cow-stench that pervades Chicago still).  And you’d never have to re-vacuum again…

Sometimes I wish we hadn’t achieved Manifest Destiny.

Of course this idea will never happen, but it’d be awesome if it did.

(this is Day 1 of the 30 day Blog Challenge.  To see who else is in, click here)


Best Idea I've seen in a while

Posted: March 19th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment »

From TreeHugger.com:

Fading Barcode

A group of designers have decided that there’s got to be a better way to find the freshest produce in a supermarket. Rather than trust your own senses, they think a fading barcode is the right solution. They’ve come up with a barcode that starts off as a usual barcode, then slowly fades along with the product’s freshness. Not only would you be able to see which fruits and veggies have just been delivered, but when the barcode is nonexistant, that indicates to the store that it’s time to toss the product rather than sell it.