Extra

New: Interesting Times: Part 2 (News Analysis)

Tim Hansen
Tuesday May 26, 2015 - 12:54:00 PM

In Part 1 we observed that the times are changing and a new vision of what our future will be like is beginning to emerge. The advances made in energy efficiency will change how we live and the world we create for tomorrow. Today it is not hard to imagine a world with zero-emission autos and highly efficient homes that meet their energy needs with solar electric and solar hot water on rooftops.

Contrary to past beliefs, the goal today isn’t so much to use less energy, as it is to use less oil and produce less greenhouse gas. The idea that automobiles are obsolete so cities should be built very dense to facilitate public transportation, with everyone taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking to conserve energy is no longer persuasive and many people are beginning to wonder if the very concentrated model of development—dense urbanism—isn’t inferior to a more dispersed model of urbanism in terms of oil consumption, greenhouse gas reduction, and quality of life. We all want wonderful, livable cities. Our question is basic: what kind of future should we create?

Today, the dense urbanists are promoting many projects. Let’s look at two proposed for Berkeley, California. The Harold Way project is nearing the end of the planning process. It is a mixed-use project with 300 apartments, made of concrete, steel and glass, eighteen stories high, and will tower over everything else in the area. The second project is a short-term stay hotel with luxury condominiums on top and is located on the Bank America site. 

California law requires that certain large projects prepare an Environmental Impact Report, called an EIR. The process involves a draft report being circulated, questions gathered and answered in a final EIR, that then is either accepted or not by the local government. The report becomes a kind of dance with a community. The local government and developer take the lead, and the community is led along. One would expect to find all kinds of information in the report, both the project’s impacts and its benefits. Let’s look at the EIR for Harold Way and try to decipher the underlying assumptions to see if they make sense. 

Most cities make area plans that guide development and reflect the cities values. The plans are laced with statements of the kind of community they would like to become. These statements are used in the EIR to evaluate proposed projects with the hope that the community values are being adhered to. Here are two examples from Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan: 

Goal ES-3: Encourage higher-density, highly livable development to take advantage of Downtown’s proximity to regional transit and to improve the availability of diverse walk-to destinations – such as retail, services, culture, and recreation. 

Goal AC-4: Promote transit as an efficient, attractive choice and as a primary mode of motor-vehicle travel. 

These goals reflect a time when we thought we would soon run out of oil. Recognizing that personal transportation isn’t going the way of the horse it is obvious that our planning documents are out of date. This is not surprising given that the dense urbanists wrote them years ago. Perhaps the above vision for our future should be revised something like the following: 

New Goal: Encourage highly livable, diverse and affordable cities built to a human scale without significant shadowing or traffic congestion. Develop adequate parking for personal vehicles in retail, services, culture, and recreation areas and in the proximity of regional transit centers.  

New Goal: Recognize that personal vehicles are the primary mode of travel and promote an efficient network of roads with a minimum of congestion and delays. Recognize that transportation is a necessity, work to make public transit more efficient for those who depend on it.  

How does the Harold Way project live up to the new goals? Nothing human scale about 18 stories. Such buildings tend to create dead zones around them. They are proposing 300 apartments ranging in size from 474 square feet to 1,085. A studio would rent for around $3,500. While the project will have 171 underground parking spaces, it is for the public and not the apartments. This follows the dense urbanists dogma—dense living using public transit. The apartments resemble student dorms but the community is being told the apartments are being built for people who work in the tech industry across the bay in San Francisco where rents are very high. We are told the tech workers make a lot of money so they can pay high rents, but won’t want an auto since they can take public transportation. 

There is an interesting pattern that the dense urbanists work. They tell a story about some demographic that will use the new building. At first glance it seems plausible, but with more reflection doubt creep in. Above we see the dense urbanists’ story about the tech workers paying high rents yet not wanting an auto. An earlier story the dense urbanists told for another project was that there is a bunch of elderly people, “empty nesters,” living in large mostly empty homes in the Berkeley hills, who would love to sell their home and move downtown. A large condominium project was designed just for them, except the empty nesters didn’t come. One didn’t even need a paper napkin to figure out that financially the project didn’t make sense for them. The project went through multiple bankruptcies, stood empty for a long time, and is now rentals. To their credit, the dense urbanists have stopped telling the empty nester story. 

Another project in the works is slated for the Bank of America site in the downtown core. The site would make a great location for a world-class conference center and hotel, something every great university needs but UC Berkeley lacks. Many of us would support such a project, but that is not what is being proposed. The project is described as a conference center and hotel. The conference center has a few small meeting rooms; the hotel is a short-term stay hotel with no room service. To help make things “pencil out” the developer wants to build luxury condominiums on top. It is hard to see anything world-class about this project. It will be another concrete and steel structure with a huge carbon footprint shadowing its neighbors and creating a dead zone in the heart of our city. The associated story this time is that there are a bunch of wealthy foreigners from Asia who want to buy property in Berkeley and that they would purchase the luxury condominiums. It is important not to put reason aside when hearing the stories. The projects should go nowhere but the dense urbanists have years invested in chanting their dogma and are blinded by their vision. They simply won’t hear that the world isn’t going the way they thought it would. 

