Hello UEPers,

Hope you are enjoying Hallowieen. Last night I had a great time at Andys party!

I first af all want to introduce you to GreenProphet, Green prophet is an amzing blog on sustainability in the Middle East.

I also think some of us might find this confference interesting- World Future Energy Summit Web site

The 2010 World Future Energy Summit (WFES) is less than three months away; and plans are already underway to ensure that this conference will be even more successful than WFES 2009, which drew more than 18,200 visitors from 84 countries.

Hosted by Abu Dhabi’s Masdar Future Energy Company, the main themes of the 2010 Summit will be centered on the concept of “eco cities” and the issues surrounding technology transfer in order to advance the concept of sustainable and renewable energy; which will be vital to the success of the environment of the new eco-cities being planned for various parts of the globe.

Some of these include:  Treasure Island in the USA, Dong Tang in China, and Masdar City in Abu Dhabi itself. Although Masdar City has been mentioned several times on Green Prophet, the other two have not; and it will be interesting to see how the Americans and Chinese can convert a polluted naval base outside San Francisco, and a piece of swampy wasteland along the Yangtze River into completely sustainable eco-communities.

In the case of Masdar City, the geographical area in which it is being built is much harsher than that of the other two, and could be the most challenging of the three; as it is being built in a country with virtually no natural water supplies and with summertime temperatures soaring to over 49 degrees Celsius (130 degrees Fahrenheit).

Just a few of the confirmed Summit speakers include: Mr. Karlos Papoulias, President of Greece; Mr. Wolfgang Dehen, CEO of Siemens AG Energy Sector; Ms. Helene Pelosse, Interim Director-General of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA); and Ms. Katrina Landis, CEO of British Petroleum’s Alternative Energy Division.

A number of sustainable energy eco-city projects, including Masdar City, have had construction slow-downs or even outright delays due to the ongoing economic slowdown which has been in effect world-wide since the end of last year. It will be interesting to see whether other projects, which are not considered to be very eco-sustainable, including Abu Dhabi’s Al Reem Island project, will be discussed, along with the featured projects like Treasure Island and Masdar City.

But in looking at the program schedule for the 2010 WFES summit, there will be plenty of issues to keep the delegates busy as well as enlightened; including climate change, new innovations in alternative and renewable energy, world food and water shortages, and where increased investments to create “green” employment opportunities will come from. We can only hope that the ecological aspects of many sustainable living projects will not be compromised by profit motive considerations, as may be the case in projects like Al Reem Island.

And in the meantime nominations are open for the Zayed Future Energy Prize – with a prize booty of $1.5 million. Click here on Zayed Future Energy for more.

Did anyone catch Nightline last night?  They did a story on a radical initiative in Flint, MI: bulldozing vacant properties, with the intention of eventually returning the land to nature.  Rush Limbaugh, for one - indignant as always - is none too pleased; this is happening in America!  We don't shrink, we grow!

Of course, many of us in the world of planning are familiar with the idea of shrinking cities; last spring some of us UEPers even got to meet, listen to and talk with Frank Popper, who is probably the country's most prolific academic proponent of the concept.  The Nightline report, which addressed the topic as if it was an alien from another universe, is really just the latest in a string of recent shrinking city coverage appearing in big media outlets (eg, Harvard professor Edward Glaeser recently wrote about it in the New York Times: "While there is no evidence that the Obama administration is committed to razing homes, it probably should be").  Though not many politicians are yet willing to hang their hat on physical constriction (listen carefully to Flint's mayor's hedge), there does appear to be a growing shrinking city movement.

We young academics often fall for the conceptual flavor of the week.  Does anyone want to argue for or against this one?

This past Monday, some of my Housing Policy classmates and I went to see HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan speak at the Harvard GSD. The event was in part sponsored by the Joint Center for Housing Studies, in honor of their 50th anniversary. A lot of folks in the housing world are pretty excited about Mr. Donovan, because he is very knowledgeable, thoughtful, and "a real housing guy" - which, from what I glean, is in contrast to previous HUD secretaries.

A few items stand out from his talk, most of which aligned with the lessons I've learned so far in Housing Policy. Among them, he emphasized the importance of place-based housing solutions, rather than relying only on voucher-type programs. To this end, employing the assistance and expertise of non-profits and other non-government entities is vital.

He mentioned briefly a new type of mortgage called a location efficient mortgage (LEM), which calculates transportation cost savings of living in places where one can easily walk or take public transportation, instead of drive. Thus, people who live in places where they save on transportation costs may qualify for mortgages that would otherwise be considered too expensive. This website does a better job of explaining it than I do: http://www.locationefficiency.com/

He also spoke about low-income homeownership. First, he said that the main alternative to homeownership, renting, warrants closer consideration as a viable solution to housing problems. (In my class I've learned that, in the policy world and culture at large, there exists a fairly extreme, somewhat unfounded bias toward homeowners and homeownership.) On the other hand, he hopes that the one thing we don't take away from the current mortgage crisis is the inapt idea that low-income families can't be homeowners.

In all, it was an engaging talk, and the enthusiasm for Mr. Donovan seems well-founded. I hope some of my classmates present at the talk will add other items from the talk that stood out to them. 

Here are a few more relevant links:

A Crisis Is A Terrible Thing To Waste (a conference from earlier this year with the best name ever)

Is affordable housing so scarce in NYC that it violates human rights?

--AR

Wired Magazine ran a feature earlier this year about the effect of designing under constraint. The primary point of the section dealt with the fact that artists, architects, engineers, and designers work best when they are provided a set of guidelines under which to produce a work. It is under these restrictions that innovation and creativity flourish. Wired quickly sets this view of constraint against the lack of restraint that led to the housing market and financial crash. It is generally accepted now (though certainly in discussion) that regulation is needed. As Scott Dadich points out "the lack of limits has proven to be a false freedom."

