Urbanists like to say that dense, walkable urban land use is a powerful climate tool. But what kind of emissions can urban land use really reduce? What is the scale here? I discuss it with the authors of a recent RMI report on the subject.
Very good episode, as always. I do have a bit of a quibble about the discussion around land use reform in Minneapolis. Most of the environmental orgs around here actually support that reform and are pretty well aligned with the urbanists. But some of the NIMBY types have adopted the environmentalist mantle in opposition
Thanks as always for a good episode, but I'm just so discouraged about the likelihood that CA is going to find a way to loosen up the various restrictions on building new housing. And I just got a mailer about a new rent control ballot initiative, that will almost certainly take up all the air in the room on the topic of housing. Sigh.
Until there's a more fluid dynamic and builders feel like they can build with confidence, they are never going to try anything beyond of tried and true models, so we will get a lot less experimentation to demonstrate some of the amazing possibilities.
In line with this, I would really like to hear a guest that could really get into the nitty gritty of why people/polity is relatively resistant to urban models of building, rather than just hand-waving the problem as NIMBY's and "people don't like new things". I think that we need to get granular and break this problem down.
This feels like a top 3 problem to solve wrt climate change/good living.
Whenever I here the generalization of what the footprint of an EV is I wonder what the size of the vehicle is. The average EV is pretty big. There are a lot of people who could get by with a two seater. Consider the Aptera, light, small battery, super aerodynamic, in sunny climes it can be charged by it's solar panels most of the time. I always wonder how these generalization would change if Aptera specs were used.
There are strip malls, big box stores and half empty office buildings where many work from home now. These seem like much easier targets for land use reform. I'm not saying ignore the subdivision sprawl but there are other areas in cities to consider as well.
As to Dave's question, of whether "the climate movement should embrace urban land use policy as a major area of focus." I think most "climate activists" support density, infill, etc, talked about here and many, many other enviro policies more than they support any industrial scale climate action. Many already live in urban or dense suburban areas, and are aching for some "post-industrial" idyll, that is really "industry-elsewhere." There is a meme out there criticizing "climate activists" for having "carbon tunnel vision." I find that very untrue. In fact I find many "climate activists" are very quick to find fault with resources and land and costs of renewable energy, electrification, etc. They embrace seeming win-win-win policies like regenerative ag, forest carbon credits, or lawn-to-garden conversions, or only rooftop solar or "land use policy" that don't require industrial projects of any kind. Or fantasy fusion energy, or...
I guess, for me, there are so many other reasons to support density/infill, starting with equity, and plenty of activists supporting it.
BTW, listened to the pod while 75% through a long train and driving trip. Lots of horrifying exurban development out there. But old Sacramento seems to have "solved" or at least tried to address the greenery/tree/density balance mentioned by some of the other commenters.
It's a very frustrating topic. I wish I could live in a small apartment, but it's just cheaper for me to have a single family home with way more space than I need on a land footprint that is easily five times that of the apartment. At least all my shopping is within walking distance. I pretty much only drive to go hiking, and I *could* take the bus for that. (Don't move here! LOL!)
Looking a few years ahead, where can thoughtful people who want to help create a still-livable planet settle, where they can make a constructive difference, where members of their neighborhood association won't become their enemies?
In re: enviro NIMBYs, especially in California, there has been an organizing push in the Bay Area, at least, to join and redirect environmentalist organizations. Recently, the Sierra Club's leadership elections in both SF and the East Bay brought in YIMBY slates, and they are off to the races to push pro-density advocacy. Also, to your last question of the big, grinding, everywhere battles, this is the perfect opportunity for people to become politically engaged locally, and have an observable impact. This can be transformative both personally and in communities at every scale as you observed at the beginning of the discussion.
I own a house in a city. It has green space. I feel like the discussion of cities is always Manhattan or Downtown SF. How about normal city? While the powers argue, can we build solar and condensed housing in regular cities?
Big fan of the show, but how could you forget Fargo? 🤦
Very good episode, as always. I do have a bit of a quibble about the discussion around land use reform in Minneapolis. Most of the environmental orgs around here actually support that reform and are pretty well aligned with the urbanists. But some of the NIMBY types have adopted the environmentalist mantle in opposition
Thanks as always for a good episode, but I'm just so discouraged about the likelihood that CA is going to find a way to loosen up the various restrictions on building new housing. And I just got a mailer about a new rent control ballot initiative, that will almost certainly take up all the air in the room on the topic of housing. Sigh.
Until there's a more fluid dynamic and builders feel like they can build with confidence, they are never going to try anything beyond of tried and true models, so we will get a lot less experimentation to demonstrate some of the amazing possibilities.
In line with this, I would really like to hear a guest that could really get into the nitty gritty of why people/polity is relatively resistant to urban models of building, rather than just hand-waving the problem as NIMBY's and "people don't like new things". I think that we need to get granular and break this problem down.
This feels like a top 3 problem to solve wrt climate change/good living.
Whenever I here the generalization of what the footprint of an EV is I wonder what the size of the vehicle is. The average EV is pretty big. There are a lot of people who could get by with a two seater. Consider the Aptera, light, small battery, super aerodynamic, in sunny climes it can be charged by it's solar panels most of the time. I always wonder how these generalization would change if Aptera specs were used.
There are strip malls, big box stores and half empty office buildings where many work from home now. These seem like much easier targets for land use reform. I'm not saying ignore the subdivision sprawl but there are other areas in cities to consider as well.
As to Dave's question, of whether "the climate movement should embrace urban land use policy as a major area of focus." I think most "climate activists" support density, infill, etc, talked about here and many, many other enviro policies more than they support any industrial scale climate action. Many already live in urban or dense suburban areas, and are aching for some "post-industrial" idyll, that is really "industry-elsewhere." There is a meme out there criticizing "climate activists" for having "carbon tunnel vision." I find that very untrue. In fact I find many "climate activists" are very quick to find fault with resources and land and costs of renewable energy, electrification, etc. They embrace seeming win-win-win policies like regenerative ag, forest carbon credits, or lawn-to-garden conversions, or only rooftop solar or "land use policy" that don't require industrial projects of any kind. Or fantasy fusion energy, or...
I guess, for me, there are so many other reasons to support density/infill, starting with equity, and plenty of activists supporting it.
BTW, listened to the pod while 75% through a long train and driving trip. Lots of horrifying exurban development out there. But old Sacramento seems to have "solved" or at least tried to address the greenery/tree/density balance mentioned by some of the other commenters.
It's a very frustrating topic. I wish I could live in a small apartment, but it's just cheaper for me to have a single family home with way more space than I need on a land footprint that is easily five times that of the apartment. At least all my shopping is within walking distance. I pretty much only drive to go hiking, and I *could* take the bus for that. (Don't move here! LOL!)
Looking a few years ahead, where can thoughtful people who want to help create a still-livable planet settle, where they can make a constructive difference, where members of their neighborhood association won't become their enemies?
In re: enviro NIMBYs, especially in California, there has been an organizing push in the Bay Area, at least, to join and redirect environmentalist organizations. Recently, the Sierra Club's leadership elections in both SF and the East Bay brought in YIMBY slates, and they are off to the races to push pro-density advocacy. Also, to your last question of the big, grinding, everywhere battles, this is the perfect opportunity for people to become politically engaged locally, and have an observable impact. This can be transformative both personally and in communities at every scale as you observed at the beginning of the discussion.
I own a house in a city. It has green space. I feel like the discussion of cities is always Manhattan or Downtown SF. How about normal city? While the powers argue, can we build solar and condensed housing in regular cities?