Let’s look to see what we can learn about the dense urbanists’ approach to climate change. In 2009 the City of Berkeley adopted a Climate Action Plan. It calls for a 33% absolute reduction of green house gas from what was produced in the year 2000 by 2020. The end goal is reducing our emission by 80% though we have no idea how we will get there. Everyone felt good about the plan, but then nothing. Our city still doesn’t have solar on its buildings or new public transportation for those who might someday give up their cars. Like they say of some Texans: it is all hat and no cattle. The Harold Way EIR does mention the 2009 Climate Action Plan, goes though calculations, and concludes the project would not have a significant impact. The calculations are not documented, but more important the method used leaves a lot out. Basically, the EIR takes the emissions associated with the new building’s construction and its ongoing operation, then subtracts the emissions associated with the operation emissions of the old building. They then conclude the amount is below an established threshold and declare the extra greenhouse gas associated with the new project insignificant. 

What was left out? They should add to the project’s calculations the greenhouse gas associated with the manufacturing of the construction materials—all the concrete, steel, glass, and all the other materials used. They should add the greenhouse gas associated with the construction and materials for the building they are demolishing. After all, the old building is well built and demolishing it is a waste of its embedded energy. They should also assume that but for the demolition, the old building would have had energy savings features added to it in the future which would have reduced its future carbon footprint. This adjusted amount, instead of the current estimated ongoing emissions, is what should be subtracted from the new projects emissions in the calculations. Also, the project’s emissions from construction and the manufacturing of materials are emissions being made today, and we don’t get the true picture of what we are doing to the environment if we spread these emissions out over 50 years and not look at what is happening today. The project’s impact regarding greenhouse gas is significant and the EIR calculations are simply misleading and wrong. We should all support more housing but not inappropriate building fueling climate change. The progress a city makes in reducing greenhouse gas will be caused by individuals in the choices they make in personal transportation, life style, and in retrofitting their homes. The damage will be from choices the city makes in its development and the allowing of the use of inappropriate materials. Let’s look at materials. 

Wood is a wonderful product. When a tree grows, it takes in carbon from the atmosphere and uses it to create wood. About half the weight of a dry piece of wood is carbon. It the wood burns, or rots, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. If the wood is composted, much of the carbon ends up as soil with a net reduction in greenhouse gas. 

There are other ways to sequester the carbon embedded in wood. Perhaps the best way is to use it in buildings. Concrete, steel and glass are not such wonderful products. They can be recycled, creating more greenhouse gas, though less than if from raw materials, but they aren’t the carbon sink wood is. Wood, or manufactured wood products, is what we should be using for new buildings. Concrete, steel, and glass should be minimized. 

The Harold Way EIR looks at alternatives, but a wood building alternative for comparing greenhouse gas impacts is missing. It is almost as if the dense urbanists are cherry-picking their data to hide the effects of their projects from the community. This would not be surprising--dense urbanists view themselves as the good guys. To them the end justifies the means. But it is like destroying the village in order to save it. Except in this case the village is the world. 

What kind of future should we create? Let’s imagine two families, both concerned about how they live and their impact on the world. The first family lives in a small unit in a large apartment building at a transit center. They buy LED light bulbs and try to use as little electricity as possible. They are frugal with water and watch what they eat, staying away from foods with a high carbon footprint. They would like to reduce their carbon footprint even more, but there is little opportunity. 

There is not enough space on the apartment building for solar to meet their and the other residents’ needs, and anyway the space is designated as the apartment building’s open space. There is no land for a garden to grow vegetables or space for a shop to make things. Their apartment is well built of steel and concrete, has a huge carbon footprint, and is expensive. The land it sits on is also expensive. The cost is reflected in their high rent. They would like a pet, but the apartment rules won’t allow it. If they have a child, they will have to move to a larger apartment. They dream of a second home to get away. 

The second family lives on a plot of land, near or in a city, a short distance from a regional transit hub. They have a small home made of wood and designed to be highly energy efficient, with solar electric and solar hot water on the roof. They generate enough power for their home and almost enough for their auto. They have a garden and a few fruit trees and a gray-water system for watering. They plan their garden to not only grow food but also build up the soil, creating a carbon sink through composting. They would like to heat their home with wood chips--not by burning them--but by composting them. They live with nature and wake up in the morning to the sound of birds. They have a space where they enjoy making things, where the noise won’t disturb the neighbors. They have pets and a few chickens for eggs. Their mortgage is less than what it would cost for a condominium near a transit center, not including the association fees--many of the dense new apartment buildings rent for more than their mortgage. They are building equity in their home and have a retirement plan. They are thinking of children and will add a bedroom to their home when the time comes. They feel attached to the community and are home to stay. 

These two families represent the extremes, but the second family’s way of life should play a significant role in our future. It can achieve greater CO2 reduction than the first family, perhaps even going negative in their carbon footprint. Also, it is more in keeping with our country’s values. Building dense apartments at transit centers to warehouse people no longer makes sense. A more organic “Garden City” approach to development projects does make sense. Wood framed apartment buildings with enough room for solar, an electric auto, and a garden for the residents also makes sense. This is what many people would like to see built in their community. 

No one knows what the future will bring. The dense urbanists made the best guess for 20 or 30 years ago and they were right to do so. The best guess for today is different; a less dense, less green house gas intensive form of development. I believe we should set limits on the total amount of greenhouse gas associated with a project. Projects should provide enough parking and solar for electrical and hot water needs. Carbon credits should be required of a project whose green house gas doesn’t pencil out if the project otherwise has redeeming public value. The details should be worked out in a public process--perhaps a city ballot initiative. City officials who remain embedded dense urbanists should be replaced or recalled.