I have been toting the joys of the impending, slowly unfolding energy and green revolutions as of late. But I came across an interesting point, observed by one of my latest academic finds, a Professor Randall Crane, at UCLA, which stopped me dead in my tracks.
Many people go to specific grad schools to study under a certain academic, of whose work they admire. As I am currently self-taught and limited in my exposure to professionals in the planning field, I often find myself catch-as-catch-can. The majority of the people that I have come across, Peter Caliope, Kevin Lynch, Witold Rybczinski, Jane Jacobs, and Lewis Mumford are either dead, or too far removed for me with which to make much contact. I have been following Professor Crane's blog with great enthusiasm.
If I may compare his blog to mine, like me, Professor Crane utilizes his blog to expound on urban planning topics of interest to him and adds a hearty dose of levity to make it more palatable and accessible. And in his November 7th, 2008 entry entitled, "Is Admitting You Have a Problem the First Step Toward Recovery?"in his observation in Post #1 Professor Crane advised against "oversimplify[ing] how then to proceed in practice or theory- with respect to either mitigation or adaptation [concering big problems, such as an oil-dependent world]."
It is tempting to get ahead of ourselves and paint the world in big, utopian, swathes of hyperbole- of walkable communities, getting people out of their cars and into pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and cities, and/or said cars that will run on oil grown in a lab, or heck that run on happy thoughts!, having zero-emission transit, and a light bulb in every mud hut to the farthest reaches of Siberia, or even just Russia! Don't be late for the community circle of hand holding while singing "Kumbeya my Lord" Sorry, did I get a little cynical?
The point is, making any progress, takes time, often planning, and usually resources and lots of them. This is not my anal-retentive, type A side coming out, this is life. As Professor Crane wryly observed, "It would be great if that wasn't so, but as H.L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem, there is a simple solution. And it's wrong."
I continue to believe in life-altering change, I just hope that I am not foolish enough to believe that it will only happen with positive thinking. I know it will involve time, money, and lots of effort- both physical and mental. But as someone once observed, "anything worth having, is worth fighting for."
Friday, November 21, 2008
Energy & an Ethical Life
I really like connecting disparate ideas. What it means is that I possess an over-developed sense of spatial relations, that which seems random, is actually connected, at least in my mind. I can't take credit for that idea, I'm actually paraphrasing it from a conversation on the TV show Criminal Minds, but this proves an example of the concept I attempt to illustrate- a popular mainstream television show provided the jumping off point for one of my blog ruminations, a blog that centers on urban planning, not pop culture's interpretations of forensics. Basically, it boils down to my love of six degrees of separation, I guess.
But I have been thinking a lot about energy and transportation, two big hot-button issues right now. And as it seems as though America may be succeeded by another formerly (only) developing nation, like China, or India, this also means that these countries will experience a higher quality of life. A higher quality of life involves such things in life, that we may take for granted that were originally seen as a luxury and soon will be commonplace for the rising nations, such as light bulbs, cable TV, the Internet, etc., All of these technology and electric-based items will consequently require energy to power them and may also result in pollution due to the power sources. The question is, can the Earth handle that?
This concept is developed more fully by Thomas Friedman, in his latest work, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America.
I have enjoyed reading Mr. Friedman's previous work, the World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, which expounds on the idea of globalization, as set out by his prior work, the Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. But I have not yet read the Lexus and the Olive Tree. Many of the pronouncements Mr. Friedman makes about America and its shifting position amid the world powers, in the World is Flat, are unfolding before our eyes, and while it is interesting to be educated on why this is happening, it doesn't lessen the economic blow. [a disclaimer: I read the 2005 edition of aforementioned work, not the revised 2006 edition nor the World is Flat 3.0, the 2007 edition. The fact that such a work warrants 3 new editions in so many years speaks volumes, no pun intended, of what an influential work this is and also how much can change in global politics and economics in a year.]
Mr. Fareed Zakaria, a correspondent for Newsweek magazine, has also written an engaging book called, the Post-American World. I would like to mention that Mr. Zakaria's work for Newsweek has proven most informative, both insightful and incisive. Mr. Friedman is also a journalist by trade, but I have not read any of his work outside of those in book form.
I have not read either Mr. Zakaria's nor Mr. Friedman's books, but they both are absolutely fascinating in terms of their theses.
An interview was composed between Mr. Zakaria and Mr. Friedman, which is available through amazon.com and hopefully, the enclosed link. It is available in both video and transcript form.
