Tomorrow belongs to ?
Choose two of Wheeler's "implications for urban development" (pp 490 to 494) and speculate about how they might be applied to the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Choose two of Wheeler's "implications for urban development" (pp 490 to 494) and speculate about how they might be applied to the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Tomorrow belongs to residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul claiming fame to both cities. Currently the Twin Cities act more like rivaling cousins’ rather then functional interactive cities. According to Wheeler’s theories for urban vitality the Twin Cities would be more sustainable by practicing stronger relations. The obvious rivalry between Minneapolis and St. Paul may one day dissipate if there was additional public transportation to unite the competitive cities. Increased mobility to and from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area would free residents to be more mobile and actually support the idea that the Twin Cities are in fact identical.
Ask anyone in the metro area which side of the river they’re from and immediately you’ll hear a patriotic answer. I’m not suggesting one is better then the other, rather reiterating that the cities do not mirror each other in terms of urban development priorities. Some may argue that the Minneapolis pulse is geared towards entertainment, trendy hotels and the arts scene. Across the river scholarly St. Paul residents have the fortune to access more reputable Universities or the larger blue collar population can unwind at dozens of neighborhood pubs. Minneapolis and St. Paul may mirror each other in terms of metropolitan offerings however; the river the divides this urban crowd does not reflect the overall ideologies’ of both parties. There’s a growing imbalance of social infrastructures which could easily be repaired by simply allowing both cities to be more transient. Enhanced public transportation methods, such as utilizing the light rail or adding city buses on safer routes between the two cities could greatly liberate residents on both sides of the sea…I mean river. Additional public transportation to connect both communities would stop the growing competitive isolation in both cities and abide to Wheeler’s theory of a sustainable urban environment.
“…development that improves the long-term social and ecological health of cities and towns.” (491)
Improved public transportation abides to the majority of Wheelers seven specific theories for an enriched sustainable city; efficient land use, less automobile use, less pollution, better living environment, healthier social ecology, and sustainable economics.
“Urban growth boundaries need to be coupled with policies to increase the efficiency of land use within already built up areas.” (491)
One very resourceful way to respect urban land use is to provide adequate public transportation to the public. Currently the Minneapolis/St. Paul is doing an excellent job at this however there’s room for improvement. Take the MTC bus line; the routes carry urbanites to and for work easily into the downtown district. But to cross the river via bus you better cross you fingers as you head on a cultural adventure down dodgy Lake St. or University Ave. Again, I’m not entirely familiar with all the bus routes in both cities; this has just been my experience with buses going to and from Mpls/St. Paul. Safer bus routes could attract a new bus audience without disrupting urban space. This would ultimately lead to less automobile use.
“Congestion problems can be solved and quality of life improved without building new roads or other infrastructures.” (492)
Giving pedestrians more mobile power through added bus routes or the light rail would inevitably lead to less city air pollution due to fewer automobiles on the road.
“Promoting a healthy and sustainable social ecology means looking for every opportunity to enhance human community.” (493)
Stronger gateways within the metro area would free residents to invest in both markets and therefore claim ownership to both sides of the river. Increased mobility between Minneapolis and St. Paul would aid to a more sustainable economy emphasis would be placed on one local economy versus two foreign communities.
*after researching information towards my final paper, I discover that a "rush line communte" track via light rail is in the near future.
There are a lot of environmentally conscientious people in the Twin Cities making efforts to increase the cities' sustainability. Wheeler's idea of sustainability is certainly applicable to the Twin Cities and some of his ideas are illustrated within the cities.
One of Wheeler's "directions" towards a sustainable city is "less automobile use, better access." The Twin Cities has a lot of bike trails, compared to some other major urban areas and also a lot of pedestrian trails and parks. Wheeler writes that, "Inverting the transportation hierarchy' means placing the heaviest emphasis on the pedestrian". I've been thinking about it and just in casual observations of the cities, I can't think of a place within the downtown zones of Minneapolis or St. Paul where there aren't sidewalks.(besides highways/freeways) If someones else can, please comment on it. I have also noticed that almost all of the stoplights have crosswalks and pedestrian signals. I think that's pretty good as far as providing for and promoting pedestrians goes.
Earlier in this class we discussed the skyways downtown and how they seem somewhat segregated by class. I wonder if that's just a sign of what we talked about with Zukin, maybe people don't feel excluded from the skyways, but it's just not an area that they normally need to go. In a way, the skyways seem like the ultimate way to cater to pedestrians in a colder climate. However, they do give a more disconnected feel and seem to categorize pedestrians as separate from the rest of the traffic. It's very reminiscent of Le Corbusier. The cities have indeed moved into the skies. It's pedestrians, though rather than aero-taxis, who've been raised above ground.
Wheeler also says that "bicycle planning should be near the top of the priority list,(for urban planners) followed by public transit. I don't have extensive experience with dwelling in other cities in the US or outside if it. However, I feel for some reason that although our bike trails and public transit do leave something to be desired, they are still among the best in the US' big cities. I may be wrong about that, but I really think it's true. The Twin Cities have, especially recently, invested heavily in public transportation and have fairly decent laws pertaining to bicycle traffic, as well as some very nice trails.(although not enough)
Wheeler's next "direction" is about less pollution. Minneapolis and St.Paul have very active municipal recycling programs as well as Eureeka!, a non-profit recycling organization. Citizens can get as many free recycling bins as they want and although not all plastics are taken by the weekly pick-up some can be picked up on special days. The city of Minneapolis also promotes the re-use of rain water in order to prevent ground water and river contamination and has rain water collection barrels that can be purchased. Another great sign of the Twin Cities move towards sustainability is the reuse center. (www.thereusecenter.com) The reuse center is basically a thrift store for all the things that normal thrift stores won't or can't take. They have people's surplus paint, old doors and reclaimed lumber, even old kitchen sinks! It's not the home depot, it's better! As Wheeler says, " Energy conservation and materials recycling are two areas in which ordinary citizens can most directly take action through small community initiatives... Municipal recycling programs are one of the most obvious areas in which cities can demonstrate their commitment to sustainable resource use."
So, the Twin Cities really are a pretty good example of cities that are 'moving toward sustainability" as Wheeler says. There are many who feel as I do here, but I can only hope for more. I wish the movement was faster, and we have a long way to go, but I'm proud that we're moving that way at all.
In Stephen Wheeler’s article, “Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities,” he writes about the progression of city development and how it goes along with the ability to live in the city. One of the terms Wheeler uses frequently in his article is that of sustainable development. Sustainable development, as he defines it, is: “…development that improves long-term health of human and ecological systems (486).” This is basically stating the fact that he does not want an improvement in the environmental aspect of the city, but a better living space for the city dweller as well. Wheeler also stresses the fact that these development strategies, “…need to be long term – plans for twenty, fifty, one hundred years or longer rather than year-by-year plans that optimize short-term present enjoyment at the expense of future welfare (486).” He thinks the short-term plans that have been so present lately are doing nothing but setting the city up for destruction.
