Sure you can rant and rave that electric cars, bicycle lanes, and solar panels are NOT Green. But I beg to differ. Portland, Oregon is building the world's first High Rise Living Building that will be a net zero energy building. That means that it will use no more energy than it produces in terms of electricity and water. It will collect and store an annual supply of water from rain and naturally purify it for use in the building. Huge solar panels shaped in the form of a leaf will power the building, while public transit will run through the building via street car. Smart Power networking systems will monitor energy usage and every tenant of the building will be given an energy budget. Bicycle parking stations will be available too. Portland is also implementing an entire new district in downtown near the University dubbed "Eco District" where it will plan future net zero living buildings. Portland, Oregon is also the first city in the nation to install wind turbines on one of it's high rises to exemplify it's commitment to alternative energy.

Portland is known for being eco friendly because it is eco-friendly. We don't pose, we aren't inherently green by definition (density), we are green by CHOICE. We like our electric cars, parks, and bicycle lanes because they add to LIVABILITY, something that New York doesn't have. Even though Oregon doesn't have the high public transit usage yet, doesn't mean that the Portland metro region hasn't planned for it. The Portland region has extensively curbed back suburban sprawl through the nations only Urban growth boundary, setting the boundaries for where growth can occur over the next 50 years. Which means that Portland's density will only rise in the future. For the size of Portland, it is doing pretty well considering that the state of Oregon has vast open land and forests. Balance is key when planning for the future. Density is certifiably a goal for downtown Portland, but not at the expense of boring architecture or endless rows of ugly buildings.

In terms of toxics: Portland has identified air toxics as a major concern for the region and is working closely with committees and the Department of Environmental Quality to recognize and reduce air toxics that are specific problems for Oregon. Something the New York metro region does not address. I serve on the board for the Oregon Toxics Alliance in my state and on various committees in Portland that pertain to livability, communication, and the environment.

New York is New York. Population density is what NYC has going for it. It is a completely different life than most American's are use to. It is the epitome of what urban living truly is. Being green has not always been popular. In fact, it seems that only in the last few years has the media and by extension the general public have been aware that sustainability is important. The most likely reason for this is climate change. It seems that every corporation is trying to capitalize on being green in some fashion because they think it's what consumers will choose to buy (something Owen rightly calls out). All the sudden, Manhattan is being touted as a green city because of its density. Density does force people to live with less, density forces people to abandon their cars, and it forces people to waste less too. Therefore density by definition is green, and therefore New York would by definition be the greenest, if we were to measure solely by density or greenhouse gas emissions.

I completely disagree with Owen's statements that locavorism is not green, and his challenge of off grid infrastructure as being unsustainable. It's pretty obvious to me that everyone plays the cards that are dealt to them. There is no comparison to someone who grows up in New York city vs. someone who grows up in rural Wyoming. We can't just break everything down to a common denominator such as greenhouse gas emissions and say that New Yorker's are greener than those of Wyoming, Oregon, or Colorado. But, it is safe to say that in general terms, density is good, and sub-urban sprawl is bad...for the environment that is. But their are things we can all do to make our environmental impact less detrimental or non-existent.

I for one live in downtown Portland, Oregon. I live in the most walkable neighborhood, the Pearl District. I also don't drive my car unless I absolutely need to, and if I can't get to a desired location by light rail, streetcar, or bus I generally don't go there. Their is a paradigm shift occurring in our society. I would dare say that all the green washing by corporations is almost a necessary step in elevating the general public's perception that the environment is important. Had it not been for green washing, then the average American might not make the choice to recycle, or bicycle or walk to work instead of drive. My point being that we are and have been in transition to a greener economy, a greener society, and a greener way of life. However, the rest of our country cannot become Manhattan overnight. Becoming Manhattan is not even feasible for most small and mid size cities. However, sustainable practices, solar panels, electric cars, are a solution for the rest of us who don't live in Mega Cities like NYC, Chicago, or L.A. The Portland metro region is planning and preparing for a million more residents by 2030 and they aren't going to expand the urban growth boundaries. This means that our density will increase, but at least we will be able to control the livability aspect of the growth at the same time.

I'm just saying, New York is New York and you can't necessarily discount other sustainable lifestyles just based on public transportation uses. Owen also doesn't really address the environmental complications that arise from urban pollution. Apples and oranges aren't really good comparisons, but reading Green Metropolis should be mandatory reading for sub-urban planners that are trying to replicate California style sprawl across the country.

Thoughts, Comments, Questions...

Subscribe in a reader

http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/atom.xml