Both authors expound on the fact that Americans have had a rarefied position for the past several hundred years, but that is quickly changing. For example, to paraphrase from Mr. Friedman and Mr. Zakaria's conversation, soon, almost everyone in China will be able to flip on a light with the flick of a switch, just like we do soon. But they will also need coal-powered factories to generate such energy. Coal contributes to pollution, which isn't good. But who's to say that the Chinese aren't deserving of indoor electricity like the majority of Americans experience? It's a slippery slope on which to base one's arguments, but consequences, be they good or bad, will occur.
Again, I would like to state that with challenge brings opportunity and a lot of exciting and good changes, for everybody on the planet, are in the works. This won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
But I have been thinking a lot about energy and transportation, two big hot-button issues right now. And as it seems as though America may be succeeded by another formerly (only) developing nation, like China, or India, this also means that these countries will experience a higher quality of life. A higher quality of life involves such things in life, that we may take for granted that were originally seen as a luxury and soon will be commonplace for the rising nations, such as light bulbs, cable TV, the Internet, etc., All of these technology and electric-based items will consequently require energy to power them and may also result in pollution due to the power sources. The question is, can the Earth handle that?
This concept is developed more fully by Thomas Friedman, in his latest work, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America.
I have enjoyed reading Mr. Friedman's previous work, the World is Flat: a Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, which expounds on the idea of globalization, as set out by his prior work, the Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. But I have not yet read the Lexus and the Olive Tree. Many of the pronouncements Mr. Friedman makes about America and its shifting position amid the world powers, in the World is Flat, are unfolding before our eyes, and while it is interesting to be educated on why this is happening, it doesn't lessen the economic blow. [a disclaimer: I read the 2005 edition of aforementioned work, not the revised 2006 edition nor the World is Flat 3.0, the 2007 edition. The fact that such a work warrants 3 new editions in so many years speaks volumes, no pun intended, of what an influential work this is and also how much can change in global politics and economics in a year.]
Mr. Fareed Zakaria, a correspondent for Newsweek magazine, has also written an engaging book called, the Post-American World. I would like to mention that Mr. Zakaria's work for Newsweek has proven most informative, both insightful and incisive. Mr. Friedman is also a journalist by trade, but I have not read any of his work outside of those in book form.
I have not read either Mr. Zakaria's nor Mr. Friedman's books, but they both are absolutely fascinating in terms of their theses.
An interview was composed between Mr. Zakaria and Mr. Friedman, which is available through amazon.com and hopefully, the enclosed link. It is available in both video and transcript form.
Both authors expound on the fact that Americans have had a rarefied position for the past several hundred years, but that is quickly changing. For example, to paraphrase from Mr. Friedman and Mr. Zakaria's conversation, soon, almost everyone in China will be able to flip on a light with the flick of a switch, just like we do soon. But they will also need coal-powered factories to generate such energy. Coal contributes to pollution, which isn't good. But who's to say that the Chinese aren't deserving of indoor electricity like the majority of Americans experience? It's a slippery slope on which to base one's arguments, but consequences, be they good or bad, will occur.
Again, I would like to state that with challenge brings opportunity and a lot of exciting and good changes, for everybody on the planet, are in the works. This won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Food, the first and final luxury
America's recession is far from over and we are nowhere near the heady times of the dot com boom of the nineties. But the seismic tremors in our economy has brought me to thinking about food.
The reason I bring up food is because when Silicon Valley started pumping out multi-millionaires faster than anything a parallel movement in the foodie world occurred. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, "foodies"are gastronomic enthusiasts who range from the passionate to the zealot. They enjoy fine cooking, especially by celebrity and up-and-coming chefs, obscure food trivia, and one-upping their peers in such matters. In the nineties, because there was a surplus of money all kinds of new restaurants and other novelties started popping up. Chefs were able to use more expensive ingredients, including organic and obscure ingredients as people were willing to shell out for them. Chefs were also able to entertain outlandish ideas such as creating foods that were more like foams and tiny edible towers.
But now we might all literally have to tighten our belts a little bit. Basic food consumption has not been immune to the rising cost of life and the accompanying recession and there has been rumbling in several publications, including Esquire (October 2008, "What the 21st Century Will Taste Like" by: David Chang,p.208-210) and Metropolis ("Back to the Land" by Karrie Jacobs p.92-94) that we may all have to start getting in touch with our inner gardener. As food costs skyrocket people may have to grow their own food.