In this paper I will be writing about the nine implications for urban development that Wheeler speaks about. Within those nine implications I will explain some of the cities I have been to that either positively or negatively exemplifies what Wheeler means by these implications. Following those analyses I will write about how two of these implications could be applied to the fabulous Twin Cities metropolitan area.
The two cities that came to mind while I was reading about the implications for urban development were San Francisco, California and New Orleans, Louisiana. These two cities are some of my favorite in America. While I was reading the implications about the restoration of natural systems, which Wheeler says the following about, “Restoring ecosystems can lead to healthier and more livable cities, while providing important amenities that can help entice residents back from suburbia (492),” I thought of San Francisco. For those of you who have not visited this amazing city, it is truly one of the most beautiful cities I have ever been to. San Francisco is full of plants, trees, green grass and beautiful flowers everywhere. This city is a great example of what cities across the country should look up to for the restoration of natural systems.
As I was reading the final implication for urban development, which was the preservation of local culture and wisdom, New Orleans came to my mind. I visited New Orleans pre-Katrina, but it was one of the few places I have been to in America that had so much culture. I think this is a fabulous quality of a city. While I was in the city I felt like I was so immersed in another culture that I almost felt as if I was in another country or another time. It is difficult to explain, but for those of you who have been there—I am sure you understand! Once again, cities across the country should look up to the culture-filled city of New Orleans for inspiration.
The two implications that reminded me of the Twin Cities were that of less automobile use, better access and community participation and involvement. Wheeler says the following about the first implication I mentioned, “Current transportation systems contribute to a complex web of urban problems such as air pollution, congestion, blight suburban sprawl, ecosystem destruction, and social fragmentation (491).” I do not know how I would survive without a car in the Twin Cities, I feel as if it is a place in which one needs a car to get around the city efficiently. I believe this is one of the things the Twin Cities could improve on. But, now on a more positive note, I believe the Twin Cities have a very high percentage of community participation and involvement. While I was researching my final paper I found many community and neighborhood organizations that contribute to the betterment of their communities--which, in turn, benefits the Twin Cities as a whole.
As I stated previously, I think San Francisco and New Orleans are two cities America can look up to for the restoration of natural systems and the preservation of local culture and wisdom. The Twin Cities do an amazing job with community involvement, but may need to work on the issue of less automobile use.
KATE CICHY
Wheeler is different that most of the writers we have read this semester in that he discusses how people are living in ways that aren’t healthy for the environment. We need to change the way we live in order to make the cities we live in healthier for people and the Earth. He begins by discussing what the meaning of “sustainable” is: “a world in which both human and natural systems can continue to exist long into the future” (p 487). Cities should be built to last many years, but built with materials that are biodegradable or at least semi-biodegradable. Another definition Wheeler gives states that sustainability is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p 489). The most important aspect of sustainability is to build a world that benefits the future generations. Wheeler gives his principles of how to live in a sustainable city. First, all energy, materials and food must be produced locally. I agree that this will greatly assist is making a sustainable city, but there are certain materials and food that must be imported from other parts of the world. This would mean that people must live only with what they have and what they are capable of producing. This is possible, but not practical for today’s world. Each part of the world is very dependant on the others. Instead, Wheeler states that complete isolation is not necessary, but if people were to compromise how they live with how they should live, then that would be a good start. Some of the other principles are to make more efficient use of land, decrease car use, create less waste and restore natural systems.
Among these, Wheeler also discusses the social aspect of a sustainable city. Maintaining sustainability requires a healthy social environment as well as a healthy physical environment. Certain plights such as homelessness are not easily controlled by people, but other problems such as racism are completely in the power of the people. Wheeler states that “promoting a healthy and sustainable social ecology means looking for every opportunity to enhance human community, opportunity and empowerment” (p 493). This involves city planners to look at every type of lifestyle and ask how they can be improved. This leads to a sustainable economy. The economy is an important part of keeping a sustainable city as it forms the foundation on which society can grow.
The sustainability of cities is not only the building if cities with natural materials that won’t harm the physical environment, but also building with a strong society that can maintain the sustainability. In order for people to understand the importance of maintaining a sustainable city, they must understand the importance of keeping a sustainable society and economy. These two aspects of a city are crucial in maintaining a city of any kind. The type of people who inhabit the city reflects upon what kind of city is being inhabited. In this case, people who understand that sustainability is important for the future will most likely create the city to meet sustainable standards.
Abha
I’ve recently added a minor in sustainability to my coursework at the U. A week or two after telling my Dad this, he tells me a small story: He was telling a friend of his about his daughter minoring in sustainability. She asks him what IS sustainability? He couldn’t answer.
I tried to explain it to him over the phone, as simply as I could and it was difficult because there’s so much that goes into ideal sustainability – so many different areas of life to focus on, plan for and change. I ended up with some jumbled expression of “planning for today while planning that tomorrow we can have the same thing” but that wasn’t at all what I wanted to say. What I should’ve done was point him towards Stephen Wheeler’s piece, which breaks it down nice and simple for an introduction to sustainability.
Wheeler adds another although related focus on livability. “Sustainable development is development that improves the long-term health of human and ecological systems.” (pg489) Concerning the idea of human life as a core element to sustainability I would suggest that anyone interested look into the Human Development Index, found at http://hdr.undp.org/. This organization looks at both the environment development and human development that affects one’s life in every country. For the human development index, they look at GDP, life expectancy, and adult literacy. In essence, they look at how much money is available, health care and education. Titled “Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis”, you can get an idea of the HDR’s very thorough look at all elements creating unequal and ultimately unsustainable environments in our world today.
Back to Wheeler! He gives us nine implications for urban development to be considered to create a sustainable environment: compact, efficient land use, less automobile use, efficient resource use, restoration of natural systems, good housing and living environments, a healthy social ecology, sustainable economics, community participation and preservation of local culture and wisdom. I can think of nothing more important to our future development than these nine problems. It seems to me the passion and money is available the world over again and again – it’s the power we lack.
Of the nine implications, a couple struck my fancy. Encouraging efficient, compact land use seems to be nearly impossible in today’s market. In my case study of Rosemount Minnesota, I encountered much talk of land use and learned from it the unfortunate trends of suburban America. With a majority of land tagged for single-family houses on 2 acre lots and a 480 acre business park using 13 acres each, Rosemount is the worst example of efficient, compact land use. The only area designated as mixed use is the limited “downtown” area, a strip of about five blocks. I’ve also heard some interesting statistics recently about our national debt. The Current is hosting a lecture series with some influential federal official talking about the manner in which Americans individually and as a country spend money we do not have and that it will eventually be our downfall. A sustainable economy, Wheeler explains, has three principles: it will be a “restoration economy”, serve real-human needs and will be locally-oriented. Our economy is so far from this and, again, so much power to change the economy falls in the hands of very few people.
I enjoyed Wheeler’s piece even though I find it, as always when speaking on sustainability, overwhelming the immense amount of change that needs to happen to ensure a brighter present and future. It’s great though to see a comprehensive look at what it means to be sustainable. This sort of text really needs to be publicized so everyone will know not only what a sustainability minor studies but how they can at least begin thinking about the changes needed.
