Archive for sustainability

Colorado Springs Sustainability Bike Tour 2011: Recap

Posted in Events, Sustainability with tags , , , , , on July 18, 2011 by John Olson

Another successful Sustainability Bicycle Tour is now behind us in Colorado Springs.  On Saturday, July 16, 2011, approximately fifty people participated in the three-stage Sustainability Bike Tour.  We were extremely pleased with the turn out for the event and thankful to be joined by two of the newest City Council Members, Lisa Czelatdko and Tim Leigh.

The intentions of the bicycle tour were for the attendees to get a better understanding of the otherwise hidden sustainability features of our great city.  The Bicycle Tour was book-ended at Gold Hill Mesa where we had the opportunity to listen to the on-site developer of the neo-traditional neighborhood, Bob Willard, speak about why Gold Hill Mesa is sustainable.  He referenced what sustainability means to him and how it is being met at Gold Hill Mesa.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Gold Hill Mesa, it is a neo-traditional neighborhood constructed in what was previously the tailing of a historic Gold Mine.  It is located between downtown Colorado Springs and Pikes Peak near Historic Old Colorado City.  Major environmental impacts were mitigated to create a neighborhood that will ultimately be a self-sufficient automobile-independent neighborhood.  Without the major commitment that Mr. Willard and his fellow partners have taken at Gold Hill Mesa, the hill would remain as a blighted eyesore near downtown Colorado Springs.

In his brief statements, Mr. Willard mentioned a key component of sustainability—that is that a place is not sustainable without the right economics.  Sustainability must consider the Triple Bottom Line, or People, Planet, Profit.

If you are a consistent reader of this blog, you probably have a good grasp of the understanding the triple bottom line and that sustainability begins with the bones of the place.  You understand that the transportation networks in and around a place are crucial to the economic vitality.  Too often, the achievement of sustainability does not consider the fossil fuels required in transport or the economics required making sustainability occur.  For example, the most energy-efficient place that requires fifty miles of daily transport is still far from sustainable. The same is true for the highly rated, super-gizmo building that does not see a return on investment for 30-plus years.

In addition to learning about Gold Hill Mesa, other themes of the Sustainability Bike Tour included the importance of adaptive reuse, bicycle infrastructure, community amenities, urban agriculture and local sustainable foods.  (Photos from the bicycle tour will come soon in a separate blog post).

In the next blog post, Infill: A Term with a Variety of Scales, I will write further about the infill sites that were visited throughout the bicycle tour including specific data from the El Paso County Assessor site regarding a few of them.

Has Technology Made Us Lazy as a Civilization?

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Landscape Architecture, Sustainability with tags , , , , , , on May 9, 2011 by John Olson

My fear is that technology and innovation have almost made our civilization regress at an inverse relationship to innovation. Don’t misinterpret my statement.  I love technology as much as the next person, just ask my iPad sitting next to me.  We cannot take the word of the specialists as seriously as we once could.

Many of the goals in development in today’s society revolve around sustainability.  Sustainability in its simplest terms equals self-sufficient or independent.  Very few places are capable of claiming to be self-sufficient, but you can bet that many do claim to be sustainable on a daily basis.  If a place is ‘sustainable’, it is usually because it is not yet efficient to be dependent on others, or it is a conscious effort to be that way.

A tree lawn that is constructed to infiltrate rainwater is more cost-effective than piping stormwater and provides supplemental irrigation. Copyright, Olson Planning & Urban Landscapes, 2011. All rights reserved.

Consider storm drainage as an example of our failures from innovation.  Prior to the highly effective mode of storm sewer pipes, manholes, etc., drainage used to be handled above grade, through infiltration.  Today, this “new” innovation is referred to as “Green Infrastructure”, “Low Impact Development,” or “Light Imprint.”  This is not anything new, this was common sense and at one time, the most cost-effective thing to do.  In all actuality it still is the most cost-effective, though not used as often because it is much more main-stream (no pun intended), to design pipe infrastructure.  If you are a civil engineer who is a specialist at designing pipe infrastructure, your efficiency is not readily available to think in terms of infiltration.

This fundamental problem with “specialists” reminds me of an interaction I had a few years ago with a transportation engineer.  There was discussion of considering mass transit along a corridor in lieu of extensive highway widening equipped with miles of concrete clover leafs.  When mass transit was brought up, this particular engineer told me quite candidly that “these sorts of things should not be brought up in a public meeting.”  I asked why, and his response was “well, I don’t know how to design that.”  This response has remained in my head since as a problem with our society as I am sure that this was not isolated to this individual only.

The following is an excerpt from a great book titled “Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution.” It exposes one additional element of that contributes to the over-design of our places:

“One reason that buildings are inefficient is that the compensation paid to architects and engineers is frequently based directly or indirectly on a percentage of the cost of the building itself or of the equipment they specify for it. Designers who attempt to eliminate costly equipment therefore end up with lower fees, or at best with the same fees for a greater amount of work.”

Landfill Diversion Through Nomenclature and Education

Posted in Sustainability with tags , , , on April 18, 2011 by John Olson

The goal of Zero Waste can seem like a daunting task that is not worth the effort. In all reality, decreasing our waste is one of the most sustainable practices that our civilization could undertake. Landfills in the United States continue to fill up at incredible rates as we continue to become more consumptive with new single-use products, packaging and materials.

The initial steps in any waste plan should be focused toward education and convenience. If opportunities for compost and recycling are not as readily available as ‘trash’, how can we expect for these to decrease the rate in which we feed our landfills?

When waste receptacles are available, receptacles for recycling should also be present. When this happens, more often than not, the recycling receptacle(s) will fill up faster than the waste receptacle. Add a metal pail for compostable items and very little landfill material will be collected.

After the landfill diversion program has been in place for a duration of six months, greater capacities will be necessary for the compost and recycling receptacles compared to the landfill receptacle.

Last week, Sustainable Fort Carson hosted an event on waste that included a screening of “Bag It” along with multiple speakers regarding waste. A representative from Whole Foods was available to discuss their successes and obstacles in removing the single-use plastic bag from the waste stream. In the discussion, the representative noted the awareness in how containers are labeled. It was stated that in Whole Foods, the waste receptacle is not labeled “trash”, but it is labeled “Landfill”. The nomenclature of “Landfill” requires the user to think about the disposal of the item before getting rid of it.

One common problem with starting a recycling program occurs when a recycling receptacle is provided without an adjacent waste receptacle. The convenience in this case becomes counterproductive because the user may choose to dispose of their non-recyclable items in the recycling containers. This becomes a problem for those who must maintain the waste program. Signage that tells the users what can and cannot be recycled is an important factor for the same reasons.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,059 other followers