Green vs gray environmentalism (video)
Having seen similar disagreements play out here, I figured this would be worth sharing with the GBA community. While most of the content here is fairly agnostic to density, it seems like GBA is slowly moving in the “Gray” direction, particularly with Lloyd Alter’s pieces. If nothing else, I figured it may spark an interesting conversation and perhaps some future content.
Edit: The argument made is that higher density development patterns often result in development of land people see regularly, making that land more gray (buildings) instead of green (large yards, agriculture, and wildlands) results in overall better outcomes for the environment because it becomes an alternative to the default of suburban/exurban sprawl.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Hey, I wrote a book of a method for living that would satisfy both the greens and the grays. I guess it would fall into the category of brown? Although I doubt either would buy into it: https://a.co/d/2f6GDj5
krackadile,
"As we march into the 20th century"
???
Looks like I'm going to have to fire my editor. I fixed that. It may take a few days to make it to the store though. Thank you.
I've been intrigued by underground cities since learning about Derinkuyu in Turkey, and more recently in watching the sci-fi series "Silo." I think it might very well make sense as climate change progresses, especially in hotter areas.
What happens when the ocean rises and your underground city is underwater too?
I live on solid rock 550' above sea level. It would be hard digging but the sooner we start, the sooner we're done!
Building underground has lots of practical drawbacks, some of which are probably deal breakers. The fact that it was tried in the past but never caught on likely means there are good reasons for that. This video raises some of the questions. If anyone has a good answer for them, let me know.
https://youtu.be/wZ5wOGseB4M?si=nXhLdluKysoBU6w9
This video is very entertaining. I got a good laugh from it. Thank you.
It's bad manners just to post a YouTube link without giving us some idea of what it's about. So what is "gray" and what is "green"?
Deleted
Put me squarely on Team Gray then.
Apologies, that got lost in my editing for brevity. It has been added.
bcade,
Thanks for that link.
There is an interesting sub-narrative around climate change Martin and others have brought up. Whether we need to tailor our actions to the immediate threat it poses, or maintain a longer term perspective. Doing the former would sublimate all other goals to the task of reducing emissions in the next decade or so.
I'm pretty pessimistic. I see no signs that we are as a species capable of the global cooperation needed to make the necessary changes. I think we need to focus on resilient structures which can withstand the coming environmental changes we are already beginning to experience.
Lloyd hasn't posted a blog here in a long time so it's a slow move indeed! But others touch on the topic regularly. I definitely see the advantages of city living, especially after moving to what could be a self-sufficient homestead ten years ago after 20 years of living in cities. But when I lived in cities, I could see just how dependent they were on surrounding rural areas for their survival. I think we need both. Sprawl is the worst of both.
Like Malcolm, I've pretty much given up hope that we can make a difference before it's too late. I still believe that natural, biodegradable, renewable materials are generally preferable to ones that are bad for the environment and I have no problems with pushing my view on those who can afford it. But building durability and resilience is also a factor. As is the willingness and ability to move to a different region if one becomes uninhabitable, whether for climactic, financial or political reasons.
GBA's being glitchy again. I wrote the post above.
So, after seeing both sides of the coin, city vs rural, which do you prefer and why?
I think we need both. What we don't need is suburban sprawl, which some people may conflate with "rural."
Personally, I miss aspects of city living and enjoy many aspects of living on 20+ acres of sloped woodland bordering a small lake. We have only recently given up homesteading activities and could still be fairly self-sufficient if necessary. Our forest almost exactly offsets our carbon footprint. We also need to be here to look after our elderly moms.
For our next phase in life, we are planning to move to a city in southern France. I will miss having our own woods and not being to see any neighbors. But we don't have kids to take care of us and growing old in a rural place is not something we can afford to do. And we are excited to take advantage of everything that living in a civilized city offers. (If it's too hot there when we are ready to move, we'll pick another European city.)
The "gray" isn't what I expected. I was assuming it was going to be something like environmental (green) vs economic (gray), because the economic picture seems to take precedence for most people here.
As for the green vs gray as described in the video, green is hard to defend. We don't have enough resources nor can we afford the carbon footprint of putting everyone in single detached homes on big plots of land. If we want to move forward as a species without a mass cull, we have to be more efficient. One thing we don't need however, is skyscrapers. Low-rise, high density housing is a good compromise. You can still have a green space, grass and trees surrounding low-rise housing that all the residents can actually see from their residence and easily access.
I've been a a big proponent of shifting taxes off of buildings (capital) & onto socially-created locational values (economic rent a positive externality) for a long time (20+ years)
This would encourage building & discourage speculation (especially in the urban core)
It is a similar lens in how I view climate disruption ...
If the atmosphere is a carbon sequestering "commons", then to allow use beyond it's capacity to safely sequester creates negative externalities (costs to third parties not involve in the transaction that liberated carbon to the atmosphere "commons").
If we required manufacturers of products, that when used liberated carbon to the atmosphere "commons", to buy a permit (title) for an amount to be sequestered - not to exceed it's capacity to safely sequester, the money collected is called "economic rent" ...
You have then converted a negative externality into a positive externality!
One thing to add, while there certainly is correlation due to a combination of zoning and market factors, higher densities do not have to be synonymous with larger cities.
While it has been rare in the post war era, a great example of small town density is the work of Jonah Richard in Vermont which he documents on his substack, https://brickandmortar.substack.com/