Stephen Wheeler does not seem like a very helpful individual in his article on sustainable cities. It seems as though he likes to complain about the many problems that occur in urban settings, and yet he offers no solutions, helpful hints on how to deal with the problems, or even who should do what to fix the problems. This is unfortunate because anybody can write an article about everything that is wrong with the world, but if no solutions are put forth then nothing will ever change.
In the paper, Wheeler separates the sustainability problem in urban settings into nine different topics that all need addressing. He states that “the need is for a long-term strategy emphasizing consensus processes, public education, political organizing, policy tools such as indicators and performance standards, development of vision documents and ‘best practice’ examples, and the creation of institutions that can more effectively address physical planning and equity issues” (494). That has got to be the most broad, vague solution to sustainability that I have ever heard. Basically it sounds as though Wheeler is stating many problems and then expecting someone else to figure the logistics out and fix the problems he addresses. To be even more vague, Wheeler states that “Different approaches will have to be found for different cities” (495), indicating that he really has no idea how to address the problems on a global scale, let alone on a city-to-city basis. Basically, Wheeler claims that innovation and creativity are needed to deal with the problem, which I believe is because he himself has none of either. Because of Wheeler’s vagueness, inconclusive findings, and lack of solutions, I feel I must try to come up with solutions to make up for his incompetence.
So I came to think, what solutions can I come up with which would make the Twin Cities more sustainable. One of the main areas of the subject of sustainability that needs addressing is electric power. As far as power supplies go, coal power seems to dominate the supply of much of the electricity in the area. It is true that the Mississippi is used for hydroelectric power in some areas, but more could always be used. Also, I have yet to see any wind mills for providing wind power. Wind power mills tend to need lots of space to provide sufficient power for a city. One solution for this is to place wind mills on top of large buildings to save space. If a skyscraper can have enough wind mills on top of it to power the building (with hydroelectric backup power supplies) then the buildings themselves would be self-sustaining. Also, I have yet to see any geothermal power plants. Geothermal plants provide renewable sources of energy as well. I know that Iceland uses geothermal energy to create hydrogen which they use to power the entire country, making the whole country self-sufficient power-wise. I believe if Iceland can do it, then America should give it a try.
Overall Wheeler does not seem to have a clue as to how to start addressing problems of sustainability, but in his insufficient argument one is forced to come up with new solutions, which may have been his goal in the first place.
I love Wheelers concept and ideas of "sustainable development". When I compare his vision to Frank Lloyd Wright and LeCorbusier's ideas on city planning, I much prefer Wheeler. One of the main problems I felt, with LeCorbusier and Wright's planning as that it left out the poor, and the urban. In the end their plans excluded some group of people. However, Wheeler specifically talks about including everyone into the future city planning. His sixth point, titled "A healthy social ecology", he mentioned issues taht plauge urban areas like homelessness and racism. To that he says, "Promoting a healthy and sustainable social ecology means looking for every opportunity to enhance human community, opportunity, and empowerment" (pg493). This is such a huge point to me because even when you physically change a city, everything else like deeply rooted social problems and discrimination wil not automatically follow. People are not easy to re-shape onece the mold is set.
Again comparing the three city planners, the one thing they all have in common is that they all agree that cities must have less congestion. Wheeler is calling for a reduction in auto use, and increasing use for pedestrian by focusing city planning around walking and biking. Jane Jacobs would love this idea. In fact, he mentions her in this reading as a advocate of urban sustainablity. LeCorbusier also sees traffic as a problem, and wants to "de-congest" cities. However, he focused on fixing personal auto use, instead of eliminating it. Wright also was looking to fix or adjust personal auto traffic. I think its a little strange that they dont really talk about mass transit. At least I think they didnt mention it, but then again perhaps LeCorbusier and Wright did that to have their plans be more attractive to the general, car owning poplulation. It seems they try to make their plans sound easy. Wheeler admits his plan for a sustainable city is going to be a long, taxing task. Americans are very attached to their automobiles, so for Wheeler to admit and show how his city planning may be a personally difficult adjustment is brave because it may seem unattractive to so many. And his project is one that needs great cooperation from the general population, not just local goverment and such.
One last comparision is between Wright and Wheeler. For me, reading Wright's "Broadacre City" sounds as if he wants every one to live in a pod and live in isolated areas. On the other hand Wheeler specifically says that it would be unrealistic for us to create walls and try to be sustainable all on our own completly separate from the rest of the world. Now I realize Wright was not thinking in such extreme terms, but Wheeler still has a point. Isolation and separation may not be reasonable and the best way to live. Self reliance only goes so far, especially in todays very specialized modern society. I dont see how we can have self reliance in a group or area today unless people are assigned to a neighborhood based on their profession. Making sure there is a butcher, baker, and candlestickmaker, in every area or town is un realistic.
There have been many discussions on global warming and the effect it has on the environment, but most of these arguments discuss how global warming came to be and present short term proposals. In Stephen Wheeler’s article, “Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities”, he describes changes towards global warming in relation to a sustainable development. The two directions that will be most beneficial towards sustainable cities are the reduction of automobile usage and community participation. The main reason that these two changes will be the most beneficial is because they will be the most difficult, and if there is even a slight difference in mind set on these issues then there is hope towards making a sustainable city.
First I’d like to discuss how Wheeler describes a sustainable city. He dives into the notion by talking about ways to make sustainable cities and the global effect. Basically he states that true sustainable cities are impossible because they would have to be “absolutely self-sustaining” and would need to “wall itself off from the rest of the world and produce all food, energy, and materials locally” (490). When reading this I immediately though of Calderia and the new trend of fortified enclaves. It made me wonder whether wealthy enclaves are able to produce this region of self-sustaining and self-sufficient area that is able to reduce the amount of harm to the environment. But then I figured that high class communities will never be able to follow Wheeler’s ideas to compact land use and get rid of their cars. Essentially, Wheeler describes his propositions in regards to a community as a whole that will work together to change urban planning to help the environment rather than ignore it.
Wheeler’s belief to change the emphasis with traveling in cars towards walking or biking will be most beneficial. While I was reading this piece outside this weekend by McNamera, I couldn’t help but notice the overabundance of vehicles. There was never a point where Washington Ave. was still. Cars constantly roamed the streets while battling with buses, bikers, and pedestrians as to whose turn it was to use the streets. All along the street, cars were parked by meters as people rushed inside to get some lunch or ice cream. I am in totally agreement with Wheeler when he presents the idea of “inverting the transportation hierarchy”. By this he means that new urban cities would reduce the need of vehicles, by placing needs in proximity of people, and have more importance on pedestrians walking. The most difficult part with having places in walking distance is the effect that technology has had on everyone. Webber describes how technology allows business to be transacted through distance. I believe that this effect has made a difference in the way that people interact with exchange and it will be difficult to have businesses stationary in proximity. With distance between businesses, an emphasis is placed on automobiles and therefore a dependency on them. There first needs to be a change in dependency on the vehicle, and then awareness to other forms of transportation. I don’t know the Minneapolis MetroTransit that well, but compared to bus routes in Madison, WI; there are a lot more places that people can travel. Granted, public transportation takes longer than driving a car, it still takes people from one place to the other. By even having a focus on public transportation, streets would clear up and harm to the environment will hopefully decrease.
