In the City or Off the Grid: Which is Greener?

This is a great debate on www.treehugger.com, available on the website or a podcast. Lloyd Alter and Nick Rosen debate which is greener: living in a dense city, or living off of the grid. 

We probably won't ever solve this debate, if only because there will always be people who want/need to live in the city or the country. Even if one was found to be infinitely more environmentally friendly, people would most likely stay put, because of personal preference, where their family is, not to mention the fact that there will always be economic opportunities that are unique to both. 

 Depressing but interesting: how we stack up. From Treehugger.

Of course, the way to make living off the grid the most green is to not drive (or have deliveries made), and not have any infrastructure running to your house, which may be nearly impossible and not appealing to most people. I touched on this subject earlier this year in my review of David Owen's Green Metropolis, which is mentioned in the article.

For me, the takeaway from this debate comes from this statement from Nick: 

"To say that it's more ecological to live in the city is telling urban dwellers what they want to hear, which is that it's okay. They can feel good about living in the city if they just compost a little bit and walk a little bit. In fact, by living in the city, you're subscribing to the great consumer society. The idea that you can somehow subscribe to part of it and not all of it and not be blamed for the vast, embodied energy and the huge transport system and the vast number of roads is trying to make yourself feel good, and no more than that."

The statement "if they just compost a little bit and walk a little bit" can be applied widely over every lifestyle. Just because we are doing one thing well does not mean we should not be going all things well. We may not ever, but we can strive towards it. On positive note, which I think is always needed in debates like these, I am so inspired by how we have taken green living into our own hands--because it makes sense, because it is the right thing to do, and in spite of the infrastructure that has set us up to fail--not because of a mandate, the lack of which the US has received plenty of heat for internationally.

Nick's Website: http://offgrid.com/

Nick's Book: Off The Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government and True Independence in Modern America 

Book Review: Green Metropolis by David Owen

Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less Are the Keys to Sustainability, by David Owen. 

Based on the subject matter and publicity this book has received, it was practically mandatory that I read it, but I was not expecting much. I was very pleasantly surprised. Owen takes on pop conventional wisdom at every turn and takes the wind out of many environmental sails. The main argument of the book is that many of our attempts at being green (i.e. reducing our carbon emissions) are futile without striving for density, with Manhattan as the best American example. Slapping solar panels on a McMansion in a new greenfield development does not make a green building, says Owen, because the real environmental damage is the infrastructure that supports the sprawl, and the amount of driving it takes to live in a typical suburban town. The most important number in your car isn't the gas mileage, he says, it's the odometer. 

"Oil is liquid civilization: we  are what we burn."


Owen has some harsh words for the LEED system, mostly for contributing to what he calls "LEED brain," which I summarize as forsaking common sense for racking up points for green building projects in order to gain recognition. He offers common sense tips for making a new home green, including build a small home on a small infill lot, thoroughly caulk and insulate it, and use efficient appliances. He says that many of these points, especially the importance of caulking and insulating, aren't particularly glamorous or  photogenic like small residential wind turbines, which he thinks are "wasteful investments in inappropriate technology." He quotes Thomas L Friedman's latest book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," his chapter title "If it isn't Boring, it isn't Green" which Owen says is a reminder of the "dangers and temptations of LEED brain." I can't totally agree with this, as I believe there are exciting technologies that can reduce carbon emissions and great recycled products, but I have been accused of being a regressionist, and tend to think that green building is mostly common sense, and has been for all of human history until the industrial revolution, when we started to use brute force against nature instead of working with it.

Owen discusses the new Sprint Headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas, which has been recognized as a "green" building and has the typical green building rap sheet. Owen says:


"There is nothing truly ecologically enlightened about Sprint's Overland Park campus, no matter how many so-called green features the individual buildings include, or how much recaptured runoff water the ground staff uses when irrigating the complex's dozens of acres of lawn,  or many bicycles are (theoretically) made available  for trips between buildings, or how many trees the company has planted, or how many PETA-certified border collies are used to keep migratory birds from defecating around the edges of the man-made "wetland area"...The campus is a sprawl bomb, and the "open space" preserved on the property merely makes the impact worse."