I'm not much of a gardener. I'd like to be. But I'm rather lazy in that department. I have a rather nice basil plant that I purchased from the dollar bin at Target, but other than that my forays into gardening have been less than successful.
In Marina del Rey, CA,between Santa Monica and L.A. there are community gardens, which are a great idea and the idea was even used as a plot point on the now defunct TV show Will & Grace.
This shifting of tides may force us to change our ways, but this doesn't mean change for the worse.
I, like most Americans, take food for granted. My gastronomical Achille's heel is popcorn, in most every form, though hot, fresh, buttered, and salty is the way I prefer it. I have developed an addiction to white cheddar popcorn and it is my primary motivation on my walk home.
The reason I bring up food is because when Silicon Valley started pumping out multi-millionaires faster than anything a parallel movement in the foodie world occurred. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, "foodies"are gastronomic enthusiasts who range from the passionate to the zealot. They enjoy fine cooking, especially by celebrity and up-and-coming chefs, obscure food trivia, and one-upping their peers in such matters. In the nineties, because there was a surplus of money all kinds of new restaurants and other novelties started popping up. Chefs were able to use more expensive ingredients, including organic and obscure ingredients as people were willing to shell out for them. Chefs were also able to entertain outlandish ideas such as creating foods that were more like foams and tiny edible towers.
But now we might all literally have to tighten our belts a little bit. Basic food consumption has not been immune to the rising cost of life and the accompanying recession and there has been rumbling in several publications, including Esquire (October 2008, "What the 21st Century Will Taste Like" by: David Chang,p.208-210) and Metropolis ("Back to the Land" by Karrie Jacobs p.92-94) that we may all have to start getting in touch with our inner gardener. As food costs skyrocket people may have to grow their own food.
I'm not much of a gardener. I'd like to be. But I'm rather lazy in that department. I have a rather nice basil plant that I purchased from the dollar bin at Target, but other than that my forays into gardening have been less than successful.
In Marina del Rey, CA,between Santa Monica and L.A. there are community gardens, which are a great idea and the idea was even used as a plot point on the now defunct TV show Will & Grace.
This shifting of tides may force us to change our ways, but this doesn't mean change for the worse.
I, like most Americans, take food for granted. My gastronomical Achille's heel is popcorn, in most every form, though hot, fresh, buttered, and salty is the way I prefer it. I have developed an addiction to white cheddar popcorn and it is my primary motivation on my walk home.
No hobo!
I endured a rather painful exercise in academic posturing in college while attending a class called visual culture. It was taught by an intellectual heavyweight who was saddled with the regrettable task of teaching a bunch of computer art, illustration, graphic design, fashion, et al., majors (and me, an art history major) about semiotics and other post-modern philosophies. The problem was that we had signed up for the class thinking that we would be dissecting advertisements' subliminal messages and other forms of corporate evil. Sadly no. Instead, we had to sit through lectures on Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Baudrillard, and other people who had spent so much time sequestered in the ivory tower that they actually think that their theories make sense.
The reason I bring this up is because a friend of mine needed to ship some things, but he did not have a suitable box. I volunteered to bring him some from home. However, as I do not have a car I was required to carry them with me on my way to work.
The items he was shipping were rather large and bulky, requiring boxes of substantial size as well. The boxes I selected were mroe cumbersome than heavy, but I'm sure that I was a sight to see.
I'm sure several of the people that drove past me thought that I was a crazy person declaring that the end is near, or homeless with a will-work-for-food sign. This is a rather silly postulation as I was walking with my ear buds from my ipod crammed firmly in my ears and the distinctive white power cord was sticking out. I also had on a nice scarf and a well tailored blazer. The last time I checked most bums were unable to have luxuries like mp3 players.
My point is that "signs" are flawed. Not signs like, stop, yield, etc., Those are quite good and useful too. But to say that we can interpret so-called "signs" and semiotics embedded in our culture is silly as meaning can vary based on context. Yes, I was carrying a large piece of cardboard, which is often interpreted in our culture as an end-time prophet or homeless person. But like many things in life I choose the subversive route and prefer that not everything is as it seems.
So, the next time you see some one walking down the street with what looks like a giant piece of cardboard, don't automatically homeless person. It may be me, lugging another box to her job site. I know I'll probably catch hell from "real" academics decrying that I don't truly grasp the true purpose of semiotics, and based on my knowledge from my class I'd say that's a fair assessment. But as my experience demonstrates, not everything in the world is as it seems. Just another rumination from the road.
