Cary Lowe, a land use attorney and planner, shared with us his proposal for economic stimulus and improving sustainability in existing structures, which is detailed in his report “Saving the Environment, Saving the Economy”: PDF. Basically, he proposes that directing resources toward greening single family homes (installing more efficient water heaters, HV/AC systems, windows, insullation and water fixtures) will set into motion a chain of reactions that will benefit society. Results will include increasing construction industry jobs, creating demand for related supplies, increasing home values, reducing GHG emissions and reducing use of water and energy.

Funneling resources toward greening all the single family homes in the state would have a greater positive impact on emissions and conserving resources for much less money than constructing new LEED certified buildings. It would also provide homeowners with long term cost savings and increased home values and create thousands of jobs immediately. So why then is there not a statewide push to do this? Why are economic stimulus dollars spent on infrastructure repairs rather than adding value to the state’s housing stock.

Well, for one, such a program would require action and spending by homeowners, which is difficult to secure when the economy is poor, even with government incentives. And, in fact, there already are statewide programs to help homeowners who are interested in taking such actions on their own. There are energy efficient mortgages to help homeowners finance the costs of improving home efficiency (http://www.fypower.org/res/efficient_homes/financing.html) and online resources to educate homeowners about how to improve the efficiency of their homes (http://www.fypower.org/res/) There are also regional efforts to improve home efficiency, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. But it seems that most homeowners in the state are not taking advantage of these resources in a significant way. Coordinated education and action on a statewide level is missing.

Also, it could be that when the discourse focuses on “greening” certain people automatically stop paying attention, failing to realize that the activity being discussed can not only improve sustainability but also boost their bottom line. To secure the buy-in of business interests, the discussion should be reframed to emphasize the economic benefits.

Business and environmental interested are accustomed to being at odds with each other, but it’s time that they realize they can both benefit by working together.

Related links:
California Energy Commission residential resources: http://www.fypower.org/res/
PIRG’s Energy Service Corps: http://energyservicecorps.org/
California Youth Energy Services: http://www.risingsunenergy.org/content/cyes.html
Green For All: http://www.greenforall.org/

The gardens follow various models of bridging the green divide. Common programs include setting up allotments in low wealth neighborhoods and inviting the local residents to participate in an education and gardening program and performing outreach to local schoolchildren. However, community empowerment is a common theme as gardens often try to work through or form local organizations so the gardening is not only greening the community but also increasing the community’s social capital.

Public gardens embarking on this mission of service, education and greening face many challenges, one of which is how the gardens’ staff can relate to a more diverse community than their ordinary patrons. Another is how to refrain from alienating potential donors while straying from their traditional purpose of building and maintaining places of respite for the residents of their localities. Gardens’ challenges also vary depending on the locality. In urban neighborhoods such as New York city, the high population density and inherent lack of green space work in favor of such programs, whereas in cities such as Richmond, the bounty of green space, large lots and negative view of agriculture due to historical baggage in the local African American community make the task of encouraging participation in the gardening activities a hard sell. So, to be successful the public gardens embarking on these sorts of programs will need to truly know the needs and character of their surrounding communities.

As stated earlier, Dr. Gough is still researching the programs that various public gardens have set up in various locations throughout the country. It will be interesting to see the different manifestations of the bridges to the green divide that she will uncover.

Related Websites:
Dr. Meghan Gough at Virginia Commonwealth University: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mzgough/index.html
American Public Gardens Association: http://www.aabga.org/
Brooklyn Botanic Garden’s Greenest Block in Brooklyn program: http://www.bbg.org/greenbridge/greenestblock/

Fortunately, in our first seminar this spring Dr. Marina Alberti emphasized a very important thing that we need to take into account for all planning, but especially sustainability planning: we need to recognize how much we do not know at the same time as accounting for what we do know. Practically speaking, more research and more vigorous data collection is needed and plans need to be appropriate for a variety of eventualities, not one commonly-agreed-upon “most likely” eventuality. This message should not be viewed by planners as pessimistic, or even fatalistic. Rather, planners should embrace it, as it indicates there is great opportunity in the field of planning and planners should play a greater role in the future of society.

