I like this quote: "If you live in Portland, you might want to think twice before complaining about the 40-plus inches of rain dumped on your head every year. It might be the only thing keeping the entire country from moving to your city by the Prius-load."
I don't remember you posting in my 56 leonard thread but anyhoo.
For the record, NYC should not be in the top 5, the key reason being we have more cars on NYC metro area roads than any city in the U.S. Alot of people like to think of NYC as a mass-transit city when in reality many, if not the majority of new yorkers, commute via car at least for part of their daily commute. NYC is also located in a temperate climate which means we demand huge amounts of power to cool our homes in summer and demand an even greater amount of energy to heat them in winter. Many New Yorkers will even run their AC in the winter if the radiator gets too hot for them.
Not only do we put more cars on the road than any other U.S. we also have the oldest highway infrastructure which means commute times are huge which means alot of cars just sit there burning gas.
An elephant in the room is gentrification, but the room's so big...
Are those with middle- and upper-incomes disproportionately benefiting from green trends? Are they the only ones with the means to access the benefits? (Do the upkeep/maintenance costs for some of these green developments 'price out' a whole class of citizens?)
Is a 'green' trend like a fashion trend...with lower-income-earners missing out until it hits the salvage bin?
All inevitable, probably, but the human element of 'sustainability' should be given more priority: more mixed-income developments, more affordable housing, more density.
There's so much corruption and incompetence in Chicago's building and zoning department that the simplest tasks require multiple trips and eat a lot of fuel and time. I have been told to "hire an expeditor" a couple of times and now realize that was code for "hire my buddy and he gives me a kick back." Corruption and inefficiency can be huge consumers of green house gases. Did they factor this in?
There's twice as much traffic as there was fifteen years ago.
I'm honestly surprised Boston is on there when I think of the amount of people that drive in and out of the city from the north and south shore and parts of New Hampshire. And the lack of any housing anywhere downtown or in the financial district. I wonder if they somehow included Cambridge into Boston, as that would make Boston look a lot better.
the most sustainable cities are in the third world where folks live in shanties built from salvaged materials in informal neighborhoods. no cars, and stolen utilities if any. If we grew all our food on our roofs, then maybe we could compete, but even portland ships most of their food from california.
Arup discovered during their work on masdar, that the moment you start adding elevators, the efficiency declines. so the ideal city dwelling scale is between 5 to 8 story studio walkups.
Ranking the 50 most sustainable cities in the U.S.
And the winner is.....
ding ding ding, Portland, Oregon. Big surprise! :o)
Description of the Sustainlane ranking here
I like this quote: "If you live in Portland, you might want to think twice before complaining about the 40-plus inches of rain dumped on your head every year. It might be the only thing keeping the entire country from moving to your city by the Prius-load."
Discuss!
OK, so apparently Sarah Palin is more interesting to this group than understanding why our cities are or are not sustainable!
And that's why we're all going to die.
louisville is below new orleans, atlanta, and dallas?! hummpf.
i hate rankings. they miss too much of the truth.
and i guess we ARE all going to die....
I don't remember you posting in my 56 leonard thread but anyhoo.
For the record, NYC should not be in the top 5, the key reason being we have more cars on NYC metro area roads than any city in the U.S. Alot of people like to think of NYC as a mass-transit city when in reality many, if not the majority of new yorkers, commute via car at least for part of their daily commute. NYC is also located in a temperate climate which means we demand huge amounts of power to cool our homes in summer and demand an even greater amount of energy to heat them in winter. Many New Yorkers will even run their AC in the winter if the radiator gets too hot for them.
Not only do we put more cars on the road than any other U.S. we also have the oldest highway infrastructure which means commute times are huge which means alot of cars just sit there burning gas.
I would have thought archinect would have leaned further left...
Great to see positive trends.
An elephant in the room is gentrification, but the room's so big...
Are those with middle- and upper-incomes disproportionately benefiting from green trends? Are they the only ones with the means to access the benefits? (Do the upkeep/maintenance costs for some of these green developments 'price out' a whole class of citizens?)
Is a 'green' trend like a fashion trend...with lower-income-earners missing out until it hits the salvage bin?
All inevitable, probably, but the human element of 'sustainability' should be given more priority: more mixed-income developments, more affordable housing, more density.
There's so much corruption and incompetence in Chicago's building and zoning department that the simplest tasks require multiple trips and eat a lot of fuel and time. I have been told to "hire an expeditor" a couple of times and now realize that was code for "hire my buddy and he gives me a kick back." Corruption and inefficiency can be huge consumers of green house gases. Did they factor this in?
There's twice as much traffic as there was fifteen years ago.
I don't buy that Chicago is number 4.
Maybe other places have more problems? I dunno.
I didn't post about it because it makes me miss Portland too much and wonder what might have been if I had not moved away from there 13 years ago.
I don't like "what might have been?" thoughts, so I avoid them.
Go Portland, best damn city in the western world.
how can any city be sustainable?
^my thoughts exactly
mediocre minds think alike!
I'm honestly surprised Boston is on there when I think of the amount of people that drive in and out of the city from the north and south shore and parts of New Hampshire. And the lack of any housing anywhere downtown or in the financial district. I wonder if they somehow included Cambridge into Boston, as that would make Boston look a lot better.
the most sustainable cities are in the third world where folks live in shanties built from salvaged materials in informal neighborhoods. no cars, and stolen utilities if any. If we grew all our food on our roofs, then maybe we could compete, but even portland ships most of their food from california.
Arup discovered during their work on masdar, that the moment you start adding elevators, the efficiency declines. so the ideal city dwelling scale is between 5 to 8 story studio walkups.
I think Arup settled on 4 story walk-ups in Dongtan tk, i think it and masdar were sort of developed in parallel.
seattle #3?
really?
ok, i mean it's fairly mild here and we've got a lot of local resources, so we can get away w/ a lot of LEED BS.
our transportation sucks. light rail? it's not for seattle... it's for the burbs.
there is no density.
planning is pretty sh*tty
definitely not affordable
i'm interested to see how we placed 1st for innovation...
I wonder how any American city would stack up against foreign cities using this same rating system.
Apu, I don't know what thread you are talking about but sorry I missed it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.