The reason I bring this up is because a friend of mine needed to ship some things, but he did not have a suitable box. I volunteered to bring him some from home. However, as I do not have a car I was required to carry them with me on my way to work.
The items he was shipping were rather large and bulky, requiring boxes of substantial size as well. The boxes I selected were mroe cumbersome than heavy, but I'm sure that I was a sight to see.
I'm sure several of the people that drove past me thought that I was a crazy person declaring that the end is near, or homeless with a will-work-for-food sign. This is a rather silly postulation as I was walking with my ear buds from my ipod crammed firmly in my ears and the distinctive white power cord was sticking out. I also had on a nice scarf and a well tailored blazer. The last time I checked most bums were unable to have luxuries like mp3 players.
My point is that "signs" are flawed. Not signs like, stop, yield, etc., Those are quite good and useful too. But to say that we can interpret so-called "signs" and semiotics embedded in our culture is silly as meaning can vary based on context. Yes, I was carrying a large piece of cardboard, which is often interpreted in our culture as an end-time prophet or homeless person. But like many things in life I choose the subversive route and prefer that not everything is as it seems.
So, the next time you see some one walking down the street with what looks like a giant piece of cardboard, don't automatically homeless person. It may be me, lugging another box to her job site. I know I'll probably catch hell from "real" academics decrying that I don't truly grasp the true purpose of semiotics, and based on my knowledge from my class I'd say that's a fair assessment. But as my experience demonstrates, not everything in the world is as it seems. Just another rumination from the road.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Better Living Through Science
I don't know much about science, I frankly don't have too keen an interest in the subject. I had hoped to be a cardiac surgeon in high school, until I barely passed basic chem, which kinda put a kibosh on the whole idea. But throughout my reading on alternate fuel sources I have realized that many of the solutions for fuel, other than petroleum, will not only be found in science, but specifically in microbiology and genetic engineering.
I'm not saying that I condone opening Pandora's Box and starting a new island of Dr. Moreau. But science has tremendous power to change our world for the better, or admittedly, for the worst. Yes, science has given us the atomic bomb, but it also gave us penicillin and electricity, among other perks.
Like I mentioned before, I don't know much about science, and I know next to nothing about microbiology, but Esquire lauded Jay Keasling, genetic-engineering pioneer in their October 2008 issue for his work establishing the Joint Bio-Energy Institute in Emeryville, CA. Coupled with a $134 million grant from the Department of Energy and a team of 150 students and scientists they are hoping to take waste-plant materials, such as chaff and cornstalks and convert them into hydrocarbons, which are apparently petroleum products. Yay better living through science! (Esquire, October 2008, 106)
Esquire also shined the spotlight on a Mr. Craig Venter, who is a microbiologist and entrepreneur in La Jolla, CA. He is working on creating "synthetic genomes" that can make grass or palm oil as "viable fuel sources." I have no idea how he plans to to do it, but I'm all for it! (Esquire, October 2008, 138)
And Esquire, in the same issue, also wrote up a Mr. Drew Endy, who bears an odd resemblance to a younger Steve Jobs, who was also mentioned on the same page of the same issue. Compare page 128 and 192 if you don't believe me. He also looks a little like a young Bill Gates, but better looking than Bill was in the 1970's. The article on Drew Endy is actually the reason that I came to the conclusion that micro-bio and genetic engineering and synthetic bio may find the solution to breaking our dependence on petroleum.
Drew Endy is an assistant professor at Stanford, is pushing for an "open-source collection of BioBrick parts- strands of DNA in standardized shapes that can snap together like Legos and his upcoming "Parts Fab," a nonprofit institute that will be one half BioBrick factory, one half open-source library." (Esquire, October 2008, 128)
But the reason I laud him is because he advocates a check and balance system, saying that "when people order DNA, he believes they should have to submit a proposal describing their intent [and that]. . .all artificially designed DNA to be "signed" by its designer."
For levity watch the highly underrated I Heart Huckabees and wait for Mark Wahlberg to shout with all the sincerity of a wide-eyed radical, "We have a deadly petroleum crisis here people!" Priceless.
If you wonder if Esquire is having a science geek issue, that is far from the case. All three (four) men mentioned were cited as the 75 Most Influential People of the 21st Century.
