For the past few months, we’ve been mulling over our feelings about the celebration of ‘parkitecture’ that has been happening in Miami over the past year.  In celebrating parking garages as civic structures architects Herzog & de Meuron put an interesting spin on a usually under-utilized land use.

While the New York Times gushes over the facility, we still have questions — mainly about the ethos of an auto centric society embeded in the structure.  Sure it has retail spaces and can double as event space; sure it is big airy and light-filled, but something about it feels wrong given the alternative dialogues being had carbon reduction (See the 2030 Challenge).  The building predicament. As stated in the times,

It is, in many ways, an ode to Miami’s flashy automobile culture. Rather than seeking to hide cars, as garages have done for decades, it openly celebrates them.

And therein lies the paradox; how can we realistically celebrate the auto, and retain a firm commitment to address climate?  And hence our internal struggle.

Share

“Mr. Gehry’s design is about bringing that same sensibility — the focus on refined textures, the cultivation of a sense that something has been shaped by a human hand — to the digital age.”

So the New York Times reviews the new building at 8 Spruce Street designed by star-chitect Frank Gehry — the tallest luxury residential tower in New York City.  And it appears to be true from the inside and out – a beautiful and sculptural exterior with a function, cozy interior based on Mr. Ouroussoff’s assessment.  Many of the architects earlier buildings had beautiful exteriors but poorly thought out interiors, “criticized for creating wildly sculptural forms that are nothing more than masks.”  But this building appears not to do that and, if so it is likely to be some of Gehry’s best work.

But given the beauty of this facade as it reaches from Gotham to the sky — one has to wonder if the beauty is skin deep.  Nothing is mentioned in the review about the building’s performance.  Gehry is not known for producing the most green, high performing buildings, but one has to wonder — if this building is to provide a reference point for design for the digital age, then how does it speak about sustainability.  Does it make any kind of statement other than reinforcing the consumption of the “pampered young professionals” who will reside there?

Share

This new resource from Planning for Healthy Places (a project of the Public Health, Law and Policy) of interest to groups working to establish community gardens on private land, Model lease, gardener agreement, rules, and more… http://www.phlpnet.org/CommunityGardenToolkit

For the first time, we are making audio and transcripts of keynote speeches, slides, and papers available online as an eConference. Now, you may register for the conference and listen to, and review or download all the presentations. Access is available until May 1st by creating an account at http://www.livablecities.org/user/register. Keynote speeches and papers have also been published in the form of eight new Documentation Sets on specific themes. Your city, firm, or university will find these invaluable resources.

The IMCL work of making our cities healthy and child-friendly continues. In the near future, we shall announce a Call for Papers and Invitation to Exhibit for the 49th IMCL Conference to take place in Portland, OR, May 2012. If you have subscribed to the IMCL Newsletter (see below), you will receive the first announcement.

Share

The project was one of the Obama Administration’s top priorities yet in the Berkeley political process it fell flat. While testimony on the topic was split evenly among supporters and the opposition, it was clearly one divided along generational lines with younger citizens in favor and older opposed. It was also and heavily influenced by local neighbors fearful of the transit project.

One main opponent of the plan was Councilman Kriss Worthington who fed fears about loss of local bus service and loss of local business. Many street vendors attested that their business would be threatened despite the fact that the pedestrian space available to them would increase significantly under the project. Paradoxically a UC Berkeley sustainable design professor and neighborhood resident (Matt Kondolf; a hydrologist by expertise), spoke out against the project because he did not believe data in studies indicating that the project was sustainable and would produce greenhouse gas reductions. This was in direct position to support from environmental advocacy groups such as Sierra Club, TransForm, Livable Berkeley, Bicycle Friendly Berkeley, and Friends of BRT.

This combination of unfortunate events leads us here at Livagreen.com, not only to question the primacy of Berkeley as one of the leading environmental communities in the US, but to think about the condition of the environmental movement in general. In a time were ‘paradigm shift’ is a key buzz word to address climate change, how do we balance the perspective of old environmentalism (small, quaint and green) against new environmentalism (livable, dense and urban)? Can we support no-growth and smart growth at the same time? How can we as a community invest in transit when environmentally conscious Prius drivers won’t support local projects? Environmental planning has become fractured along these lines – something that compromises the entire movement.

A July 2009 article in the East Bay Express began,

Berkeley (CA) has been a national leader in the fight against global warming. Last fall, the city launched its innovative, municipally financed solar-power program. And in early June, the city council adopted an aggressive Climate Action Plan that seeks to greatly lower Berkeley’s greenhouse gas emissions. And yet the current fight over a proposal that would help curtail suburban sprawl by allowing dense development in downtown has been fierce…

Dense development in Berkeley did fail, and this alludes to the problem in Berkeley and elsewhere around the country. The problem is that many of us practice hypocritical sustainability. We will vote one way and act another. We ask our leaders for change and then complain about it when it occurs. We are content with change as long as it doesn’t impact us. We practice NIMBYism under the guise of idealism.

For Berkeley, a city that has had such a shining track record of environmental achievement and positive activism in the past, it is unfortunate that they have become the example of what not to do; a circus of bad environmental policy. For the rest of us — it is a wake up call. We cannot afford to be complacent in our personal lives. Change, and ultimately pain, must be dealt with if we are to seriously address climate change. We cannot continue to live lives of environmental hypocrisy.

Share