Related Links:
Urban Ecology Research Laboratory: http://www.urbaneco.washington.edu/

Tuesday, February 15, 12:15-1:30 in RGL 101
Speaker: Dr. Meghan Gough Co-Director of Sustainable Communities Institute (http://www.has.vcu.edu/usp/MURP/sustainability) and Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Virginia Commonwealth University
Topic: Bridging the Green Divide: The Role of Public Gardens in Promoting Sustainable Community Development
Discussant: Dr. Robert S. Harris, FAIA, Professor Emeritus and Director of Landscape Architecture Studies in the USC School of Architecture

Tuesday, March 1, 12:15-1:30 in RGL 101
Speaker: Cary D. Lowe, Ph.D., AICP, Attorney at Law
Topic: Sustainability, Retrofitting, Economic Stimulus and CEQA
Discussant: Michael Dieden, founder and head of site acquisition, pre-development design, entitlements and marketing for Creative Housing Associates (http://www.challc.com/)

Tuesday, March 22 SEMINAR CANCELLED

Tuesday, April 5, 12:15-1:30 in RGL 101
Speakers: Cecilia Estolano, J.D., Chief Strategist on State and Local Initiatives, Green For All (http://www.greenforall.org/splash) and Dr. Robert Leighninger, advisor to California New Deal Legacy Project and Faculty Associate, Arizona State University
Topic: Infrastructure in California: Legacies and Prospects
Discussant: Richard G. Little, Director, Keston Institute for Public Financing and Infrastructure

Los Angeles was the dominant destination for new immigrants to the United States in the second half of the 20th Century, however, this trend has been subsiding in recent years. In discussing the future demography of Los Angeles, Professor Myers unveiled the findings of the Population Dynamics Research Group’s latest study and debunked five myths underlying anti-immigrant rhetoric.

The 5 Immigration Myths and Professor Myer’s rebuttals to them:
Myth #1: Immigration is accelerating out of control.
Response: Annual immigration numbers declined in older gateway cities after 1990. Immigration to new gateway cities exploded up until 2000, but has since slowed in most areas of the U.S. Myers thinks that the percentage of foreign born individuals in California is stable, at or around the twenty percent range.

Myth #2: Immigrants are all newcomers.
Response: Not all immigrants are newcomers. An increasing percentage of them have been in L.A. for a longer duration.

Myth #3: Immigrants are unchanging over time.
Response: As time goes by, immigrants are change. They become citizens and change their habits to blend more with the mainstream, and their children are likely to achieve higher levels of education and succeed in society.

Myth #4: Immigrants are all foreigners and so are their children.
Response: Although approximately 60% of parents are foreign-born, 92% of the children are native born. This holds true across all races. These children are “our” kids. Furthermore, California is one of the most attractive states for children who are born here: approximately 67% of people born in California grow up and stay in this state. The implication is that it is necessary to invest in our kids because they are the future of the state!

Myth #5: Immigrants are a burden and not needed by society.
Response: Immigrants are needed, especially as the baby boomers head towards retirement age and become senior citizens. Many “helping hands” are needed to secure the future of our society as the ratio of retired to working age people starts to soar in 2011, which is the year in which the first boomers will turn 65.

Weblinks:
Population Dynamics Research Group: http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/popdynamics/
Pat Brown Institute: http://www.patbrowninstitute.org/

On October 12, 2010, Dr. Robert Freilich presented Regional Land Use: The Road to Better Planning, in which he discussed the need for adopting more sustainable planning practices and described three methods of sustainable development: smart growth, new urbanism and green building.

Dr. Freilich started out by sharing definitions of sustainability from the EPA (the ability of an ecosystem to maintain a desired state of ecological integrity over time) and from the United Nations (meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations). Then he discussed sprawl, which he defined as low-density development on the edges of communities that is land consumptive, poorly planned and automobile dependent. Smart growth is designed to combat urban sprawl with minimum development densities, development directed towards existing areas, growth boundaries, a focus on alternative methods of transportation and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), mixed uses and a focus on the public rather than the private realm.

Freilich gave as examples of good smart growth San Diego County’s tiered growth plan, Ramapo, New Jersey’s growth controls, and the growth strategy of the four counties surrounding Puget Sound, Washington. Smart growth is not the easiest tactic to implement, though. As each of Freilich’s examples shows, successful smart growth requires long-term planning and regional cooperating. Also, smart growth proponents don’t seek to prevent development altogether, rather they wish to limit it in a thoughtful way, which does not go far enough in the opinion of those who have a stronger conservation ethos.

New urbanism, on the other hand, seeks to restore the human scale and “place” to developments by creating genuine neighborhoods, towns and villages with an emphasis on pedestrian-friendly environments and building styles based on historical, indigenous architecture. Like smart growth, it focuses on compact development, but
new urbanism contrasts from smart growth it places a stronger emphasis is on architecture and the character of a community. New urbanists rely greatly on a transect, or a cross section of a community showing what scale of development is appropriate depending on the neighborhood.

Most new urbanist communities are built from the ground up on greenfields, bringing into question just how sustainable they are. Most new urbanist communities in the U.S. are located in the Southeast of the country due to the cost of development in other portions of the country, indicating that if this form of development is to gain traction nationwide, regulatory and market changes are in order.

