Group items tagged

The Oregon Sustainability Center, to be housed on PSU campus, embodies the utopia of high-tech self-sufficiency unlike no other contemporary structure around, and may possibly be unique in the U.S. today. But at what cost? And, is this the utopia we want to pursue??

This is the topic of an article that I posted to the Symposium2011 diigo group. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/07/07greenwire-bold-public-private-venture-aims-to-make-ore-c-32109.html?pagewanted=all) Originally I posted it due to it's relevance to the "future of cities" topic. Portland often comes up in discussions about progressive cities, and this is merely one more reason for it to do so. The questions you bring up here about cost and utopian attitude I think are particularly relevant to the broader question of cities and would be really interesting for us to explore further. In my discussion with Micah earlier today, for example, we talked about Portland in general being a sort of utopia. Specifically we were discussing the tendency of highly motivated and concerned people to move to Portland away from other places that might actually be in greater need of their work. I asked "what's more important: investing in a model of the ideal to generate enthusiasm and prove it can be done, or spreading efforts out to places less conducive to the changes?"

I'll say it publicly, with the hopes of getting some debate on this: I don't think you've proven it can be done if it is in the model of the ideal (operating under the assumption that most places are specifically not the ideal, and are not neccesarily conducive to the changes). Just because something can be done in an ideal place does not mean it can be spread out. I see it as more likely that when something is done succesfully in a place that is antagonistic to it, something is really right with whatever that something may be. While answers are naturally specific to the issue or solution in question (so I apologize for the vague language), I'm of the mind that a lot of the things Portland has done to make things "work" may not be easily replicated outside of Portland, as much because of structure as because of culture. This is a debate where it is particularly difficult to make broad assumptions, of course, and there will be exceptions to either and any side, but I lean towards making changes where the changes are not conducive. I welcome opposition though, I'm curious what others think coming from other regions and from Portland itself.

The new up-and-coming trend in landscape architecture? Redesigning streets and sidewalks to be more "people-friendly" by creating public spaces. This article focuses on Viva Vancouver, an organization advocating for the creation of mini-parks in urban areas and whose most recent accomplishment is transforming two parking spots into a shiny new deck with seating for 4-8 people. Portland organizations like City Repair have been into this idea of placemaking for a long time, touting the benefits of creating public spaces to facilitate gathering between strangers and to make the rough urban landscape a bit more homey. Good idea? Or is spending $18,000 to make a wood structure in a parking lot absurd?  

This highlights the rare but occassional shrinking city. Detroits population and economic state is declining, and the city - structurally - may actually have to get smaller. This is, as the article notes, not exactly what urban planning is traditionally oriented towards. But that does not mean it will never happen. Imagine fuel prices increasing without a good alternative coming in - people will likely begin to abandon hinterlands and outskirts and suburbs for cities, and this problem will occur even without dramatic and rare economic decline. Or just the general appeal of cities. Or Stewart Brand's defused population bomb comes true, and economic decline due to aging populations strikes many more aging cities. So it is worth paying attention to, especially since it offers space, which I like to see as opportunity. You can do a lot with that - Detroit gets a lot of urban agriculture press, and some of the first urban farms did emerge from reclaimed abandoned property where buildings had been burned down for insurance money. And the size of the space emptying out might even make it functionally scalable, which has been a major problem. Empty neighborhoods that are structurally intact are also really interesting to me - that is a lot of initial capital set up that could be utilized in the future, allowing for some groups with very little amassed wealth or capital to potentially do something with it. Who knows what, but there looks to be a lot to play with here, and it could be really cool.

The construction of the third largest dam in the world is being planned in Brazil. The construction of this dam is creating problems for the population who will be displaced by it.

Got the time to read an 81 page report from the USDA Economic Research Service? Perhaps not, but it could be worth the time. An information/research heavy look into the economics of a variety of food systems. Given the argument that sustainable agriculture won't be truly embraced until it can feasibly compete with industrial agriculture models, the information here could be very interesting. I've only just started to dive in, but so far its promising, as government reports go.

Also, for the record, two things worth checking out: there is a report summary, and a full report, though the summary offers little surprising information. There is also a case study on blueberries specific to Portland.

Its important to remember how much scientific knowledge is affected by cultural context in how it is both accepted and understood. Science cannot escape the pressures placed upon it by the cultural and societal ways of human beings, at least so far. Speaking as someone who has covered scientific research for a public audience via the PioLog and in other projects, its not fun playing the translator between the technical experts and "the common man", as it were. A lot gets lost - and its hard to know whats valuable, and what isn't. Or what wasn't even understood in the first place (I'm far from the best person to be writing about research relating to the structure of Gecko hair follicles - a problem that can be found throughout journalism. Journalists do not always understand what they're writing about, and can cast it in ways that are often far off the mark. Its an odd business). So here we have an example of science trying to use other means of communication to get across that translation. But do scientists have the time, and should they have the responsibility, of having to expend resources not only on their studies, but on communicating them - and their implications - to the public? By getting away from journalism, do we risk facing a more significant or intentional sort of bias? I don't know what the right way to share science, its process, and its results with the public is, but I do think creating alternatives to the primary model is a useful thing. The current journalistic model has its strengths, but it has its weaknesses as well. Perhaps creating multiple ways of doing this will be useful.

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

Michael Pawlyn, arguably the foremost contemporary expert on biomimicry, gives a TED talk on how the principles of this field can be applied to energy, food and agricultural systems to close the loop and build a sustainable future. Biomimicry, for those that don't know, is the a field of engineering and development that bases designs off structures and systems found in nature. This talk covers a lot of what we learned about systems and loops from 160 and I am sure a lot of information from our other classes. I am personally very compelled by biomimicry and I have always thought that it is the obvious way to innovate sustainable technologies. Enjoy.