Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] rural vs urban design

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: lbsaltzman@aol.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] rural vs urban design
  • Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:00:24 -0400


Rain,



This is an absolutely brilliant analysis which I would like to forward to a
lot of people with your permission.? I am particularly struck by your
analysis of smart growth which is a big issue where I live.? The conversation
is happening with no concern for the carrying capacity of the land to produce
food and to provide adequate water.? We have conservatives who want to
develop on the last bit of open farmland and we have progressives who want to
do urban infill. Neither group is willing to look at how we live during
energy descent, and global warming when water supplies may be more dicey, and
food will be far more expensive to import from far away.?



Larry Saltzman








-----Original Message-----
From: Rain Tenaqiya <raincascadia@yahoo.com>
To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org; Bill Quirk
<BillQuirkForHayward@Comcast.net>
Sent: Sat, Aug 29, 2009 12:26 pm
Subject: [permaculture] rural vs urban design




The September/October 2009 edition of Sierra magazine has a very telling pair
of
images on page 21 that shows greenhouse gas emissions per acre versus
emissions
per household for the Phoenix, Arizona area.? The first image shows the
highest
density of emissions in the urban cores, as you'd expect.? However, the
second
image shows the highest levels of emissions coming from the rural areas.? The
fact is, with current consumption habits, rural dwellers use way more energy
than urban dwellers, an idea that has been floating around a lot lately as
folks
start looking at their carbon footprints.
?
However, the kneejerk reaction is to start supporting "smart growth"
planning,
which emphasizes increased density, in addition to integrated
residential/business zoning and good mass transit and bicycle lane systems.?
I
would argue that if we are planning to avoid global warming and to anticipate
energy descent, increased density has a limit.? In order to have enough space
for rainwater catchment, greywater distribution, solar and wind energy
harvesting, biomass energy production, food production, and composting within
residential areas, I would guess that most buildings cannot be higher than 2
or
3 stories and that there needs to be enough open space around these buildings
to
grow around 50% of the population's food requirements.? This, incidentally,
is
what older neighborhoods and the much-maligned suburbs used to look like.?
Higher density structures also have less access to ventilation and contain
more
thermal mass, resulting in more energy
required for cooling.
?
Higher density zoning only outcompetes lower density zoning in energy
efficiency
when it comes to building materials, heating needs, consumption patterns, and
transportation, with transportation being the main weak point of lower
density
designs.
?
It takes less material to create higher density buildings because of all the
shared walls.? However, the materials must be of?a higher quality, and often
more massive, due to the taller des
igns.? This results in a trade-off in energy
savings.? In smaller and shorter structures, on-site and more basic materials
may be utilized to?a greater extent, possibly resulting in less embedded
energy
overall.
?
As for heating requirements, higher density structures require less heating
overall due to the insulating effects of shared walls, floors, and ceilings.?
However, it is harder to include passive solar design in structures that are
deeper than one room north to south, and taller structures block solar access
to
the buildings next to them.?
?
Consumption patterns are probably more sensitive to culture than the other
factors mentioned here, but there is a potential for less consumption of
goods
in denser areas than in rural areas.? The ability to share laundry
facilities,
food processing equipment, energy technology, farming and landscaping
equipment,
entertainment, etc., is greater where the population density is highest.?
However, an individualist culture prevents this to a large extent.?
Regardless,
as prices go up, we should expect more sharing, and designs should encourage
this.
?
Transportation is the Achilles' heal of low density zoning.? Since personal
transportation accounts for over 40% of the energy currently used by the
average
person in the US (see www.coolcalifornia.org),?it is easy to?see how smart
growth got its name.? However, this will have to change (and already is) as
energy prices go up.? As an example of what personal behavior and technology
improvements can do, my partner and I use 87% less energy for transportation
than the average US household of two, and our transportation sector is only
22%
of our total.? This is true even though we live about six miles out of town
and
our closest neighbors are half a mile away.? We are able to do this through
personal restraint and the use of a Prius and electric bicycle.? However,?I
realize that few will be this committed to energy conservation in the near
future and this is why I believe that no settlement designs wi
ll be successful
without a serious consideration
of transportation needs.? Siting work areas next to housing and providing
abundant opportunities for walking, bicycling, and mass transit are essential
for a low energy future.? Permaculture homesteads spread out over rural land
are
definitely not a sustainable design.? (Unfortunately, the price of land,
current
zoning and building rules, and idiotic cultural practices make it very
difficult
to live a permaculture lifestyle in most urban areas, today.)
?
All this is to say that sustainable settlement designs are likely to look
more
like a neighborhood or village than a big city or rural country.? City
councils
and planning departments that focus on increasing density, rather than on
encouraging things like local rainwater and energy harvesting and
conservation,
biomass and food production, and composting are creating communities that
will
continue to be dependent on vast hinterlands and massive energy inputs.?
There
may be some economies of scale realized in centralized projects outside of
the
urban zones, but I believe that cities will need to be more self-reliant in
the
future, as has happened in Cuba.? Beyond this, the quality of life is much
better where there is open space integrated into the places where we live,
and
where our needs are being met within the local community.
?
?



_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
Google command to search archives:
site:https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture searchstring





  • Re: [permaculture] rural vs urban design, lbsaltzman, 08/30/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page