The next suggestion that will help in sustainable cities is community involvement. I remember back in 5th grade where every spring our school would participate in Earth Day. We would go outside and either plant a tree or pick up garbage. The whole school community would group together to help make the playground cleaner, but this was never completely effective since the whole community would never join. Even though Wheeler discusses community involvement on the level of political affluences, I believe that the Earth Day example shows that communities need to work together in order for any type of activity to be effective. If every member attributes to the well-being of the community, then they will react differently to the space because they would feel that it is not just the cities property, but theirs.
Creating a sustainable city will be a difficult challenge, but possible if everyone makes an effort to change for the better. Reducing the amount of automobile usage, while placing an importance on walking, and more community agreement will be the most difficult but influential towards a sustainable city. Wheeler states that “through a growing ecological and social consciousness […] more sustainable forms of urban development can come about” (496). The social and environmental problems need to be addressed and work together to make a solid difference.
The first “direction for urban sustainability” that Wheeler discusses was one that stood out to me immediately as I kept the Twin Cities in my mind while reading. Land, particularly in the United States, is becoming extremely limited, and urban sprawl is only growing. The reason this struck me as something I see very relevant to the Twin Cities is that I live where, ten to twenty years ago, there was nothing but some farms and was still a small town. Now, when I make the seemingly endless commute, I exit with hundreds of other cars, and thousands more heading further down the highway. It is so clear to me that this is occuring in every major city in the U.S., to the point where in between relatively close cities, there will be no open space, and the country will look like the entire coast of California which has been completely built up for a 10 hour drive. If it is still even possible, I think the best way is to immediately implement a UGB (urban growth boundary) around much of the suburbs of Minneapolis and perhaps St. Paul as well. It would not only preserve precious farmland, but force us to develop and think about other ways to support a growing population. The other reason I am in favor of this, is that it will cut down on traffic traveling so far throughout the city every day, and possibly support a progressive transgression toward a public transportation system, limiting pollution and gas expenditure. I couldn’t agree more that the “view of land as a commodity for human use and profit needs to shift towards a respect for the landscape as a thing of value in its own right.” Our plotting out of land and purchasing of it is very bothersome to me, because it is getting to the point where even nature in the middle of nowhere is owned by the state or something and you have to pay to visit it. I feel as though more of our urban living space should be replaced with more natural environments, though the Twin Cities are surely one of the better cities in this respect. It is still important to reserve these areas, and other land where building is taking place.
In the modern world, people have to spend too much time trying to make a living for themselves to keep up with the rapidly growing economy that they lose the time to actually be a part of society, or at least to have more of an impact. The Twin Cities is no exception of this. The Twin Cities could be a model of local politics promoting sustainability by creating some sort of policy of payment or legality allowing workers time off for community participation to debate development issues. The city and its workers are getting the job done, I think, but ideally the citizens need to get together and communicate on ways to make their entire communities better, specific to sustainability concerns. Something as simple as one less work day every two weeks to garden in a greenhouse in different sectors of the city could supply fresh vegetables at a low cost to supermarkets or popular urban meeting places. Government subsidizing might be a major issue, but it is just a thought, one example of millions of ideas on creating a more self-sufficient urban society.
In regards to the bit about "less automobile use, better access," I am not sure that I agree with all of the arguments that Wheeler presents. I find the idea of "access by proximity" to be unrealistic. It is an unattainable and idealistic city structure that was conquered long ago. Since the immersion into globalization, people have the ability to travel across the globe. Even by creating a city that has everything that they need, i.e. "urban villages," people will still find excuses to travel across town for their favorite restaurant with their favorite server. The ideas that Wheeler presents would also make for one boring life. If I worked, lived, shopped, and played all in one small geographic area, I would go stir-crazy. This idea would change the lively and bustling city into a lack-luster and monotonous structure. I understand that there are environmental, societal and political implications in automobile use, but this city structure seems to be a bit over the top. I am very supportive of mass transportation, biking, and walking especially, but there needs to be a happy medium between automobile use and the other three.
Americans are highly dependent on their automobiles. The issue with automobile use is that people with their use their eight-passenger gas-guzzlers to drive themselves, and no one else, to work. In order to slowly change the mindset of people, there needs to be more incentives in place - carpool lanes are not doing the job.
In the case of the college campus, the idea of reduced automobile use is more ideal. During orientation here at the U, they emphasized primarily walking to class, followed by bicycle use, bus use, and lastly use of the automobile. This is a highly-stressed concept during orientation. This is the exact idea that Wheeler presents when writing about "inverting the transportation hierarchy." By providing multiple bike racks around campus, the U is promoting their use. The U also charges a nominal fee in cooperation with Metro Transit for a semester-long pass on Metro Transit. This reduced rate encourages the use of mass transit. Finally, the U charges an arm and a leg to visitors, students, and staff that use automobiles as their primary form of transportation; this is to discourage the use of automobiles, unless absolutely necessary. This is an ideal example of Wheeler's idea in motion, but it is completely unrealistic in areas beyond college campuses.
Wheeler’s idea of sustainable living is possible, but it would be extremely difficult to implement. In order to improve the quality if living, first automobile dependency and the world’s dependency on fossil fuels needs to be obliterated. In today’s world, this would take decades to stop. Then, any prior damage would have to be reversed, which would take several more decades. The process would be a daunting task, but if the use of non-renewable resources can be stopped, we will be well on our way to creating a more sustainable environment.
Allison
I believe that the first and most important step towards a more sustainable Twin
Cities is public education and awareness; which would be related towards
Wheeler's assertion of community involvement being an integral aspect of
sustainability. Affecting change on a large scale should be the focus of a move
towards more environmentally friendly living in urban life. Individuals can make
small changes, such as recycling as many materials as possible, and switching
to more reusuable products. Also, it takes individuals to band together to build
momentum to work towards positive change on a larger scale. Educating people
on the reasons why it is important to be aware of how our lifestyles impact the
environment is important because, as Wheeler acknowledges, so much of the
necessary changes will require major adjustments to how people have grown
to view life, progress, and prosperity. To begin to make change wholeheartedly,
there must be firm commitment to new modes of thinking which embrace
sustainability in all ways possible. People in living in urban areas today have
developed what could be seen as an addiction to non-sustainable and
un-environmentally sound modes of living. People are hooked on sustenance
practices that expend a lot of energy and create a lot of waste, not only is this
hedionistic and environmentally un-concious lifestyle damaging to the Earth,
it is damaging to our physical, spiritual and mental bodies. Public education is
essential in aiding the sort of "Point of No Return" mentality which I think can
plague people's response to learning about how humans are destroying the
Earth. If ways to change are not encouraged in ways that are easy to
understand and easy to implement, then they will surely fail. Promoting
education of ways to reduce our individual "ecological footprint" successfully
will require ensuring people feel that those changes are simple and within their
grasp. Much of Wheeler's piece made me think of the changes I have experienced
in my own thinking in the past few years as a result of learning about my Ojibwe
heritage. Through a personal search for cultural and spirtual guidance I have
learned to look at my life as a city dweller in a way that is not completely
disconnected from the natural environment, as I have learned to take on a more
humble view of my existence as a human, being the most pitiful of all animals
in that my survival depends on so many other forms of life on this planet. Many
Dakota and Ojibwe people living in reservation communities here in Minnesota
still practice traditional sustenance activities such as harvesting wild rice in the
fall, hunting and trapping during the winter, and making maple sugar in the spring.