I'm not saying that I condone opening Pandora's Box and starting a new island of Dr. Moreau. But science has tremendous power to change our world for the better, or admittedly, for the worst. Yes, science has given us the atomic bomb, but it also gave us penicillin and electricity, among other perks.
Like I mentioned before, I don't know much about science, and I know next to nothing about microbiology, but Esquire lauded Jay Keasling, genetic-engineering pioneer in their October 2008 issue for his work establishing the Joint Bio-Energy Institute in Emeryville, CA. Coupled with a $134 million grant from the Department of Energy and a team of 150 students and scientists they are hoping to take waste-plant materials, such as chaff and cornstalks and convert them into hydrocarbons, which are apparently petroleum products. Yay better living through science! (Esquire, October 2008, 106)
Esquire also shined the spotlight on a Mr. Craig Venter, who is a microbiologist and entrepreneur in La Jolla, CA. He is working on creating "synthetic genomes" that can make grass or palm oil as "viable fuel sources." I have no idea how he plans to to do it, but I'm all for it! (Esquire, October 2008, 138)
And Esquire, in the same issue, also wrote up a Mr. Drew Endy, who bears an odd resemblance to a younger Steve Jobs, who was also mentioned on the same page of the same issue. Compare page 128 and 192 if you don't believe me. He also looks a little like a young Bill Gates, but better looking than Bill was in the 1970's. The article on Drew Endy is actually the reason that I came to the conclusion that micro-bio and genetic engineering and synthetic bio may find the solution to breaking our dependence on petroleum.
Drew Endy is an assistant professor at Stanford, is pushing for an "open-source collection of BioBrick parts- strands of DNA in standardized shapes that can snap together like Legos and his upcoming "Parts Fab," a nonprofit institute that will be one half BioBrick factory, one half open-source library." (Esquire, October 2008, 128)
But the reason I laud him is because he advocates a check and balance system, saying that "when people order DNA, he believes they should have to submit a proposal describing their intent [and that]. . .all artificially designed DNA to be "signed" by its designer."
For levity watch the highly underrated I Heart Huckabees and wait for Mark Wahlberg to shout with all the sincerity of a wide-eyed radical, "We have a deadly petroleum crisis here people!" Priceless.
If you wonder if Esquire is having a science geek issue, that is far from the case. All three (four) men mentioned were cited as the 75 Most Influential People of the 21st Century.
Helping Those Who Can't Help Themselves
I start this posting with a disclaimer- I do not have a degree in any of the social sciences, I have a very limited understanding of what causes people to be homeless and the past solutions that have been applied to resolve this tragic issue, be they successful or not.
However, in my last posting, "Parks are Good, Right?" I touched upon the issue of homelessness as the homeless sometimes utilize parks as resting areas. It is a sad fact that homelessness is not limited to big cities. In my small town in the central valley in California we have several homeless people, some of whom live in the park near my house. I think one of them lives, or at least was resting in the bush behind the fence that sections off a neighboring sub-division, or at least I thought I heard a bush talking as I was rushing off to work one morning. Could have been my ipod.
In any case, homelessness is an issue that remains an ugly and stubborn stain on the fabric of American life.
However, I came across an innovative solution in the Livable City: Revitalizing Urban Communities by Partners for Livable Communities, where in Washington D.C. a Business Improvement District (B.I.D.) opened a "daytime drop-in center in a local church where the homeless can eat, shower, wash clothes, and meet representatives of various government and nonprofit agencies offering job training and detoxification programs." (the Livable City, 166)
This is an excellent idea and hopefully will be adopted by other cities. It's one thing to say that all the homeless need to do is clean up and find a job, it's another thing to help them accomplish such a task.
Also, a surprisingly touching and revealing take on this issue is in Mel Brooks lesser-known movie, Life Stinks! I won't go into the details, but suffice to say Mr. Brooks gives an honest and sympathetic, but never patronizing look at what life is like to be homeless, albeit, through the eyes of Hollywood.
However, in my last posting, "Parks are Good, Right?" I touched upon the issue of homelessness as the homeless sometimes utilize parks as resting areas. It is a sad fact that homelessness is not limited to big cities. In my small town in the central valley in California we have several homeless people, some of whom live in the park near my house. I think one of them lives, or at least was resting in the bush behind the fence that sections off a neighboring sub-division, or at least I thought I heard a bush talking as I was rushing off to work one morning. Could have been my ipod.
