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.

In other news, it’s interesting that two transportation oriented organizations have decided to rebrand themselves recently: TransLink the Bay Area’s regional transit fare card will change itself to Clipper (http://2cu2.sl.pt ; see also the post by the Bay Area’s Akit) through a $500,000 rebranding campaign; and the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center will become SafeTREC, the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center. (http://www.safetrec.berkeley.edu/)

Both names are about as interesting as the iPad; would not have been my choices since one sounds like people are riding trains like pirates and the other big Vulcans fans who walk around saying ‘live long and prosper.’  Both still have great things going for them but in an era of fiscal crisis, it makes me wonder if rebranding transportation is responsible?  It doesn’t seem to address or be the solution to ridership or research issues.  It is money well-spent on changing transportation mode shift or doing good transportation research?

In terms of energy use on campuses, a 10 Janurary article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed., discusses the difficulties for campus trying to go off non-renewables.  It cites Penn State which will in 2010 begin to upgrade it’s coal-power steam plants but is now under pressure to pursue more rigorous environmentalism.  The articles notes Ball State University (geo-thermal) and UW-Madison (bio-mass) as examples of colleges pursuing adventurous solutions, but indicates there are costs (many requiring state and federal subsidies) and may lack relability.

Most renewable energy sources are not as reliable, potent, or accessible, and many experts predict that coal will continue providing a significant portion of the nation’s energy. To complicate matters, energy use on growing campuses is more intense than ever—in part because of the living arrangements of students, who occupy bigger spaces and have devices plugged into every wall. Coal is certainly dirty, but colleges that want to stop burning it might have to make significant investments and take some risks to find alternatives.

Likewise the transportation segment is a large portion of institutional GHG emission.   It also is low-hanging fruit for campus wanting to reduce emission — simply shifting travel behavior.  However A separate article from 22 Dec 2009 from ClimateEdu discusses how US cycling and pedestrian infrastructure lags that of European.

American urban planners and road engineers still have a knowledge gap when it comes to building infrastructure for bikes. In Europe, bicyclists enjoy cycling lanes separated from traffic by boundaries. Traffic calming devices and bicycle-specific traffic lights also add to the perception of safety, and European bicyclists can travel long distances without ever coming into close contact with a car.

Similarly to the discussion on coal, many times state and federal subsidies / funding is needed to implement large-scale projects, but that does not preclude incremental steps.   Efficiency and behavioral program, as well as good day-to-day, contextual urban design can help address these step-by-step; with the hope of a large big-hit in the future.

One case study in this, is my hometown Louisville, KY.  During my graduate education in Urban Planning there I had the opportunity to observe and learn from a Mayor who wanted revitalize downtown areas with vibrant entertainment facilities, options for downtown living and increased business growth.  Policy was highly focused on job creation and business incubation in downtown Louisville. It drew from example locations that fostered innovation and creative economies such as Portland, Raleigh-Durham, and the Silicon Valley.  Much of it was based on recommendations from Harvard economist Michael Porter and his report for Louisville in 2002.  Porter believed in business clusters; that the synergies between different job sectors could be in Metro-Louisville’s strengths – technology providing the infrastructure for manufacturing and distribution sectors.  Porter noted strength in companies like Humana (health care sector) and UPS (warehousing and distribution sector).  It’s a bit more technical than Florida’s writing and provides a solid economic base for creative endeavors.

That said, in recent years I’ve watched central focus of economic development become the creation of entertainment / retail districts and a  downtown arenas.   I’ve talked to many locals who believe that the arena (pictured below) will bring money into the community, encourage innovation, community investment and talent retention.

Louisville Downtown Area, Courtesy Louisville Courier Journal

Knowing that something about that strikes me as a bit fishy  Retaining talent is a critical part of job growth, but does a arena or entertainment district really change talent retention.   Could people really afford to live and play where they can’t work; where there may not be adequate professional opportunities?  I would argue that when adequately salaried jobs opportunities are not present there is simply no foundation for people to sustainably support an entertainment economy.

And the fact remains that, like many smaller cities around the world, Louisville remains talent deficient.  As a Brookings Institute report Beyond Merger indicated, while there may be clear past economic policy there is,

“… a talent shortfall…  Talent powers growth; talent brings homegrown jobs, new companies, and higher wages… (highly skilled minds are needed) to move beyond its current status and go to the next level of competitiveness in the emerging economy.”

A lesson to be learned by all urban designers and community planning aficionados…