Running around New York. (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} futurebird) wrote,@ 2008-01-12 11:55:00 |
|
16. Share
←-→
Housing subdivision near Union, Kentucky, a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio. Image from the Wikipedia.
Image from an advertisement for LG washers and dryers published in "House Beautiful" magazine in 2007.
One of the advantages to urban living is the opportunity to own (and hence throw away) much less stuff. I'll take this rather iconic image from a recent advertisement for a washer and dryer as my illustration. The vast majority of city dwellers do not own their own washer and dryer. This isn't a function of wealth, as much as it is a function of space. There is simply no place to put the noisy and bulky machines in your typical apartment. People wash their clothes in shared facilities located in their building, or at a local Laundromat. Wealthy people send their clothes out to be cleaned, while most of us load up the cart and roll it down to the basement or around the corner to do the wash. In either case, the machines used in this process are used by 100s of people, they are built to last as long as possible, they are only replaced when they are broken. This clothes-washing arrangement is not possible in a suburban setting because the low density development makes it inefficient. Instead, each household buys and discards its own machine. This is just one example of how economies of scale work to make cities more environmentally friendly places than they at first appear to be on the surface. This kind of "green" living requires no laws, and no extra effort, it's simply a function of the spatial design. It's built-in. Likewise the tendency towards duplication and waste is built in to suburban neighborhoods. You can't blame people for buying their own washer and dryer, it's the only practical solution for that spatial arrangement.
To some of you, the imagery here must seem bit tired, right? Since the beginning of the suburban boom in the United States, social scientists have been critical of this type of housing development. Although, the topic is old, please keep in mind both of these images are relatively new. The advertisement looks like it could have come from the 50s, but it was published in the December 2007 issue of House Beautiful magazine. The housing development shown the photo was constructed during the last five years. This kind of development has never really slowed and today, more than ever, we have created environments for ourselves that make sharing hard. This is happening today.
The suburban plan really did wonders for the economy for years. Think of all of the products that were sold, the jobs that were created, and the growth that suburban redundancy helped ignite. At this late stage, it would seem that, even in suburbia, a large number of people have "one of everything" so now the advertising challenge seems to be to find ways to convince people to buy two. Or to convince people to throw out old products more quickly and buy new again, even when the old product has not worn out. It's really unfortunate that the economic healh of the United States is so closely tied to such a wasteful cycle. We need to find some other focal point for our economy. That focal point could be increasing the efficiency and long-term sustainability of cities so that they can accommodate larger populations.
And there is room for waste-cutting in the urban settings too nd we can simultaneously improve quality of life while making these adjustments. Dry cleaning uses harsh chemicals and shirts tend to be packed in excessive amounts of paper and plastic. Many old, industrial washing machines waste water and energy and could be replaced with more efficient models. But, the bigger point here is that planning can help people to share resources. Choices about where and how we live have big impacts on the environment because these choices dictate what kind of energy savings are and are not possible. And, we can take this beyond washing machines. What are some other examples of things that people tend to buy redundantly that could instead be shared? How do urban and suburban living arrangements hinder or help these attempts at cutting back?
Last: Transportation (Plane, Bus, Foot and Train)
Next: 17. Ephemeral but legendary histories
From: The Urban Naturalist
Housing subdivision near Union, Kentucky, a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio. Image from the Wikipedia.
Image from an advertisement for LG washers and dryers published in "House Beautiful" magazine in 2007.
One of the advantages to urban living is the opportunity to own (and hence throw away) much less stuff. I'll take this rather iconic image from a recent advertisement for a washer and dryer as my illustration. The vast majority of city dwellers do not own their own washer and dryer. This isn't a function of wealth, as much as it is a function of space. There is simply no place to put the noisy and bulky machines in your typical apartment. People wash their clothes in shared facilities located in their building, or at a local Laundromat. Wealthy people send their clothes out to be cleaned, while most of us load up the cart and roll it down to the basement or around the corner to do the wash. In either case, the machines used in this process are used by 100s of people, they are built to last as long as possible, they are only replaced when they are broken. This clothes-washing arrangement is not possible in a suburban setting because the low density development makes it inefficient. Instead, each household buys and discards its own machine. This is just one example of how economies of scale work to make cities more environmentally friendly places than they at first appear to be on the surface. This kind of "green" living requires no laws, and no extra effort, it's simply a function of the spatial design. It's built-in. Likewise the tendency towards duplication and waste is built in to suburban neighborhoods. You can't blame people for buying their own washer and dryer, it's the only practical solution for that spatial arrangement.
To some of you, the imagery here must seem bit tired, right? Since the beginning of the suburban boom in the United States, social scientists have been critical of this type of housing development. Although, the topic is old, please keep in mind both of these images are relatively new. The advertisement looks like it could have come from the 50s, but it was published in the December 2007 issue of House Beautiful magazine. The housing development shown the photo was constructed during the last five years. This kind of development has never really slowed and today, more than ever, we have created environments for ourselves that make sharing hard. This is happening today.
The suburban plan really did wonders for the economy for years. Think of all of the products that were sold, the jobs that were created, and the growth that suburban redundancy helped ignite. At this late stage, it would seem that, even in suburbia, a large number of people have "one of everything" so now the advertising challenge seems to be to find ways to convince people to buy two. Or to convince people to throw out old products more quickly and buy new again, even when the old product has not worn out. It's really unfortunate that the economic healh of the United States is so closely tied to such a wasteful cycle. We need to find some other focal point for our economy. That focal point could be increasing the efficiency and long-term sustainability of cities so that they can accommodate larger populations.
And there is room for waste-cutting in the urban settings too nd we can simultaneously improve quality of life while making these adjustments. Dry cleaning uses harsh chemicals and shirts tend to be packed in excessive amounts of paper and plastic. Many old, industrial washing machines waste water and energy and could be replaced with more efficient models. But, the bigger point here is that planning can help people to share resources. Choices about where and how we live have big impacts on the environment because these choices dictate what kind of energy savings are and are not possible. And, we can take this beyond washing machines. What are some other examples of things that people tend to buy redundantly that could instead be shared? How do urban and suburban living arrangements hinder or help these attempts at cutting back?
Last: Transportation (Plane, Bus, Foot and Train)
Next: 17. Ephemeral but legendary histories
From: The Urban Naturalist