In addition to producing food, these practices work to maintain a sense of
connectivity of people with the environment. Thus, I think that Wheeler's
assertion that "Preservation of local culture and wisdom" supports sustainability
could be implemented in the Twin Cities by embracing the knowledge of
the lifeways of both Dakota and Ojibwe aboriginal cultures indigenous to the land of
Minnesota.
Erica,
I agree totally with this. It is too bad that our public education system is under too much scrutinity from public officials. All they want is to see results; i.e. meaningless standarized exams. I think that our world could use a lot more people living around the globe to see how other places do things instead of just thinking that just because we are american we always do the "right thing so don't question us or we will call you a terrorist and boycot your products!" P.S. My family's tribe is Narragansett. Although I have yet to visit the reservation, I feel horrible about what this government has done to my family. Yes, we observe traditions, but ones that we are still allowed to!
I like that Wheeler mentions the compact and efficient land use as a means to sustainability. This is, in my mind, an important issue especially for the Twin Cities metro area. I have noticed that some people believe cities to be bad for the environment. They look at the infrastructures of cities, much of which is absent of ‘nature’ and assume that cities are the enemy of nature. Instead a city, they opt to live in open countryside thinking that by not partaking in city life they are doing something good for the environment. In reality, suburban and rural sprawl contribute to some of the worst effects on ecological systems. As Wheeler mentions, places such as Portland and parts of San Francisco have instituted UGBs or urban growth boundaries. This says, in effect, that the city ends at such and such line and cannot be used by developers or anything else for whatever reason. Our metro area is one of the most sprawled in the United states. While Minneapolis and Saint Paul have a combined population of about 650,000, the entire metro area has a population of 3,000,000. This means that about 80% of those living in the Twin Cities metro area live in a suburb and most likely in a single family home with a comparatively huge lot and a huge footprint per capita. Furthermore, the majority of these people are depending on cars to get from A to B. This is also an important issue for our metro area because the Twin Cites are expected to bring in an additional million residents by the year 2020. Many of these new residents will choose to move into new developments on the peripheries with 50 foot driveways if something like an UGB is not instituted which keeps the developers from building there in the first place. Another problem that results from building further and further out is the destruction of good agricultural land. Once the topsoil has been torn up, it can never be used again for agricultural purposes.
In addition to taking up valuable land and obliging habitants to drive further and further, low density housing also contributes to environmental problems concerning water. Water is, of course, something that many Minnesotans take for granted since we have an incredible surplus of it, but it is also important to remember that we reside very close to the headwaters of the Mississippi along which many other cites are situated and from which many people get their drinking water. Taking up large amounts of land for houses and other impermeable surfaces (e.g. parking lots, highways) has several negative impacts. Because these surfaces are impermeable, they are unable to soak water and thus underground aquifers are drained. In addition, a lot of the rain fall is not permitted to soak back into the ground because it simply runs off people’s gargantuan yards into the street and then into the sewer system. Once in the sewer system it is processed at one of the waste water treatment plants. Chances are it goes to the waste water treatment plant in Saint Paul, which is the largest in the Midwest and processes about one million habitants water or anywhere from 200,000,000 to 600,000,000 gallons of water per day. Treatment plants are only able to process so much water at any given moment and because so much rain water gets into sewers instead of being replenished in the ground, they are forced to process the water faster which means that when they dump it back out into the Mississippi it is not as clean. In fact, there are quite a few hormones in the water that the treatment plant puts into the river which is primarily due to the pill addiction that we have as Americans. Medication is filled with toxins that we excrete into the sewers which the treatment plant is unable to fully process. This is why there are fish being found down stream that are both female and male. Who knows what other consequences will come from pumping the Mississippi with hormones. Grass contributes to this problem as well. What the attraction to grass is by suburbanites I will never understand, but it is of the most horribly inefficient plants to grow. It not only requires mowing which burns petrol but it also requires more water than many other aesthetically pleasing native plants which can survive with just the water that they receive from rainfall. In effect, people keep water from soaking into the ground with huge footprints, driveways, wide roads, and the highways that they use to get to work, and on top of it they water their %*#@^$ ugly turf. And so, there are many benefits to increased density in urban areas that are found social and environmental areas.
In “Planning Sustainable and Livable Cities”, Wheeler lists off criteria of a sustainable city such as compact land use, and a rearrangement in the transportation hierarchy. When I compare Minneapolis to my other hometowns, I consider Minneapolis sustainable.
When I think of the Twin Cities in an idealistic way, I imagine bicycling through beautiful neighborhoods in South Minneapolis. I bear in mind all of the small businesses, such as the Northland Poster Collective on Lake Street or May Day Café on Bloomington. The parks, the lakes, and the paths for walking and biking stretch across the Southside. The Twin Cities offers good housing and living environments, and rent seems to stay at a reasonable price in comparison to other desirable cities. Most of the community seems to support alternative transportation, such as bicycling and busing. There are also many volunteer community participants, creating political festivals such as May Day in Powderhorn Park. Overall, I feel that the Twin Cities is a sustainable city, but only in comparison to the city I grew up in, Birmingham.
When I think of the Twin Cities in a critical way, I wonder why there is such a sprawl, rather than an efficient and compact land use. The Twin Cities is stretched for miles, and pedestrians and bicyclists are invaded by highways, three-land roads, and noisy automobiles. There is an absence of green buildings that are present in other cities. The downtown deteriorated into a place where business men smoke angrily, people await buses and the light rail, and citizens stare at the library, wondering why the architects picked such ugly colors for the interior. Uptown is no better. The few places of interest to me are spread blocks away from each other. And then I remember- the worn-down and closed up libraries, or the brand new libraries with open hours only three days per week.
Minneapolis, with the little experience I’ve had in four years of living here, has a history of sustainability. And of course, as the demand for profit increases, the ecological capital of land is forgotten. Although there are many non-profits that focus on sustainability, there are many cities that are more ecologically friendly than Minneapolis.
