To Go Green, Live Closer to Work
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 10. 2.07
flanneurs on the Toronto Psychogeopgraphic Walk
A new study by the Urban Land Institute called "Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change" confirms what many TreeHuggers already knew: compact development -- mixing housing and businesses in denser patterns, with walkable neighborhoods -- could do as much to lower emissions as fuel economy increases and other measures now being contemplated. The report notes that the expected 59% increase in the number of miles Americans drive between 2005 and 2030 will outpace any reduction in greenhouse gases from better fuel efficiency of cars and trucks.
"We can no longer afford to ignore land use," said Steve Winkelman, director of the Transportation Program at the Center for Clean Air Policy, and one of the report's authors. "Urban development is both a key contributor to climate change and an essential factor in combating it."
From Smart Growth America:
At the same time, the book documents market research showing a majority of future housing demand lies in smaller homes and lots, townhouses, and condominiums in neighborhoods where jobs and activities are close at hand. The researchers note that demographic changes, shrinking households, rising gas prices, lengthening commutes and cultural shifts all play a role in that demand.
The report cites real estate projections showing that two-thirds of development expected to be on the ground in 2050 is not yet built, meaning that the potential for change is profound. The authors calculate that shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns would save 85 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030. The savings over that period equate to a 28 percent increase in federal vehicle efficiency standards by 2020 (to 32 mpg), comparable to proposals now being debated in Congress.
“Clearly, the development industry has a key role in the search for solutions to offset the impact of climate change,” said ULI Senior Resident Fellow William H. Hudnut, III, former mayor of Indianapolis. “Whether close-in or in suburbs, well-planned communities give residents the option to walk, bike or take transit to nearby shopping, retail and entertainment. Being able to spend less time behind the wheel will benefit our health, our pocketbooks and the environment.”::Smart Growth America
Back in Los Angeles, there are skeptics. James Burling, litigation director for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative group that has battled environmentalists over land-use issues, dismissed "the latest anti-sprawl crusade based on global warming" as "no different from every other anti-sprawl campaign from Roman times to the present."
"So long as people ardently desire to live and raise children in detached homes with a bit of lawn, there is virtually nothing that government bureaucrats can do that will thwart that," he said.::LA Times
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Is Your Kitchen Garden Toxic? 5 Ways To Fix Polluted Soil For Safe Homegrown Food
- Avoid Evaporating Gas: Park in the Shade and Buy Gas When it's Cool
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Nature Walks Make You Smarter
- Focus Earth: May 23, 2009: New Fuel Standards and Hurricane Forecast
Living closer to work isn't always an option, financially. As people live more crammed together and more conveniently closer to their work, the price goes up substantially.
I work as a designer in a city (Hoboken, NJ) which I can not afford the $2600 a month average rent.
I live 10 miles away, yet have an hour to hour and a half commute daily each way (in my diesel VW bug.) There is no logical mass transit option for me (three buses and three trains would take 2+ hours each way.)
Moving closer to mass transit drives up the rental price. Unfortunately, buying is no where on the horizon.
Other people who work here also have similar commutes. This is the increasing disparity between the rich and poor - luxury and necessity.
I'm sure many people would love to walk or bike to work, but it's usually an impossibility. Being green is, as of now, expensive and out of reach.
Curiously, the 100+ year old building i work in (former Otis elevator factory, turned Tootsie Roll factory, turned parade studio,) is due for demolition in two years to make room for more luxury condos.
A great post. I view the decision to live in suburbia and commute daily by car to a far away job as deeply unethical. A five mile carpool of three commuters in a hummer is more efficient at moving people than a "treehugger" driving himself 20 miles in from the suburbs in a hybrid car. Perhaps not many hummer drivers carpool, but the point is this: the fossil fuel use of commuting has as much to do with distance traveled as vehicle type. Add to this the fact that this post primarily addresses carbon costs of suburbia. Long commutes also necessitate more road construction, lead to greater separation form our neighbors and local vendors, cause more road deaths of animals from deer to millions of insects, and increase the likelihood of tragic accidents. Running away to the suburbs under the veiled rationilizations of "getting close to the woods" or "accessing better schools" should no longer be tolerated. The single most justifiable reason for long commutes remains housing prices. We need to push our local leaders to support infill, support dense, mixed use, mixed income development, and expand growth planning to involve increased integration of county and municipal decision making. Neither humanity nor the planet can not afford more growth like Phoenix.
