Once There Were Brownfields
Two pieces of somewhat hopeful news on urban redevelopment in Washington State. First, from today's Post-Intelligencer: with the help of EPA grants, Seattle is cleaning up and redeveloping some contaminated urban sites to build new housing -- including, apparently low-income and affordable housing units. And in what seems to me to be a wise move, they're involving community groups in the cleanup:
Making sure the cleanups are done right is also a concern for Yalonda Sinde, executive director of Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, a Seattle organization advocating for environmental protection in low-income and minority communities.
She's pleased that in recent years more federal cleanup funding is going to non-profit community groups located in the areas where the projects are being done.
"We're the ones that are impacted if it's not dealt with correctly, so we're going to advocate for the best cleanup," Sinde said.
And second, from the Spokane Journal of Business, an article on a proposed development--1,000 residences, plus commercial space and a public market, near downtown Spokane:
[The] project, on 90 vacant acres above the north bank of the Spokane River west of Monroe, will result in an influx of 2,000 or more residents who will live near Spokane's heart, Johnson says. He says that Spokane's downtown is largely empty after 6 p.m. each day, but bringing so many new residents so close to the downtown will bring new energy and economic opportunities to the city.
I have no idea what will come of these efforts. But as Eric says, given that the alternative redeveloping already built-up areas is more sprawl at the urban fringe, more power to them!
Density We Can Afford
Apropos of Clark's density posts. I thought I'd try a new tack. It's a risky one, because I'm disagreeing with my boss. Sort of.
First, I agree with Clark, that supply-side housing policy (increasing density) keeps city housing more affordable than it otherwise would be. But I also believe (with Sheldon Cooper) that market-based mechanisms cannot meet the housing needs of lower- and middle-income people because the market is structurally incapable of meeting these challenges. (And as a matter of practice the market is already failing a sizeable segment of the region's population.)
So I say: forget about the market. Apart from the environmental concerns, the biggest reason to favor in-city density is that the alternative to density--sprawl--is much worse for poor people. It's much worse for the middle-class too, as well as the public's coffers and a whole array of other things that we should care about. Density isn't a magic fix, but it's certainly better than sprawl.
Myron Orfield, at the Metropolitan Area Research Corporation (MARC), has argued convincingly (to me, anyway) that sprawl exacerbates the worst forms of economic inequality. At first blush, this is nothing new: everyone is familiar with the post-WWII suburban housing boom and highway building that abetted white flight from central cities, leaving behind ossified pockets of poverty.
But Orfield argues further that sprawl is still ratcheting up the harm.
Every Road Has its Price
More from the impossible-is-catching-on-department. San Francisco is studying the idea of charging motorists fees--often called congestion pricing--for driving on some of its most-congested roads at peak hours. The city has been inspired in part by London's successful example, which mayor Ken Livingstone, in town for World Environment Day, has been talking up: Congestion has decreased some 30 percent--or 50,000 cars--in central London since pricing was implemented two years ago. (Many other cities are also discussing variations, such as HOT lanes, on the congestion pricing model.)
Meanwhile, Great Britain is considering something more ambitious yet: a national road-pricing scheme that would use satellite and GPS technology to make drivers pay by the mile to use the most-congested routes.
Green Beauty Label Axed
Last week, the US Department of Agriculture announced it won't allow the "USDA Organic" label on cosmetics or personal-care products. The decision comes as a blow not only to the natural-product companies that have been spending money and time to coordinate their practices and products with the USDA's standards, but to consumers as well.
Standardized labeling helps consumers identify products that adhere to criteria for sustainability--like the Forest Stewardship Council's sustainable lumber label--or gives them more information, like the recently implemented Country of Origin labeling for seafood, which tells not only where fish is from, but whether it's farmed or wild.
Those labels help consumers make informed choices, and as the demand rises for eco-friendly products (for organics, it's been rising about 20 percent per year for a decade), those choices will have a bigger impact on the marketplace. Aligning markets with sustainable practices-and letting consumers know about it-is a key method for creating a sustainable economy (see This Place on Earth 2001, p. 70, pdf).
P.S. Widespread standards, like the USDA's organic label, are also designed to help consumers cut through the clutter of information. But sorting through labels can also be tough; here's one website that helps.
(0)
