1980 - 2010, Low-Density Continues to Dominate the American Landscape

If you're like me...

you see that suburban America comes with a giant pile of problems we haven't even begun to really quantify, fully understand, or even remotely pay the cost of yet. And it is frustrating we really haven't shifted the growth model much in response to this growing call to action (well, at least those in the industry hear the call, I don't know about the general house hunter).

Suburban problems...What am I talking about? Here's a short list:

• Air + water pollution from additional reliance on single-occupancy automotive transportation and the massive amounts of carbon fuel used to power the 1.2 billion cars (and growing) on the road
• Expensive infrastructure that hasn't paid for its own growth + maintenance in the long-run
• Suburbia is a tax burden to the urban economic engines of the country
• Uses more energy, water, resources that, unless technology can save us, is not consumed at rates of sustainable yield
• Suburban poverty is more difficult to manage and connect people to the social services they desperately need
• Health impacts adding inches to our waists and numerous other disease-associated factors
• Social isolation
• Loss of natural habitats and ecosystem services
• Loss of fertile farmland

A better alternative?

Urban environments are not without their own challenges of negative inflictions on our personal and ecological health, but they are measurably more sustainable from either a financial, environmental, and /or social perspective. Should they be forced upon everyone? No (and do yourself a favor and not listen to crazy talk that the Government is going to make you in accordance to the UN's Agenda 21).

And then there are those who do low-density responsibly. There are those who have a low-impact lifestyle in the countryside who garden, live locally, and make the most of their land in an ecologically responsible way. Bravo to them.

Most of us need a reality check. 

We at least owe it to the future generation to have a healthy, collaborative, sustainable lifestyle alternative to the human environment we seem to keep mass-producing for decades. The attached image demonstrates just how large of a tide we're up against. Even if you don't want to give up this suburban lifestyle (which is likely the only lifestyle you've ever really known), you owe it to your city to become a supporter of your downtown to grow into a densified, attractive, car-optional, pedestrian-oriented, bike-embracing, sufficient-minded, creative, compact, healthy, connected, energy- and water-efficient, tax-surplus oasis with a promising future.

Entry inspired by: Richard Florida's article in CityLab (9/14/16)...

The Difficulties of Density

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/09/the-difficulties-of-density/499571/

Interconnectedness

No one person, one profession, one chemist, one biologist can live in a modern city, while isolated, and consider themselves truly sustainable.  Communities rely upon common goals, common space, common infrastructure, etc.  All these commonalities mean that we share in one another’s fate.  Progress or regress is shared in some spillover.  Our environments are places where we exchange ideas, money, emotion, illness, stress, and so much more.

Our lives are interconnected.  To some, that is met with alarm and distrust.  Such reaction is usually followed by withdrawing as much as possible and they worry about getting out, becoming self-reliant, and even “off the grid.”  But even when extreme measures have been taken, a person’s water, air, and food can become threatened from far away distances.

Let’s not fall into the trap of every-man-for-himself.  I believe that the only way to confront the challenges of sustainability are to embrace our interconnectedness and work together with our own unique perspective to weave a complete vision of what our world could be.  Biologists, urbanists, psychologists, surgeons, survivalists, engineers, mothers... EVERYONE has a life to live with their own needs to meet.  With cooperation and embracing our shared existence, we can come together in ways that promote the Social Capital I mention in my Sustainability post.

What does something with that much synergy and cooperation look like?  I am not sure myself.  What I do know is that we cannot assume that we have all the answers within our own fields of knowledge.  There is a complexity to this world that no one person can put together alone.  The good news is that today’s technology has us more connected than ever.  A simple Google search eliminates many mysteries.  But even Google has its limitations.  We need a mix of expert opinions with contextual applications to help resolve the errors of our society.  Recognize failure when you see it.  Don’t be afraid to not have the answer.  Do find the strength to start (or engage with) a coalition to change it.

http://www.thesustainabilitycoalition.org/

http://arcosanti.org/

Build a sense of community right where you live by getting involved in community development meetings held by your local city government!  Google the name of your city and you will find that there are teams of people who are employed by your tax dollars that can work to make this happen --- but they need your involvement.

Sustainability Means More Than What You Might Think

Sometimes "buzz words" take on a life of their own. Definitions become distorted, or hijacked by someone with a profit motive, or manipulated for personal gain.  I happen to believe sustainability is a big deal, but it is hard to define what it means in certain contexts. Too often I see/hear "sustainability" used interchangeably with "environmentally friendly;" or even worse, I my opinion, separating the collective spheres with descriptions such as "this business plan is an economically sustainable proposal."

I might be parsing words here, but the sustainable diagram offered as a graphic in a ton of literature (and I share with you here) offers a definition that shows all three spheres of social, ecological and economic.  It takes all three spheres, and not simply because ideas sound good in threes.  Sustainable ventures require all three "pillars of sustainability," otherwise it is something other than sustainable (perhaps viable or equitable even).  The word venture isn't haphazardly chosen either.  Venture implies action across time.  This is critical -- it's oxymoronic to say "this is sustainable for the short-run."  In fact, some of the earliest definitions of sustainability offered by the Brundtland Commission (back in 1987) understood long timelines as a critical consideration.  The Commission's famous one sentence definition is:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Sustainability's definition is, almost 25 years later, still being refined. So here's my contribution:

There are key components of sustainability that I think can easily get lost in the definition, and while they may seem elementary, I want to be sure that these components are realized.  The three spheres of sustainability always concern:

• time
• need
• activity (or exchange)

Socially, sustainability requires communities to build "Social Capital."  This means over time, and into the future, communities build bonds that foster cooperation and a respect for common goals and essential needs for themselves and future generations.  It spawns culture and friendships that build families and priceless experiences of life.  Social capital is exchanged as volunteering ideas, a helping hand, knowledge, experience, laughter, writing, blogs, movies, music, performance, etc.  Social Capital isn't intended for personal gain.  It's built up as a collective experience for those who are connected as neighbors, friends, distant pen-pals, or random acquaintances.

Ecologically, sustainability requires natural systems to operate in ways that maintain the physical health that we cherish.  Health for ourselves and health for other life.  Life is connected in a series of interdependent relationships that we have yet to fully understand.  This system has a life-supporting capacity that either can be deteriorated or invested in (this is known as Natural Capital).  There are many series of exchanges and activities that go into the clean conditions of our water, air, and food that are essential to our life and the life of future generations.

Economically, sustainability requires our own activities and exchanges between ourselves and our natural environment to not disrupt the exchanges previously described.  In fact, if it can support the richness of the previously mentioned activities, that is even better.  It is one thing to expect a business venture to respect our society and our planet, but to support those in a rich, creatively engaged kind of way.... I'd consider that Sustainability 2.0.