Of course people with kids may want detached housing but given a graying workforce, the choice of some not to have kids and the costs of living far from work the conservative idealogoue misses the point. The demand for housing will be central, compact and convenient.
When the inner cities become cesspools of crime, decent people move out. When a community is established and some government slug determines there is insufficient diversity there, section 8 housing vouchers move criminals out of the city into this nice neighborhood, causing more flight. The millions of people entering the country illegally (and the government's unwillingness to do anything about it) wreak havoc on the environment. Unlike people who have a decent education and income, they (the illegals and the chronic poor) realize that each additional child means bigger government welfare checks, leading to more strain on our infrastructure.
Stop adding a million (or more) third worlders to our population each year and we can begin to stabilize.
Wow thanks for that insight Bob! It's poor people's fault! Oh wait, don't forget the immigrants too! Thanks for solving the problem for us! Well folks looks like we can go home, Bob just solved all the problems created by suburban sprawl. Just keep out the poor and the immigrants. Now all we need is some sort barrier we could erect in order to keep them out.
Brian, here's an idea...
Work from a home office in the inner city, sell your car (and all the costs associated with it) and live free! It's not as great a stretch as you might imagine.
On a recent business trip to Vancouver, my site contact suggested I stay at a Hotel on the Skytrain (subway) line. I went one step further. I didn't rent a car at all. I was there for almost four weeks without a car, and do you know what? I can't explain how much of a relief it was to not have to endure big city traffic and worry about parking. Not only that but I actually walked the entire city and enjoyed it in a completely different way.
Living close to work is a big quality of life improvement. No commute, not having to deal with cars and parking, walking around and seeing other humans, these things all make life more worth living.
I live in London, and in a city like this, with clogged roads and an overcrowded public transport network, living close enough to walk to work goes a long way to making life more bearable. It's a nice 20-30 minute walk each way, which means as well as saving me money and making life easier, I also get up to an hour of light cardio excercise done each day without even trying.
Sometimes living closer to work isn't an option, but my husband and I plan to move to a small city where work will be closer to us.
Currently, we live in a major metropolitan area. Our apartment is an hour's drive from our workplace (we work in high tech at the same company). We carpool together, and work 10-6 or 11-7 to avoid rush hour traffic. Otherwise, our commute would be 1.5 hours each way. We would love to live closer to work, but we can't afford it. Our apartment is the closest place we can afford. We would also love to use mass transit, but it would take us a half hour longer each way, and it's more expensive than carpooling for us.
Our solution is to move to the small city (~20,000 people) where my husband grew up. I will work from home, and he might, too. If he can't, his commute will be 15 minutes at most. Even though we will be living in a detached house with a yard instead of an apartment, we plan to have a large garden and chickens for eggs (we don't eat meat).I think living in our own house, but eliminating or dramatically shortening our commute and growing much of our own food will be better for us and the environment than living in an apartment in the big city and carpooling.
I recommend moving away from large & expensive urban areas (LA,SF,DC,NY,Boston, etc...) to a less expensive area so you can live closer to work. I moved from Boston to Florida a few years ago. I used to commute 90 minutes a day and put 25k a year on my car. Now I live closer to work because housing is less expensive and I only put about 8k miles a year on my car.... It's a win-win situation..... better for the environment, my safety, and happiness.
If people would leave these congested large metro areas, the prices would also fall for the people who choose to stay.... ergo they also can afford to move closer to there jobs.
I will start off my saying that I really like mixed use development and traditional neighborhood design and I am turned off by stereotypical suburbia. I would definitely prefer to live in a mixed use area than be surrounded by several square miles of cookie-cutter homes. However, I am opposed to the current methods being used to encourage such development.
The county in which I live, Montgomery County Maryland, has a large amount regulation in relation to development, and Maryland is one of the states that promotes so-called Smart Growth. I do not like the heavy government regulation of development because I believe the free market is the best means of producing development in which people will like to live. Responding to price signals is a better means of making such decisions than through the decree of a small number of government officials. I do not like Smart Growth because it is not only an insulting term--i.e., if it is not smart growth, it must be dumb growth--but because it is putting a happy face to cover up more government regulation.