Planning certainly falls under the hat of "regulation." Does planning work best when we as planners are faced with restrictions (NIMBY-ism, environmental protection, public involvement) or lack thereof (urban renewal)?

A couple things to think about:
Jane Jacobs would probably prefer to restrict/end planning altogether.
And then there's the fact that the APA just gave a planning award to the Houston neighborhood of Montrose, an unplanned neighborhood.

So where does that leave us? Are we like the designers, able to provide a better built environment to the public through restrictions (both on ourselves and on the practice of building)? As the policy writers, do barriers help us to frame an issue and focus on potential actions and initiatives?

This evening, the MA Chapter of the APA and MIT hosted a talk by Anthony Flint about his new book Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York's Master Builder And Transformed The American City". Attended by about 50 people, the group included professors, practitioners and students from across Massachusetts.

To begin with, Flint described the present focus on planning - infill, redevelopment, building off of and expanding public transit. As he noted, this stands in stark contrast to the actions happening in the 1960s - and it was these two pivotal people (Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs) who helped get us to where we are today.

It was interesting to hear how he compared the two. Generally, the planning field is (now) very critical of Robert Moses while many (especially the New Urbanists) praise Jane Jacobs. It turns out though that they had their similarities and weren't wholly positive or negative.

One of the biggest issues facing planners these days is NIMBY-ism (Not-In-My-Back-Yard). Flint pointed out that it was Jacobs that really started this concept. Her efforts to protect New York's neighborhoods from demolition for highway projects encouraged the public to protect their home and the area around it. He also noted that it was this same "protectionism" that she sponsored that saved homes in the West Village. That same neighborhood has gone through major gentrification, resulting in the displacement of the same people Jacobs wanted to save from highway displacement. It's resulted in a new guerilla campaign More Jane Less Marc. Of course, he brand of public concern and action had a much greater positive effect - such as the great freeway revolts in Boston and San Francisco.

While Jacobs provided America with the concept of "human-scale neighborhoods," Flint made the case for Moses's concern and focus on infrastructure. We are at the cusp of an infrastructure meltdown. Sadly, the public backlash regarding Moses caused us to turn away from infrastructure rather than incorporate it equitably.

Flint closed his presentation with the question "How does a city reinvent itself?" Jacobs left us the owner's manual for the city and neighborhood. Now we need to embrace density through proper design and scale, transit node focus, and distribution of parks.

Following his presentation, Flint opened the floor to questions and discussions. These included:

• Do we need government subsidies?
• What will be the effect of the new MassDOT
• Smart growth initiative for mixed-income developments
• How to balance NIMBY-ism
• Developing on/near the Greenway
• Flint's concern and focus on climate change and our responsibility for immediate action
• Where is the future of planning heading?
• The importance of visualizing a plan through new technology and how it fits into the regional framework
• Jacobs would support the Times Square traffic calming measures (she attempted something similar) and potential congestion charges
• Potential for sustainability to converge the engineering and planning fields

The Tufts UEP/AFE dual degree was featured in APA's magazine "The New Planner" this month. The article is "Expanding The Academic Menu: Today's Planning Students Have an Appetite for Food Systems."

Expanding the Academic Menu- Today's Planning Students Have an Appetite for Food Systems.pdf (513.24 kb)

Meanwhile, stay tuned for word from the new as-yet-unnamed UEP-Friedman School student alliance. They have some exciting events in the pipeline.

This past Monday, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) approved transitioning the LEED for Neighborhood Development pilot program into a full certification program. Up to this point, this certification process was provided to a select few projects in the US. The USGBC put the program up to a vote and all four voting organizations (Congress for the New Urbanism members, CNU Board of Directors, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the USGBC) approved the transition. 

The main difference between LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) and LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) is the project impact scope. A major criticism of the LEED-NC system is that a developer could build a Platinum LEED structure - out in suburbia in a greenfield. The LEED-NC does not evaluate the infrastructure needs, location, or transportation for a project. LEED-ND on the other hand acknowledges a large scope of impact. Developers are evaluated on use of land, correlation with surrounding use, consideration for brownfields, and access to public transit - to name a few.

The LEED-ND system is studied and incorporated into Christine Cousineau's "Green Urban Design" course.

For the New Urbanism News article about this: click here. 

To learn about the USGBC and its LEED accreditation programs: click here. 

Richard Florida published an op-ed in the WSJ calling  for urban policy focusing only on "Mega Regions"

These are some of the points he makes

"While there are 191 nations in the world, just 40 significant mega-regions power the global economy". Mega regions are: Home to more than one-fifth of the world's populationand account for two-thirds of global economic output and more than 85% of all global innovation. "China is not our competitor its Shanghai, Beijing and the Hong Kong-Shenzhen corridor, which account for roughly 43% of the output of the entire country".

He calls for policy that strengthen mega regions such as:

1.      Support global trade such as NAFTA.

2.      Stop transferring wealth to the periphery such as the transfer of recourses to the south from the core mega regions where it can be used “most productively”.  

3.      Density, stop subsidizing suburbanization.  

4.      Ensure economic competitiveness of mega regions by improving infrastructure such as fast rail.  

Link to article:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796112300309601.html -

I am sure UEPers have lots to say about this so let’s hear your thought

A great talk on the  Mannahattan Project, the project created a 3d model of NY 400 years ago. 

Click to Watch

The Mannahattan http://themannahattaproject.org/