In any case, homelessness is an issue that remains an ugly and stubborn stain on the fabric of American life.
However, I came across an innovative solution in the Livable City: Revitalizing Urban Communities by Partners for Livable Communities, where in Washington D.C. a Business Improvement District (B.I.D.) opened a "daytime drop-in center in a local church where the homeless can eat, shower, wash clothes, and meet representatives of various government and nonprofit agencies offering job training and detoxification programs." (the Livable City, 166)
This is an excellent idea and hopefully will be adopted by other cities. It's one thing to say that all the homeless need to do is clean up and find a job, it's another thing to help them accomplish such a task.
Also, a surprisingly touching and revealing take on this issue is in Mel Brooks lesser-known movie, Life Stinks! I won't go into the details, but suffice to say Mr. Brooks gives an honest and sympathetic, but never patronizing look at what life is like to be homeless, albeit, through the eyes of Hollywood.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Parks Are Good, Right?
By now everyone has come to accept that green is good. Unfortunately, green can also be expensive. I am speaking specifically of parks.
For some urban planners, one can never have enough parks. New urbanists like to design nieghborhoods around a park or community center that is centrally located. We have all seen the success of great parks such as Chicago's Millennium Park and Savannah's Forsyth Park and the most famous park, Central Park in New York City.
I say that there is nothing wrong with parks. I loved eating my lunch at Millennium Park in Chicago when I worked at the Art Institute, which is right across the street in the heart of the Loop. Exeter, CA has the most adorable recreational park across the street from a school and it is also flocked on all sides by pre-war homes that would make a new urbanist swoon. And I can recall many a picnic spent at the local park in my former hometown in central Wisconsin.
Parks provide greenery, vegetation, a change of scenery and a place for people to gather and relax. Parks often are the only source of nature in some sections of cities. Although I love New York City with a passion, there is very limited green space in the Big Apple. When I think of New York I think of a vibrant city, but one that is composed of miles and miles of cement and very little greenery with the exception of the trees that line the sidewalks.
Other cities, like Savannah, GA have lots of greenery. Savannah is known for their "Jewel Plan" and in the heart of the city every square has a small park at its center. Each is unique, but you can often find centuries-old oak trees strewn with the ever-present Spanish moss, myrtle, azalea bushes, etc.,
But when it comes to parks, a few problems arise. For the sake of objective arguments, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. For one, who pays for a park's upkeep? Sure, most everyone likes them, but does everyone want to pay to make sure that the park remains pristine? Park maintenance costs can sneakily be written into city budgets, but if people really knew how much it costs to keep their parks nice they would probably balk.
For those penny pushers I point out that park maintenance provides employment to people and beautifies our cities.
Another question is who has the right to the park? The obvious answer would be everyone, but at the same time does this blanket term of everyone come with restrictions? Just about everybody likes a picnic, but what about the homeless person who is slumped under the nearby tree? You and your significant other are enjoying a quiet romantic picnic in a secluded area and suddenly a slew of kids sets up shop and shows no signs of leaving. Whose park is it now?
Just like any other part of the city, parks belong to everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc., The police and other law enforcement may say that the parks shouldn't serve as an outdoor sleeping quarters for the homeless and other destitute members of society, and for the safety of all parties involved I do agree. Being homeless puts a person at much higher risk for being attacked and no one should have to sleep under the stars unless they're deliberately camping.
But this points to a bigger issue, how to help the homeless?
For some urban planners, one can never have enough parks. New urbanists like to design nieghborhoods around a park or community center that is centrally located. We have all seen the success of great parks such as Chicago's Millennium Park and Savannah's Forsyth Park and the most famous park, Central Park in New York City.
I say that there is nothing wrong with parks. I loved eating my lunch at Millennium Park in Chicago when I worked at the Art Institute, which is right across the street in the heart of the Loop. Exeter, CA has the most adorable recreational park across the street from a school and it is also flocked on all sides by pre-war homes that would make a new urbanist swoon. And I can recall many a picnic spent at the local park in my former hometown in central Wisconsin.
Parks provide greenery, vegetation, a change of scenery and a place for people to gather and relax. Parks often are the only source of nature in some sections of cities. Although I love New York City with a passion, there is very limited green space in the Big Apple. When I think of New York I think of a vibrant city, but one that is composed of miles and miles of cement and very little greenery with the exception of the trees that line the sidewalks.