It is government regulation that produced suburbia in the first place. A standard set of rules has been in place in the municipalities of this country for the past 60 years. Some of these rules in most jurisdictions include prohibitions on accessory units for rent (mother-in-law apartments), minimum lot sizes, and required parking ratios. If the government does not like a developer's plan, a small group of bureaucrats has veto power. Instead of repealing these rules or reforming them to adhere to the urban planning principles refined over the decades, more rules are created and incentives are created that end up having perverse consequences, such as municipalities allowing greater densities if some of the units are reduced in price in the name of affordable housing. At the same time, many of these municipalities are giving tax breaks to private businesses such as Wal-Mart to locate in their city! If that Wal-Mart is your standard big box store, government is being double-faced.
Government is not entirely to blame. It is still troublesome trying to finance mixed use development, as those developers must secure separate financing for the residential and commercial components of their plans. However, financial packaging evolved as a response to governmental regulations. Once the government regulations are reduced and improved, the financial packaging will improve, as it will respond to market demand from developers eager to finance communities in which people want to live.
Instead of government deciding how future development should evolve, the private developers should be in charge. If the developers and government want to work together freely, that is fine. However, it should not be a relationship where the government's gun is at the head of the developer. Developers should be serving their shareholders by producing what their customers want, not by producing what the government wants.
It can be done!
I've lived on or near the East Side of Milwaukee for the last 20 years without a car - eighteen of those years spent as a parent of two. My husband and I have been able to create a lifestyle for ourselves that requires very little use of our one family car - he drives, but I've never even taken the time to get a driver's license. We have always rented flats close to shopping, the childrens' schools, and my workplace. We use the car on the weekends to see family that's a bit farther away than we can get via foot or bicycle, and sometimes use it for bigger shopping trips - not quite ideal - but trying to get closer to it.
The finest satisfaction comes on snowy winter mornings when my ten minute walk to work gets me here in plenty of time to settle in, start the coffee, and wait for my longer-distant commuting coworkers to come barreling through the door - their mornings already ruined by a long & frustrating commute.
Why is it that when we all look at a cleaner commute or a greener house or even a super green car that no one ever looks at the avaition industry? Does anyone thing that the 4000 jets in the sky each day, with 1200 horse power engines have anything to do with global warming? I just cant accept the fact that I have to walk to work , which isnt a option, or buy a "green" car when I cant ever breath clean air on the street in New York. If my car is making the earth bad its because there isnt any political party willing to say "I think we should fund alternative energy and not war". They would never insult the oil companies.
And as far as green cars, no one can tell me what they are going to do with the used batteries.
People are not driving to work because they dont want to take public transportation or because they cant live closer to work ( although who can afford to?). People have learned that they can only be loyal to their companies to a certian extent. Tommorrow the company could be gone. People like myself are going to where the jobs are. Because they have to. I know people that commute a 100 miles a day because thats the only job that they could get when they were laid off.
And if any of you out there were ever laid off, I am willing to bet that you drove to the market where the sales were and you would take any job to pay the rent ot mortage and feed the kids.
Yes I am in favor of a Green society and I know that we have to start somewhere. But I will buy my CF blubs and turn lights off and even have a compost bin for my garden. But I cant give up my two cars and the two salaries that they bring in and survive.
If I have ofended anyone I appologize but lets get real in our expectations and make our goals attainable.
We live in St. Paul Mn. and share one car for 3 adults about 25 mpg. We almost never travel alone, and my husband either bikes to work or takes the bus (this is Minnesota after all) about 8 miles from work, he has a bike path. Our oldest son does have a motorcycle, which gets 50 mpg that he uses to get to work 11 miles from home, there is no bike path. We live in the city, in a single family house, on a small lot, and grow some of our own things. Shop local, farmers market. We reuse, renew and recycle. We compost, we are frugel. Isn't it enough?
We moved from the burbs into the city, because it was taking to much time for my husband, to bus to and from work. You spent hours a day just going to the grocery store. Frankly, there were no kids in the neighborhood who played outside. There was no way for mom's to meet unless you drove to a Mom's Club meeting. It was sad. We moved into the city, got to know our neighbors the first day! It's like living in a small town. However, we do pay more for our house to live here, and utilities are more. It isn't an option for everyone. Even though our transportation costs have decreased considerably, it's really not enough to even things out.
Wouldn't change a thing though, we can walk to the grocery store, coffee shop, etc... What more could we do? I don't see anyone with any better ideas... so I don't know what else we could do... and I think anyone who is aware of their impact is doing their best. What else is there?
The government has no policy on low income housing or on new towns. Rather, its policy is for market forces to provide the needs associated with urban living. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Developers want to make money. Below market housing is not profitable, comparatively speaking.
And cities are getting larger, making close in stuff more dear. This, to me, means that green is a move the well off are able to make.