Please take the 2010 UrbanCincy Survey to weigh in on some big changes coming soon!

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Where we live and work is important

Planners, policy makers and community activists often discuss ways to make our communities more sustainable and environmentally friendly. This results in discussions about building materials, personal behaviors and organizational structure. What is also discussed at times, but not nearly enough, is the way in which we distribute our people and jobs.


It is no secret at this point that the suburban sprawl days of the United States are hurting our communities socially, economically, but also environmentally. Suburban communities require higher rates and amounts of driving, and consume far greater amounts of environmentally important land for economically low producing land uses.


Andres Duany often speaks about how he finds it silly that urban dwellers in Manhattan are doing all these extraneous things to reduce their carbon footprint. They're collecting and reusing rainwater, they're composting their waste, they're recycling and so on and so forth. Duany asserts that it is the people living in suburbia that should be doing this as it is their chosen lifestyle that is having a major impact on our environment in a negative way.


People who live in dense, walkable cities drive less and require a smaller piece of land to live and conduct their day-to-day lives. This is most evident in a recent mapping project by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) which compares greenhouse gas emissions of city and suburban households.


CNT looked at emissions of carbon dioxide stemming from household vehicle travel in 55 metropolitan areas across the United States. Their research showed that the transportation-related emissions of people living in cities and compact neighborhoods can be almost 70% less than those living in suburbs and areas where amenities are more dispersed.


The maps below are for the Cincinnati-Hamilton Metropolitan area. They compare the per-acre (left) analysis of greenhouse gas emissions due to vehicle travel with a per-household (right) view. The results are evident. The areas with higher density and transportation alternatives are the most sustainable areas according to this analysis. "Cities are a central part of the climate change solution (source)."


Click to view larger version

8 comments:

Dave Reid said...

When I see "environmentalist" argue against density and infill develop it boggles my mind. As this information shows the greenest thing we can do is live in dense walkable neighborhoods.

Anonymous said...

The big problem is that it's much, much more expensive for a family to live in a high density area than a low density, suburban area.

Randy Simes said...

^I wouldn't say that is always true. Sure in some cases you may be able to get more square footage for your dollar, but transportation costs are often higher. In some cases you will even see higher property taxes (in the City of Cincinnati first time homebuyers receive a 15 year tax abatement) and home insurance rates.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I have to admit that I'm thinking too much in terms of square footage.

I don't agree with this. But I do think a lot of families in the tri state think that the only real safe high density neighborhoods in Cincinnati are unaffordable (Hyde Park, Mount Lookout, Oakly...).

Probably one of the keys to getting families into higher density neighborhoods is to address the perception that such neighborhoods are unsafe.

Anonymous said...

how is it that people who live in green township advocate that others live in cincinnati

Anonymous said...

the above post include randy...

Randy Simes said...

Within the next week I will be living car-free in a dense urban neighborhood. But thanks for trying to dabble in my personal life that you know little about.

Anonymous said...

what neighborhood?

Related Posts with Thumbnails