Other cities, like Savannah, GA have lots of greenery. Savannah is known for their "Jewel Plan" and in the heart of the city every square has a small park at its center. Each is unique, but you can often find centuries-old oak trees strewn with the ever-present Spanish moss, myrtle, azalea bushes, etc.,
But when it comes to parks, a few problems arise. For the sake of objective arguments, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. For one, who pays for a park's upkeep? Sure, most everyone likes them, but does everyone want to pay to make sure that the park remains pristine? Park maintenance costs can sneakily be written into city budgets, but if people really knew how much it costs to keep their parks nice they would probably balk.
For those penny pushers I point out that park maintenance provides employment to people and beautifies our cities.
Another question is who has the right to the park? The obvious answer would be everyone, but at the same time does this blanket term of everyone come with restrictions? Just about everybody likes a picnic, but what about the homeless person who is slumped under the nearby tree? You and your significant other are enjoying a quiet romantic picnic in a secluded area and suddenly a slew of kids sets up shop and shows no signs of leaving. Whose park is it now?
Just like any other part of the city, parks belong to everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc., The police and other law enforcement may say that the parks shouldn't serve as an outdoor sleeping quarters for the homeless and other destitute members of society, and for the safety of all parties involved I do agree. Being homeless puts a person at much higher risk for being attacked and no one should have to sleep under the stars unless they're deliberately camping.
But this points to a bigger issue, how to help the homeless?
Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here
The hoopola of the election is finally over and as my dad observed in his blog [?!], "it's time to either calm down or buck up, depending on your persuasion." While I prefer to keep politics out of my blog I would like to say that I am extremely excited about the possibilities that lie in store for future President Obama and also for our country and the world on a whole.
Right now, economically, there isn't a plethora of things to smile about, but I have great hope that there is a lot of potential to be mined, especially within the energy fields, pun intended. When the belts are tightened, humanity has to look for alternate sources to supplement all sorts of things and our dependence on oil, foreign or not, is an issue that can no longer be brushed under the rug.
But I am excited by all the untapped resources we are discovering that have applications as fuel and energy. I had mentioned earlier in my blog that I had discovered a magazine that focused on the possibilities of adapting sun, solar, and wind power for home use. Unfortunately, at this time I rent, from a landowner who is reticent to even fix our back fence, so to bring up converting our home to solar energy is probably not super high on his priority list.
This is no excuse not for me to be informed of alternate energy sources, period and I have found another interesting publication that focuses on the subject in great detail from the publishers of Scientific American called, Scientific American Earth 3.0. http://www.sciamearth3.com/
To paraphrase an ad from Shell gas in this new magazine,"we'll need fuels from lots of different sources to meet growing demand [from something else than petroleum]." Whether this is an astute PR firm banking on the environmental trend, a savvy corporate marketing move, or an enlightened decision by an eco-conscious company is irrelevant. What matters is that they are moving in the right decision. To whom much has been given, much will be expected, no?
For more information on Shell's commitment to fuel improvement check out www.shell.com/us/realenergy
BP and notably its group chief executive, Tony Hayward, are also committed to investigating alternate energy sources. Putting their money where their mouth is, BP is investing $8 billion in new renewable-energy technologies over the next ten years, including $1.8 billion in 2008 alone. They also have staff who is looking to harness technology to bring affordable fuel to the world's poor and wind and solar energy in the US. (information from Esquire, October 2008, article by Amy Meyers Jaffe, (director of the Energy Forum at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy), 140)
It excites me to no end that we can tap energy from such disparate sources as methane/ cow pies, vegetable oil, sugar (-based ethanol), hydrogen, wheat, sulfur, algae, and corn! For more information on algae as a potential energy source and as cooking oil* see Scientific American Earth 3.0's article, "Dark Horse: Oil from Algae" by David Biello http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuel-of-the-future (*= According to Harrison Dillon, microbiologist and co-founder of Solazyme in San Francisco, "My birthday cake was made with oil from algae: no butter, no oil, no eggs, and it was delicious." If you say so. . .
In other news, in their October 2008 issue, Esquire lauded General Electric's (GE) CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, for his decision to start GE's environmental division. OK, so he's not Jack Welch or Lee Iaocca, but each contribution helps. It's nice to know that the call for change is reverberating even into the hallowed chambers of the world's top CEO's.