An office like this would be much more environmentally friendly if it were placed all in one office town in downtown Kansas City (where there is surely high vacancy), creating more critical mass in downtown which would allow for more efficient transit from the suburbs. He also has harsh words for the Rocky Mountain Institute's headquarters in Snowmass, Colorado, which is also packed with sustainable features, but in a "thinly populated area," meaning that employees have no other choice but to drive to work.

Oh, and I love the term "sprawl bomb." I'm going to see if I can use it in a sentence soon.



The most interesting point that Owen makes is that the most critical environmental issues facing a city are not planting green roofs and trees, or allowing rain barrels and solar panels. He argued that the most critical environmental issues facing a city are law enforcement,street noise, resources for the elderly, crime, parks, and schools-the quality (or lack thereof) these things are what causes people to abandon the city for the suburbs, especially when they have kids. The more people stay in the city (and in turn the more children raised in the city) the higher the density and the tax base, and therefore the quality of life. Owen mentions cities such as Minneapolis where schools are being closed in the cities while taxes are being levied to build more schools in the sprawling suburbs. If services were better in the city, more families could stay and their kids could attend established schools--which not only saves money because the schools are already built, but these schools are more likely to be serviced by roads with sidewalks and public transit, obviously rare in the suburbs. 

The question that lingered in my mind for most of the book, as I'm sure it does for most readers since Owen answered it at the end, is if he thinks Manhattan is so great, why doesn't he live there anymore? He and his wife lived there for seven years before relocating to rural Connecticut.  

The answer is, of course, not everyone can live in Manhattan. From my previous blog post, "Green Building Myths": Per ca pita, rural areas have higher carbon footprints than dense cities like NYC, which is arguably the most important metric when considering what's "green". But a rural area may seem "cleaner" because of the lack of air pollution (which can be concentrated in cities), green spaces, clean water, and the general aesthetic and aromatic pleasantness that comes with a lower population density, like lawns, gardens, and contained trash. We need to understand these differences and strive to improve the undesirable aspects of city living while building on its virtues. 

References: Sierra Club Challenge to Sprawl
Urban Land Institute Booklet (PDF): Higher Density Development: Myth & Fact

Related books I recommend: 

Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Jeff Speck

Asphalt Nation by Jane Holtz Kay 

The Geography of Nowhere: the Rise and Decline of America's Man-made Landscape by James Howard Kunstler.

Green Building Myths

From Greenbuildingadvisor.com: Ten Green Building Myths by Martin Holladay. 

Here is a list of Holladay's Ten Myths: 

1. New York City is an environmental nightmare

2. Walls have to breathe

3. Renovation is less expensive than new construction

4. Spray polyurethane foam creates an air barrier

5. Caulking the exterior of a house reduces air leakage
6. R-value tests only measure conductive heat flow

7. Air conditioned homes don’t need a dehumidifier

8. Efficiency Rating Labels On Appliances Account For All Types of Energy

9. In-floor radiant heating systems save energy

10. Green building helps save the environment 

  

He mentions David Owen's latest book, "Green Metropolis," as the latest evidence for #1. I just finished this book and will review it in a coming blog entry.  Per ca pita, rural areas have higher carbon footprints than dense cities like NYC, which is arguably the most important metric when considering what's "green". But a rural area may seem "cleaner" because of the lack of air pollution (which can be concentrated in cities), green spaces, clean water, and the general aesthetic and aromatic pleasantness that comes with a lower population density, like lawns, gardens, and contained trash.

We also just touched on #10. Green building done correctly can reduce the building industries' impact on the environment, but it's still just a lesser evil. A mostly necessary evil, unless our population growth slows and there is no need for new housing stock, which is doubtful-and not desirable for those of us in the building profession! 

In an ideal world (a perceived ideal world based on Holladay's myth #10), everyone would grow old in the house they built over the years with their own hands. But, most of will live in a few developer/production builder produced spec houses over the course of our lives. And with the trend of green building, our kid's homes and our next homes will have a little less detrimental effect on the environment than they would have. Yes, we can do better. Maybe within the building industry we have been patting ourselves on the back too much for marginal improvements, or improvements that are inevitable at best. This is only a problem if it causes complacency. If the industry is excited about green building, and consumers want it, innovation will be spurred, technology will improve, more efficient products and processes will be developed, and we can be a lesser and lesser [necessary] evil.