Framing Sustainability
As an interior design major, I hear about sustainability on almost a daily basis. For the last four years it has been drilled into my head in every design class I have had. The strange thing is that for about the first two years, I didn’t really care. Actually, if I am honest, I was a little turned off by it because my professors had been so adamant about it…kind of like a kid rebelling against their parents I guess. But anyways, at some point that all changed. When social issues became more important to me, all of the sudden, sustainability became much more important to me. I appreciate Wheeler’s thoughts on sustainability as they point to the holistic viewpoint that is needed to fully understand the implications of sustainability. And to fully meet the goals of a sustainable city, he states that “different specialties having to do with transportation, land use, housing, community development, economic development, and environmental protection should not be handled in isolation from one another but should be integrated.” (490) For those first two years, I saw sustainability as an environmental issue – basically, we should be sustainable because its good for the environment. Now, I think the environment is an important aspect of our world, but personally, I am not that passionate about it. People, on the other hand I am passionate about. My future, I am passionate about. And once I began to see the important role the environment and sustainability play in these issues, I became a lot more interested. I think framing or “marketing” sustainability in ways that are more human-oriented is going to be critical to its success. In particular, I believe environmental considerations for land use have major social implications for the future.
If you have ever even looked at the design section of books at Barnes and Noble, you are most likely to find a copy of Susana Susanka’s Not So Big House or one of the many sequels to it. And at first sight, it seems like a “less is more,” “find innovative ways to store your crap” kind of book. And actually, it might be – I haven’t read it. But, the concept behind it is so incredibly important and pertinent to the social and environmental future of society, it is hard to ignore. Coming up with ways to more efficiently use the space we have is become more and more important, as the world becomes more and more populated. As Wheeler puts it “Land is our most important limited resource, and current urban development patterns are clearly consuming the landscape in unsustainable ways.” (481) If a multi-millionaire can learn to live in a moderately sized house, they could free up a ton of land that could be used for any number of different things. And just because the house may be the same size as say, a millionaire, it does not mean they would be worth the same amount. There are plenty of sustainable ways to add value to a smaller space. Mixed-use land uses and mixed-income housing are great ways to build sustainable cities environmentally and socially. They are great ways to “enhance human community, opportunity, and empowerment” (493). Along the same lines, more time shares, less vacation homes would be a great sustainable solution.
Finding attractive ways to market these things – for example making “the not so big house” a trendy house to have, or bringing the “best” shops and stores into a mixed-use, mixed-income area may help our consumer-oriented culture start to realize just what sustainability is and how it affects them. Similar strides have been made in product design. For example, you can now by purses made of seat belts or Capri sun bags. And they are very expensive, in turn making them very trendy, in turn turning people’s head toward sustainability without them even knowing it.
Cities today has developed rapidly technological wise, that the question of global warming should be looked into. According to Wheeler, “sustainable development is used to refer to the alternatives to traditional patterns of physical, social and economic development that can avoid problem such as exhaustion” (487). Looking at cities today with gigantic infrastructures that can only operate with the use of energy, I thought how long earth can sustain its resources. Recently, in Britain research was made and the finding shows that if drastic actions are not taken till 2020, the situation of global warming would have worsened and could not be solve. So the my question is, is the world using more its resources?, definitely yes.
With the problem with planning how to sustain the natural resources the problems should be address first. In detail with first one should look at the limited resources and irreplaceable resources connection it with man’s activities that have helped to destroyed it. Recently, the ozone layer has being reported said to have been damaged. Factors responsible for this are the use of chemical materials, like the use of spray and automobile. Too much of chemical in the earth is bad and they effects deal directly with the recycling of rain. The result is the fall of ace rain, with reportedly is falling today. Ace rain is not good for human and plant consumption. Man’s consumption should be limited inorder to prevent global warming. Wheeler asked question like, does every house need two cars?. If that question is asked in America today the answer is yes , some might say more. Other parts of the world having one car mean wealth, for example Sierra Leone. The consumption of energy in t he United States is almost half the total amount consumed by more than half of the world. The cause of this huge consumption is due to economical profits. Industrial revolution has created easy life for man kind, but the prize to pay is heavy. Presently, it has being observed that ace rain is falling due to the use of chemicals in excess. Ace rain is unhealthy for both human and plants. Through input and out put, the amount of water that is consumed is far more than the input. The water circle take years to recycle, whilst industries are growing every day to meet the growing population. The growing populations are also a problem is the use of resources. The world’s population came from 2.5 to 6.3 billion currently.
Urban areas have large shape with huge population only cars and take people to their destination fast. Minnesota is a typical example of the huge amount of cars used . With these entire energy problems destroying the atmosphere, it is surprising to know that poor countries are the experimental ground to control energy usage. Bill Gates project of using recreational parks in Africa, so children would unknowingly through playing generates energy to supply water. If I was asked where to start energy management it would be in America.
A lot of ways are in progress to solve this global problem. Some cities tries to use local mains to control there state’s problem but this is not highly effective. Reduction in the use of public transportation is one of the best ways to helping solve the problem. This requires some kind of reconstruction that bringing public area closer to people can walk. Shaping the world’s future all countries should come as one and propose ways to reducing it. As research states re3cently in Britain , if no measures are taken now till 2025, the situation would have worsen an nothing could be done to solve it
Within the city of Minneapolis there is a definite emerging of locations that serve as "urban villages." Places like Dinkytown and Uptown, which contain homes, shops, workplaces, and entertainment in close proximity of each other. These smaller neighborhood centers function well for the pedestrian as it is far easier to walk around each neighborhood than it is to drive. Because the convenience of use and the competition for location, there is definite class issues that are raised by the emerging of these urban villages, as places close to the center
are expensive and some may say over priced. Meanwhile places like downtown Minneapolis represent areas in which mixed use spaces are not created and there is disconnect of business and residential, creating a space that only serves a consumer business function, while loosing all sense of residential life. This creates interesting dynamic between the different neighborhoods. As people are constantly going out to downtown or to uptown,
but since the neighborhoods are all separated there are people constantly driving between these locations. By creating these distinctions in areas, Minneapolis looses an ease of use that seems to disconnect these neighborhoodss and force people to find some sort of ride. Consequently, the notion of the areas of urban interest being separate create the feeling of needing a car to be able to adequately move about the different areas of the
city. Thus people living here are gaining and taking advantage of the aspects of living within their own pedestrian friendly neighborhood, but are at the same people who are driving around to other neighborhoods in cars. So where am I going with this, I guess I would say that since these neighborhoods are attracting upper class people, these are the same people driving cars, so there seems to be a problem with creating these
urban villages within Minneapolis as it creates a place where people still need cars to move around the city. While there are busses that serve to bring people around the city, I wonder why there are not any forms of rail lines that would connect these places of interest together, since people living in the locations have the want and need to travel beyond their own "urban village" it would seem like a productive and logical step.
I am not trying to look down upon our bus system, I am more focused on the ease of use that comes from traveling in light rail or underground systems. There is the current light rail system, but there needs to be an expansion within the system to fully engage the city, allowing forpeople to move around to many places withing the city. A good exapmles of succesful light rail system can be observed in Amsterdam where the rails
are worked into the city landscape, providing easy access that is condensed within the roads, bike paths, and side walks. There is coherent way in keeping the space condensed, open, and organized, which allow fo the system to seemlessly exist within the city and connect the city as whole. The centralized station serves as the center with radiating rails leading outward to different parts of the city. With a system like this integrated
into Minneapolis I think there would a be a high increase of public mobility through the different areas of urban interest and a decrease in the need for cars within our city. Now the other aspects of sustainable living come into play like a sustainable economy and community participation and involvement to get increase funding and attention to public transportation.