According to Freilich, the cost of repairing all deteriorating public infrastructure in the United States would be approximately $7 Trillion. From a fiscally conservative perspective, it is only logical to support smart growth and new urbanism as they are more compact and require less extensive infrastructure than traditional development.

Finally, green building is exactly what it sounds, an all-encompassing term that refers to building techniques that are more sustainable than typical techniques. These include tactics that make building operation more energy efficient, such as improved architecture and energy-saving materials, designs that are ecologically sensitive such as storm water recapture and permeable pavement, form-based codes that encourage a pedestrian-friendly cityscape. The popular LEED certification system is only one of a variety of different green building methodologies and ratings systems.

Dr. Freilich’s firm: http://www.freilichpopowitz.com/
Smart Planning Code resource: http://smartcodecentral.com/

Nov. 9, 2010 from 12:15-1:30 in RGL 101: Professor Dowell Myers, Professor of Urban Planning at SPPD and Director of the Population Dynamics Research Group presents “Immigrants and the New Maturity of Los Angeles” with discussant Robert Sainz, Assistant General Manager for the City of Los Angeles Community Development Department. (See flier: PDF)

Nov. 30, 2010 from 12:15-1:30 in RGL 101: Dr. Wolfgang Christ, Professor of Urban Planning and Urban Design at Bauhaus University in Weimar, Germany presents “Berlin, Los Angeles and the Re-Urbanization of the Modernist City” with discussant Dr. Deike Peters, adjunct Professor of Urban Planning at SPPD.

This type of construction is unique for several reasons. It cannot be considered historic restoration because the buildings are newly constructed yet have the appearance of buildings from previous eras, although construction materials and techniques are often inauthentic. In some instances, the buildings are replicas of buildings that existed previously but were destroyed in the destruction and turmoil of World War II and the Communist era, but in other cases they have no historic precedent and are simply modern imaginings of pseudo-historic buildings. In some cases, these buildings have commercial and entertainment uses, such as the Braunschweig Palace, the former seat of the royal family, which was reconstructed to be a modern-day shopping mall. In other instances, the buildings are replicas of historic buildings that serve deeper purposes.

One example of this is the Dresden Frauenkirche (Our Lady Church), which was severely damaged, along with the rest of the city, in World War II. The church’s ruins were left standing as a memorial, but following Reunification and a change in national consciousness it was reconstructed, an act that is viewed by some as reconciliation with the German People. Reconstructing the Frauenkirche according to its original plans was an expensive undertaking; the City of Dresden was only able to accomplish it with the collaboration and support of the State of Saxony, the Catholic Church, wealthy donors and charitable organizations.

Another current and controversial example of a building with deeper meaning is the current debate over reconstruction of the Stadtschloss (City Palace) in the center of Berlin. In a previous era, the palace occupied several entire city blocks in the cultural and civic heart of the city at the end of the grand boulevard Unter den Linden. The palace was severely damaged during World War II, then torn down by the communist government as a symbol of the end of the imperial despotic era and a grand symbol of communism, the Palace of the Republic, was constructed in its place.

Following Reunification, the Federal German government determined (suspiciously) that this symbol of the defunct Communist East Germany contained too much asbestos to remain standing and demolished the building. Plans to reconstruct the Imperial City Palace have gained and lost support through the years and the site still lies vacant. Now, it seems, if the historic building is replicated, it will be as a mere shadow of its imperial self. The most recent public reconstruction plans show a building with three façades that are replicas of the long-gone palace and the rest of which is of a different, vaguely historic character. No plans are settled for what the new “Palace” would be used for.

Recently, the German government commissioned a study to understand where and why these historic replicas are being constructed. The data collected indicates that approximately 100 of these projects have been constructed or are being planned. They are located throughout German but there are clusters of them in East Germany, Frankfurt and Hanover. Speculation as to why they are so popular ranges from the search for a common German identity, rejection of the harshness of Modernism in architecture and planning, idealization of the past, and simply enhancement of commercial potential in places such as Hildesheim, where Disneyish replicas of historic buildings from various eras in the city center delight of tourists and locals yet also mask modern, steel construction. In some instances, the pseudo-historic buildings have come into conflict with buildings with actual architectural or historic significance, creating tension around the projects.

Despite academic criticism of authenticity, historic replica building has gained popularity in German since the first versions appeared in the 1970′s and, for better or worse, appears to be a lasting part of the German landscape.