Also, be sure to check out wecansolveit.org
"The We Campaign is a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. The goal of the Alliance is to build a movement that creates the political will to solve the climate crisis -- in part through repowering America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within 10 years. Our economy, national security, and climate can’t afford to wait." -from their About Us Web page.
And while you're out on the Net, read "A World Without Oil Amen" by Benjamin Kunkel in GQ
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_7211 Hopefully, like everything else I recommend, it's well-written and informative. And it provides an insightful, if not vaguely depressing, reminder of our dependence on all kinds of oil, not just to fuel our cars.
Unlike my quote for this blog, which was taken from Dante' s Inferno, [the sign that is purportedly nailed above the entrance to Hell,] we do not have to abandon hope, but have much of which to be hopeful. As Oscar Wilde once said, "They say that the age of miracles is past, but I say that it has not yet begun."
Here's to new beginnings! Wishing you all a safe and happy holiday season and exciting new year.
Right now, economically, there isn't a plethora of things to smile about, but I have great hope that there is a lot of potential to be mined, especially within the energy fields, pun intended. When the belts are tightened, humanity has to look for alternate sources to supplement all sorts of things and our dependence on oil, foreign or not, is an issue that can no longer be brushed under the rug.
But I am excited by all the untapped resources we are discovering that have applications as fuel and energy. I had mentioned earlier in my blog that I had discovered a magazine that focused on the possibilities of adapting sun, solar, and wind power for home use. Unfortunately, at this time I rent, from a landowner who is reticent to even fix our back fence, so to bring up converting our home to solar energy is probably not super high on his priority list.
This is no excuse not for me to be informed of alternate energy sources, period and I have found another interesting publication that focuses on the subject in great detail from the publishers of Scientific American called, Scientific American Earth 3.0. http://www.sciamearth3.com/
To paraphrase an ad from Shell gas in this new magazine,"we'll need fuels from lots of different sources to meet growing demand [from something else than petroleum]." Whether this is an astute PR firm banking on the environmental trend, a savvy corporate marketing move, or an enlightened decision by an eco-conscious company is irrelevant. What matters is that they are moving in the right decision. To whom much has been given, much will be expected, no?
For more information on Shell's commitment to fuel improvement check out www.shell.com/us/realenergy
BP and notably its group chief executive, Tony Hayward, are also committed to investigating alternate energy sources. Putting their money where their mouth is, BP is investing $8 billion in new renewable-energy technologies over the next ten years, including $1.8 billion in 2008 alone. They also have staff who is looking to harness technology to bring affordable fuel to the world's poor and wind and solar energy in the US. (information from Esquire, October 2008, article by Amy Meyers Jaffe, (director of the Energy Forum at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy), 140)
It excites me to no end that we can tap energy from such disparate sources as methane/ cow pies, vegetable oil, sugar (-based ethanol), hydrogen, wheat, sulfur, algae, and corn! For more information on algae as a potential energy source and as cooking oil* see Scientific American Earth 3.0's article, "Dark Horse: Oil from Algae" by David Biello http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuel-of-the-future (*= According to Harrison Dillon, microbiologist and co-founder of Solazyme in San Francisco, "My birthday cake was made with oil from algae: no butter, no oil, no eggs, and it was delicious." If you say so. . .
In other news, in their October 2008 issue, Esquire lauded General Electric's (GE) CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, for his decision to start GE's environmental division. OK, so he's not Jack Welch or Lee Iaocca, but each contribution helps. It's nice to know that the call for change is reverberating even into the hallowed chambers of the world's top CEO's.
Also, be sure to check out wecansolveit.org
"The We Campaign is a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. The goal of the Alliance is to build a movement that creates the political will to solve the climate crisis -- in part through repowering America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within 10 years. Our economy, national security, and climate can’t afford to wait." -from their About Us Web page.
And while you're out on the Net, read "A World Without Oil Amen" by Benjamin Kunkel in GQ
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_7211 Hopefully, like everything else I recommend, it's well-written and informative. And it provides an insightful, if not vaguely depressing, reminder of our dependence on all kinds of oil, not just to fuel our cars.
Unlike my quote for this blog, which was taken from Dante' s Inferno, [the sign that is purportedly nailed above the entrance to Hell,] we do not have to abandon hope, but have much of which to be hopeful. As Oscar Wilde once said, "They say that the age of miracles is past, but I say that it has not yet begun."
Here's to new beginnings! Wishing you all a safe and happy holiday season and exciting new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)