Although Wheeler brings attention to many important options for sustainable living, I found that the sections on restoration of natural systems and healthy social ecology resonated with me the most. I find that the correlations between a healthy environment and a healthy, functioning community to be totally interrelated, or at least they should be.
Re-greening urban areas has recently been brought to my attention when I met a local man who has started a project called “Urban Farm” which specializes in solar energy, rainwater conservation, composting, season extension, and urban agriculture in general. From our conversation, I became more interested in the relationship between man and nature within urban areas, especially when considering the ever-dwindling amount of nature found within these densely populated places. Growing up in a very rural Wisconsin town, I took for granted the pleasures of natural environments and the abundant green spaces that surrounded me. Now living in Minneapolis, it’s rare to even catch a glimpse of the stars. Now, Minneapolis is by no means a city where nature is absent. There are many parks/parkways that offer green, but it almost seems merely recreational. When Wheeler discusses the artificial landscapes that plague modern cities, it is important to note that these can easily be modified to incorporate plant life, and at the same time, include community members in a way that promotes camaraderie and teamwork.
I say “easily” because models of urban gardening are usually low in cost to begin and maintain, but do need people to run them. That may be the hardest part. Considering we have such an environmentally passive nation that thinks nothing will affect us in our lifetime or that there is nothing we can do to prevent natural disasters from happening, we must make sustainability more appealing from a different viewpoint. I think that’s where Wheeler’s social ecology comes in hand. By promoting community development through urban gardening on school properties, churchyards, commercial rooftops, homes and other vacant or underutilized land, we may be able to attract more volunteers. The products of urban gardening are not just positive for the environment itself, it also can provide nutritional and cost efficient products for local neighborhoods, educate citizens about agriculture and sustainable living and integrate various groups in the community. This can lead to CO2 reductions, a more pleasant urban environment (more greenery), food production, and more social repercussions: tolerance, elimination of racism and other forms of oppression, a greater sense of community and belonging, etc.
There is something about this city that I think would be more open to trying out sustainable practices like urban gardening. Our buildings are perfect for rooftop gardening, solar paneling, and rainwater collection; with a history of co-operatives and other progressive business ideas the social motivation seems to be here too. If there is one thing that I really got out of Wheeler’s reading and my current discussions on sustainability, it is that these core themes for establishing and maintaining a healthy environment include both the physical properties of nature and the social networking of motivated individuals. Nature and people have a symbiotic relationship that cannot be denied, so I think it is our duty to recruit supporters and implement these ideas that will protect our surroundings and the people that live within it.
As a history major I feel a duty to discuss the preservation of local culture in the Twin Cities. I also understand that the culture in this geographic area has changed and will continue to change. These changes in culture were shaped largely through changes in land usage patterns. Looking far enough back in the history of the city there emerges a progression from Native American tribes to European settlement to the last century or so of industrial expansion and gentrification. All these aspects of local cultural history can serve to help guide future land use goals and shape our view of the collective past.
One of the best ways to preserve cultural history is to dedicate land and structures for preservation. Unfortunately, Spirit Island is no longer a part of the St. Anthony Falls complex. Because this island was great landmark during the time of tribal habitation, the construction of a new Spirit Island just below the falls can bring back part of this history. I propose the rebuilding of Spirit Island with only limestone in a natural method, giving the new island to a joint council formed by the Ojibwe, Chippewa and Anishinaabe and restricting access to people allowed by the council. This project will create an exclusive place for Native Americans to rejoin their cultural heritage, damaged as it may be by Europeans and create more cultural diversity in the downtown Minneapolis area.
Another aspect of cultural history was that of industrialization. Again, the St. Anthony Falls area, with all the old flour mills, serves as a perfect example for land usage and the preservation of cultural heritage. The Mill City Museum was completed in 2003, but that project incorporated only a burned shell of one of many mills along that stretch of the river. There are some mills slated for condo redevelopment or demolition now, while others sit and deteriorate from lack of attention. By passing a city ordinance mandating that large structures in the city that contributed significantly to its cultural heritage must be respected, we can ensure that part of the city’s past does not fall victim to commercialization or neglect. This does not need to be burdensome: if a developer wishes to convert an old mill to condos the ordinance can stipulate that the developer must not drastically alter the exterior and leave some portion of the interior intact and viewable to the public. A balance can be struck between commercial interest, to which the city owes a lot of its history, as well as those wishing to preserve that history.
Part of the current evolving history of the central Minneapolis city is centered on art communities. The old Guthrie Theater was torn down less than half a year after the new Guthrie was completed. This retreat to the slash and burn “Urban Renewal” of the 1950s and 1960s that destroyed the Gateway District in downtown needs to be stopped. Pictures can only do so much justice to an era: if a picture is worth 1000 words, how many words is a whole building worth?
Dave Hauser
Wheeler brings up several great ideas about how a city should look if it is sustainable. Two of his aspects are that urban sustainability should include 1) compact, efficient land use, and also 9) preservation of local culture and wisdom. I thought these two actually were quite interesting because as I have been doing my semester project on condoization I realize that the two strikingly conflict. Ecologically, the production and use of condos is really quite great. Building up instead of out lessens the lateral urban sprawl, and is a sustainable way to live. At the same time, the preservation of local culture and wisdom (and also the community participation and involvement #8), suffers. When I interviewed two business owners along Lake Street I saw this confliction right away. A small Latina business owner, Maria, was struggling to make it as an owner because of the gentrification and new taxation on her business. She made it clear that many of her friends have lost their businesses along the street (Latino businesses), and most now struggle to compete with the new Midtown Global Market. Wheeler explains that “uniqueness gibes a region vitality, helps it take advantage of particular local contexts, and make it an interesting place to live” (494) but the problem is that this local culture slips away when new bigger attractions (ie. Global market) come along. He also claims that the urban setting and planning should involve “community participation”, but far was truer in the Midtown area. Local businesses, Latino businesses in particular, were hardly given consideration when the gentrification was set into planning schedules. It really comes down to a power relationship between the upper to middle class white citizens as they fight for condoization believing it will make the city safer and more appealing and the small business owners who hold little power to begin with. It grows increasingly important for us, as a society, to think of ways that plans that involve such ideas as condos, which also involve the preservation of community and culture. This is important for many moral reasons (bumping out the ‘underdog’ is wrong) and also because creating a homogenous society is quite problematic. When we build up condos, it seems to also create enclaves of larger corporations and less local business. When the control of corporations is dominate then the power relationships are even more prominent and those who do not fit the top power mold (upper to middle class, white citizens) than their power and say in a community is jeopardized.
