SustainLane Releases 2006 Sustainable City Rankings
by Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, St. Louis, MO on 06. 2.06
SustainaLane released its 2006 sustainability rankings of the US' fifty largest cities, and the results show that a handful of American cities are positioning themselves as models of sustainable urban development. Portland, Oregon took top honors again, followed by San Francisco and Seattle -- no surprises there. Completing the top ten list were: 4. Philadelphia 5. Chicago 6. Oakland, Calif. 7. New York 8. Boston 9. Denver 10. Minneapolis.
Once we got past the top three, we began to do a little head-scratching. Top 10 cities Philadelphia and New York made another top 10 list this year: the top 10 most polluted cities as ranked by the American Lung Association. In the next tier, we found that Albuquerque, Tuscon, Phoenix and Los Angeles all made the top 25, and Las Vegas was close behind at #27. Given all of these cities' reputations for massive amounts of sprawl and water consumption, their placement seemed... well... interesting. Looking at SustainLane's very thorough overview of its methodology gave us a better sense of how and why some cities fared as well as they did.
First, the only criteria for inclusion in the survey was the size of a city's population, so while the folks at SustainLane chose urban areas that represent a large proportion of the US' overall population, they immediately ruled out smaller cities, like Burlington, VT, and Durham, NC, that are doing wonderful things but didn't make the cut because of their size. Despite their relatively wasteful ways, Southwestern cities had to be included in the rankings simply because they're huge centers of (largely unsustainable) growth. More importantly, though, one of the survey's primary methodological criterion was "Data or information sets that would be of relatively equal importance to cities across the United States. For example, water conservation programs were not included because they would be much more important for a desert city in the Southwest than for a city with a plentiful water supply." While this makes for a much cleaner comparison between urban centers, it also ignores one of the fundamental tenets of sustainable development: adapting to the natural environment as it is. There's no doubt that attempting to weigh cities by the unique features of their environment makes for a much more difficult comparison; at the same time, a city embarking on a truly sustainable path is not one that does what all other cities are doing, but rather one that takes a look at its own natural environment and figures out how to live within it as lightly as possible.
We certainly don't mean to dismiss SustainLane's rankings outright -- cities like Portland and San Francisco are making tremendous strides in addressing their ecological footprints, and it's important to take note of and applaud these efforts. We would certainly hope, though, that in future surveys, the folks at SustainLane, as well as others publishing such rankings, make a greater effort to incorporate the diversity of ecosystems small and large into their methodology, and to choose cities by multiple criteria. Perhaps it's not even necessary to rank cities, but to simply recognize those taking genuinely sustainable steps forward. Boston and Phoenix can both make sincere efforts towards improving their environmental quality and preserving the resources on which they depend, but if they both take the same steps, at least one will probably not make much progress. And Durham may outdo them both... :: The SustainLane 2006 US City Rankings
Toxic Shock: Avoiding Dangerous Chemicals Around Us
|
The TH Field Trip: Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont
|
Well said Jeff. Everyone loves rankings. Top 10 this, top 10 that. There is definitely use for it, and a ranking can inspire action in some people, but you can't forget to take your grain of salt with these things!
You might want to actually travel to Albuquerque before you cast such wide aspersions on this great city. I wouldn't exactly call it an urban spawl and wasteful of water. All new housing is limited to 20% grass area over the entire lot. There are no sigificant man made lakes, unlike Phoneix and other southwestern cities. Yes the city is growing rapidly on the west side, but as the report notes, a light rail system is in the planning, and the bus system is growing.
ali -- not casting aspersions on any particular city, but rather considering the phenomenon of massive growth in the SW and its environmental consequences. Many of these cities are waking up to the costs of their growth: my former hometown of Vegas is also taking a variety of actions to address such problems (though it's still growing rapidly). That's not the issue here -- I'm concerned about attaching the modifier "sustainable" to cities with development patterns that have been, at least historically, pretty unsustainable.
Listing is great, but does that mean you want to LIVE there? Chicago at #5, Boston #8... no thanks.
Some good info but I think it will take some time for the numbers to mean anything. Minneapolis at #15, with text comments about zero green incentives.
There's no such thing as a sustainable city.
