RE: "Emerald City"

Emerald City is this month's editorial by Robert Ivy in Architectural Record.  I usually like to read the editorials at the beginning of these journals for two reasons: 1.) they are quick (barely a page) and 2.) they are usually well-written.  Plus, they usually touch on something thought-provoking without being super-saturated with immodest praise (a frequent deterrent of other articles found in the periodical).

This particular article, however, was so cliche to me.  Typical "seasoned" architect downgrading all the research and technological improvements that the younger generation has developed in favor of a "simpler" approach to sustainability: urbanism.

Granted his article is basically an abstract of Green Metropolis by David Owens; it still disturbed me that he would use this introductory article as a soapbox for a seemingly over-exalted, under-scrutinized "solution" to all our problems.

The two major sting-points for me are as follows:

1.)  "Most of the products, technologies, and practices popularly touted as sustainable are not sustainable at all."  (A direct excerpt from the book.)
An example of this is slapping a shit-ton of photovoltaic panels on a rooftop in the name of sustainability.  Ok, fellas, let's take an extraordinary example and misconstrue it as normative.  The point they are making is just because you have these little nuggets of sustainable technology doesn't mean you employ them in sustainable ways.  Yeah, no kidding!  This is the biggest struggle architects and designers face, particularly as programs like LEED become mainstream.  You may have the most sustainable intentions in the world, but if your builder isn't informed in proper installation techniques, or your client can't adjust to the to the lifestyle (or whatever the case may be), it is a futile attempt to sustainability.

2.) City-dwellers don't need cars.  I despise such sentiments because a generality like this taken out of the context of the socially, economically and culturally diverse city population again misconstrues the facts.  Is it that city-dwellers don't need cars or that they can't afford cars (and their inherent fees in cities: cost of parking, gas, insurance rates, likelihood of theft/damage/collision)?  Are cities so populace because people choose to live there or because they can't afford to leave?  How do the poverty rates compare between cities and suburban communities?  What about per capita income vs. cost of living in these urban areas?   It is easy to cite cities as prime examples of successful density when you ignore the heterogenous density map - stuffing a slew of low-income families into close quarters in one neighborhood while in another neighborhood a multi-story billionaire's lavish penthouse trumps the expansiveness of suburban dwellings.

Perhaps I, too, am speaking in generalities and in disproportionate anecdotes.  But I can't help it when urbanism gets all this praise and no acknowledgment, much less criticism, of its shortcomings.

I have been dwelling on this for too long, by now, so I am going to post this and be done with it!  Hopefully the rest of this issue is not an urban jizz-fest else I might reserve it as kindling for the next snow storm of 2010!