To bring up one more idea about condos, I want to use Wheeler’s quote that states that “It is no longer enough just to throw up cities and suburbs that are ugly, uncoordinated, automobile-dominated, and lacking in parks, sidewalks, local shops, community vitality and sense of place” (490). Jane Jacobs would be appalled with the lack of use of sidewalks in the condo community. The populations that inhabit these residences are utilizing everything within the condo but rarely venture outside of it by foot. When they want to buy grocery, instead of walking a couple of blocks to a nearby co-op, they drive their cars out to the suburbs and shop there. The use of sidewalks is indeed an important aspect to providing community in an area and the lack of use of these seems quite problematic.
I can see where Wheeler would take much liking to Corbusier. Corbusier leaned his mind towards developing cities with the intent of having garden cities where 95% of the ground around skyscrapers 85% of the ground around residential blocks with set-backs to be open, to which Wheeler would be at most content with. Wheeler would though disagree on the Corbusiers favor towards the heavy use of automobiles and the double-decked streetways where the below-the-ground street would be used for heavy traffic and the “ground floor level of the buildings there would be the complicated and delicate network of the ordinary streets taking traffic in every desired direction” (Corbusier, 320). When cars were starting to get hot during Corbusier’s time, he put a lot of emphasis in sprawl and the heavy use of the automobile. He saw that the solution to the issues of density and congestion in the original city would be to spread the city throughout the rural landscape with outer cities having similar amenities to that of the city. Corbusier probably think that there would be implications to his ideas on sprawl, and Wheeler was able to see what Corbusier wasn’t able to see during his time as to how the suburbanization and the automobile has greatly effected not just the urban landscape alone, but throughout the world.
“Restoring urban ecosystems can lead to healthier and more livable cities, while providing important amenities that can help entice residents back from suburbia” (492B). It seems to me that Wheeler is asking for people to head back into the city away from the suburbs. I’m not too sure this would be the best solution. It’s a bit discouraging to see how the planners that we’ve read about have so many great ideas to city planning, but always lack the ability to foresee the implications that planning has on people, the economy, the earth, etc. Of course, I’m not asking that they all should be able to read into the future, but that they should mention some possible implications after giving out a grand scheme to save the world, or the urban landscape for the sake of our course.
It was interesting when Wheeler pointed out that any one economic model holds the answers to everything when “it is likely to be what Paul Hawken terms a “restoration economy” – one which helps restore the environmental and social damage done in the past, and that prevents problems from occurring” (493A). Wheeler and I could relate on this, but I would go on further to say that I think this ideology behind city planning is encompassed not just in economic models, but in other models of change. This may sound pessimistic, but I think it has been inevitable to see that with whatever city planners have proposed and may have seen their ideas executed, there has always been some sort of problem. It’s an endless cycle. To want to make change, to make the change, and to see it’s negative (and positive) implications in result of the changes that were made. And even if some social ills were to be cured, something else always seems to come up.
Comments
I’d like to preface this OBE by saying that I have no idea whether the following public transportation ideas are under future consideration by city officials…
Tomorrow belongs to residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul claiming fame to both cities. Currently the Twin Cities act more like rivaling cousins’ rather then functional interactive cities. According to Wheeler’s theories for urban vitality the Twin Cities would be more sustainable by practicing stronger relations. The obvious rivalry between Minneapolis and St. Paul may one day dissipate if there was additional public transportation to unite the competitive cities. Increased mobility to and from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area would free residents to be more mobile and actually support the idea that the Twin Cities are in fact identical.
Ask anyone in the metro area which side of the river they’re from and immediately you’ll hear a patriotic answer. I’m not suggesting one is better then the other, rather reiterating that the cities do not mirror each other in terms of urban development priorities. Some may argue that the Minneapolis pulse is geared towards entertainment, trendy hotels and the arts scene. Across the river scholarly St. Paul residents have the fortune to access more reputable Universities or the larger blue collar population can unwind at dozens of neighborhood pubs. Minneapolis and St. Paul may mirror each other in terms of metropolitan offerings however; the river the divides this urban crowd does not reflect the overall ideologies’ of both parties. There’s a growing imbalance of social infrastructures which could easily be repaired by simply allowing both cities to be more transient. Enhanced public transportation methods, such as utilizing the light rail or adding city buses on safer routes between the two cities could greatly liberate residents on both sides of the sea…I mean river. Additional public transportation to connect both communities would stop the growing competitive isolation in both cities and abide to Wheeler’s theory of a sustainable urban environment.
“…development that improves the long-term social and ecological health of cities and towns.” (491)
Improved public transportation abides to the majority of Wheelers seven specific theories for an enriched sustainable city; efficient land use, less automobile use, less pollution, better living environment, healthier social ecology, and sustainable economics.
“Urban growth boundaries need to be coupled with policies to increase the efficiency of land use within already built up areas.” (491)
One very resourceful way to respect urban land use is to provide adequate public transportation to the public. Currently the Minneapolis/St. Paul is doing an excellent job at this however there’s room for improvement. Take the MTC bus line; the routes carry urbanites to and for work easily into the downtown district. But to cross the river via bus you better cross you fingers as you head on a cultural adventure down dodgy Lake St. or University Ave. Again, I’m not entirely familiar with all the bus routes in both cities; this has just been my experience with buses going to and from Mpls/St. Paul. Safer bus routes could attract a new bus audience without disrupting urban space. This would ultimately lead to less automobile use.
“Congestion problems can be solved and quality of life improved without building new roads or other infrastructures.” (492)
Giving pedestrians more mobile power through added bus routes or the light rail would inevitably lead to less city air pollution due to fewer automobiles on the road.
“Promoting a healthy and sustainable social ecology means looking for every opportunity to enhance human community.” (493)
Stronger gateways within the metro area would free residents to invest in both markets and therefore claim ownership to both sides of the river. Increased mobility between Minneapolis and St. Paul would aid to a more sustainable economy emphasis would be placed on one local economy versus two foreign communities.
Posted by: OBE thoughts on Mpls vs. St. Paul | February 20, 2007 08:53 PM
For those still awake this was posted by Valerie, not mysterious "OBE thoughts".
Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2007 08:55 PM
I couldn't find this on the blogger's list. Perhaps I should look harder.
I just found out about an event on Saturday the 14th of April at the State Capitol in which folks are biking their and people are speaking and food will be there and stuff. It's about riding your bike to fight Global Warming. Some people are meeting at the Hub on the WestBank(where I saw a flyer)and riding over to the Capitol together. This is grassroots stuff, yo. It relates to Wheeler and my paper.Be a part of efforts to change Mpls' development in a green way.(propaganda, anyone?)
Valerie, I found your blog interesting. However, I don't see Lake street or University as being so "dodgy" maybe it's a personal opinion thing. I do think you're right about the need for mor attention to crossing the bridge though. I wouldn't be surprised if the University and Lake St, routes are some of the cities' most highly used routes. I think they might even possibly be over-dense. Certainly it's hard to find a spot on a 16, 50, 21 or 53 during rush hour, in spite of their frequency.
Posted by: Tavia | April 5, 2007 12:36 PM