The very nature of a city requires it to import food from outside, and such high densities of people burden all the surrounding landscape. This is a big topic Derrick Jensen discusses very well.
You may have done a little head-scratching, but I did a LOT of head-scratching when I saw Denver ranked 9th. How Denver even ranked on that list is beyond me. It's one of the most frustrating things about living here....reading great articles about great people doing cool stuff in cities like Portland, Seattle, etc., and looking out over Denver on almost any given day to see a huge brown cloud hovering over the city.
Aside from a homebuilder out here that touts their "green" designs and construction--but only in the occasional newpaper ad and radio spot, but not near as much as they should--there seems to be little else going on in the way of conservation, reuse, reduction, and recycling. At least, nothing that gets noticed and adopted. We're even getting a coal-fired power plant, that nobody wants, constructed for us down in Pueblo. Whoohoo! That's progress!! Thanks, Xcel Energy. Enjoy your steak dinners in your luxury homes.
(Funny aside: Xcel is having trouble getting the plant built because of union labor issues. My heart bleeds for them.)
No, SustainLane, I must disagree with you about Denver, as much as I'd like otherwise. People complain about the landscape and horizon when the issues of wind power are brought up, yet are perfectly content to breathe the giant brown cloud. Getting LightRail to expand to a useful size is like getting the Pope to swear during mass. Getting a transpo alternative to the mountains is the same; always claims of a 25-year study to find the best solution, which is pointless because it'll all have changed by then. Meanwhile small companies that make solar panels, alternative energy solutions, or even the solar-powered train manufacturer/developer up north, are all looked over like yesterday's paper. And there seems to be a near-complete lack of interest in using reclaimed materials; the closest I've seen to it is a demolition salvage place near downtown that sells neat stuff at ridiculous prices for the upscale so they can be chic.
We are rich in sun and wind, yet we are poor for change.
No, SustainLane, Denver doesn't make the list.
What's wrong with Chicago or Boston? I would live just about anywhere before I would move to the artificial circus that is Orlando...
Chicago is actually quite livable year-round, whereas I don't think I would want to live in a tourist-trap town that's hot as an oven most of the year. I hate AC.
Seeing as so much of Orlando's economy is based on people flying in and out of town, with little or no interest in the local environment and economy, I see them having far more hurdles making their city 'green'.
Hey, the director of the US Rankings just launched a blog:
warrenkarlenzig.com. You can post any concerns you have about the rankings, directly to Warren himself. Thanks Treehugger! First of all, in no way would SustainLane be able to cover small towns in the same fell swoop; the 50 largest cities was work enough for us. Besides, it would be mixing apples and, well, crab-apples. If I'm going to talk about St. Augustine, FL, or Columbia, MO, or Durham, CO, I need to talk about others in the same league. In no way does this study take away from the amazing work that, say, the likes of Santa Monica is doing. We included them in our study last year, and they came out at #5 (Berkeley, #3).
Also, to speak of the cities in terms of their air quality, or urban sprawl and water consumption problems, is a one-sided story- as in the case of the American Lung Association. But when you bring the pieces all together, across over 2000 data points, things get very interesting, and profound profiles emerge, profound stories.
The US City Rankings is in fact about cities adapting to the environment as it is, the changes that they are making, and can make, which have a profound impact on the individual.
Some cities just do certain things better than other cities, and other cities should know about it, because they just might be able to do it too.
Ben -- I appreciate your responding to this piece! One of the things that really struck me (and perhaps this is a better question for Warren) is the removal of water conservation from the comparison. As a former resident of the SW, it seems to me that such efforts are absolutely necessary to considerations of sustainability in such areas -- I know in the late 90s, for instance, there was talk of Vegas running out of water by 2010. That's what I meant by "adapting to the environment as it is" -- questions about resources and their conservation do change from place to place and region to region. I also know that Vegas, and other SW cities, have been working to address water issues.
With that said, though, I do want to commend you guys on undertaking such a comprehensive study. While I stick by my criticism, I know that you know that they're meant constructively, and made with the understanding that SustainLane has taken on a Herculean effort here -- I do recognize that making the changes I suggest would make a complex task even more difficult. Still, I'd love to see more about the cities, large or small, making definitive strides...