This week, SPPD hosted two Urban Growth Seminars. Their topics are seemingly very different: the first focused on the opportunities and challenges for a state in India as its economy shifts sectors and the other focused on expanding possibilities for infrastructure beyond just being a conduit for services needed by society.

India’s Urbanization and Development

On Monday, September 13, 2010, several delegates from the Indian state of Gujarat came to USC as an initial trip in the Vibrant Gujarat 2011 initiative to make contacts and investigate the possibility of future academic and industrial collaboration between various universities in Gujarat and in California. During this visit, Mr. Sunil R. Parekh, Strategic Advisor in the Cadila Healthcare Limited, Zydus Group, Professor R. Parthasarthy, Dean of the Faculty of Rural and Development Studies and Professor Utpal Sharma, Dean of the Faculty of Planning and Public Policy at CEPT University in Ahmedabad, stayed on USC’s campus several hours after the official meetings ended to present a seminar about the way that Gujarat is positioning itself to shift from a mostly manufacturing-based to a primarily knowledge-based economy. Each speaker focused on a different aspect of Gujarat’s economic shift.

Mr. Parekh started the talk by describing his state’s work to learn from international examples, describing the current situation in Gujarat and then honing in on economic development including industry clustering and developing human capital through improved education. One economic development initiative still in the planning stages is the Gujarat International Finance-Tec City, an envisioned clustering of modern skyscrapers along the coast the government is planning in an effort to capitalize on the Gujarati propensity to specialize in accounting and finance.

Professor Sharma continued the talk by describing urban planning and policy challenges particular to Gujarat and other Indian states as the country continues to barrel towards a service-based economy. Among these challenges are India’s inefficient centralized government and a society with millions of people living in squalid conditions living side by side with some of the world’s richest individuals. In the past, Indian planning documents reflected the ideal of their former colonial rulers, which turned out to not be suited for Indian society, but, like most places, Gujarat has limited resources to implement plans, so even if ideal urban plans are made, the chances they will positively affect the urban infrastructure are slim.

Professor Parthasarthy concluded by reminding the audience of the tension between the environment and the economy. In Gujarat, a coastal state with large industrial and agricultural centers and increasingly large urban areas, this tension is vividly seen in the resource of water. Urban areas in India obtain their water from the surrounding rural areas.

As the cities in Gujarat blossom, the water resources in the nearby rural areas are drying up. Near the coast, this is particularly harmful as sea water encroaches the ground water table rendering the area unsuitable for agriculture. This sea water encroachment has already taken place for areas up to several kilometers inland. The water problems are compounded by the fact that some of the urban effluent is deposited back into streams untreated. In short, the way that water has been extracted for cities in the past will not continue to work in the future, and urban planning should take into account not just a city’s boundaries, but the area from which it draws its resources.

Relevant Websites:
CEPT University: http://www.cept.ac.in/
Vibrant Gujarat 2011: http://www.vibrantgujarat.com/
Gujarat International Finance Tec City: http://giftgujarat.in/

The High Line Effect: New Infrastructure New Cities

The second seminar this week featured Professor Dana Cuff of UCLA’s School of Architecture and Urban Planning and founder and Director of CityLAB, a UCLA-hosted research institute ” charged with exploring the challenges facing the 21st century metropolis through research and design, expanding the possibilities for our cities to grow more livable, sustainable, and beautiful.”

Professor Cuff defined the High Line effect as: When infrastructure is leveraged through design and public or private means to produce multiple positive effects including economic revitalization and improvements to the public sphere. The radical increment is the operative tactic as small scale interventions can have large scale repercussions.
Professor Cuff challenges planners, architects, engineers and policy-makers to create infrastructural elements that are multi-functional and interdisciplinary. This can be seen in adaptive reuse projects such as the High Line which was once an industrial railway track through the meatpacking district is now a popular park and the seed of a burgeoning revitalization (although some might argue gentrification) of Lower Manhattan.

Other infrastructure projects and proposals that Professor Cuff mentioned were even more radical as they incorporated the variety of functions into their very design. For example: a bridge could also serve as a housing development, a border wall could also serve as a location for businesses. More radical proposals for multi-functional infrastructure can be seen in the submissions for CityLAB’s recent “WPA 2.0″ competition.

Is it possible that people might live over the San Francisco Bay one day in the pylons of a bridge? Well, as Professor Cuff said, “if you build one [radical project] it proves that it can be done, so others will be built.” It’s just a matter of expanding our conception of infrastructure to be an active element of our landscape rather than simply a necessary blot on our landscapes.

Relevant Websites:
The High Line: http://www.thehighline.org/
WPA 2.0 Competition: http://wpa2.aud.ucla.edu/info/
CityLAB: http://www.citylab.aud.ucla.edu/