isn't it interesting that many "green" initiatives really just involve us humans going back to living more close to the Earth and using just a little less of the resources, or using them wisely!

it wasn't even 2 generations ago that people lived just fine without having a need to drive a 2-ton steel vehicle thru town (SUVs), and the average size of an American house was about 1,500 sq ft, not the ungodly 3,500 sw ft+ mini-mansions...even as the size of the American family has gone down.

Just two examples of people going overboard with consumption.

__________________
New term of the day 1/24:
Electile Dysfunction: The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either of only parties in the 2008 election year.
http://www.votenader.org/index.html


5/22, because i'm feeling punny:
As the great Jedi English teacher was quoted in saying, "metaphors be with you."

The ideas that are cheap or free are doable, but most taxpayers still don't want their dollars going towards this type of development. Until green architecture becomes mainstream and can be seen as more than "experimental" to your average Joe, a lot of this type of development will be up to the private and non-profit sector. Experiments like the Big Green Building on Broad and South will have the opportunity to show everybody the bottom-line benefits of going green.

I think it would be great to see Philadelphia become a model for clean design, but my opinion is worth as much as a coal burning Escalade driver. Students often draft these idealistic plans for turning their cities into small Utopias and think, "why can't this be done?" What they always forget is that there are just as many people out there who are thinking the exact opposite - and they also pay taxes and vote.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.

http://greensource.construction.com/...10_chicago.asp

Here is a great article from Green source magazine. Chicago is the undisputed leader of Green, thanks, in totality, to the green fisted Emperor Daley.

Choice Quotes:
"...Certainly, the movement’s strengths are personified by Daley, the tree-hugging, democratically-elected monarch who was born on Arbor Day and who has remade—or, more accurately, has re-layered—the city’s face since he took office in 1989. If a latter-day Rip van Winkle had fallen into a deep slumber in that year and awoken today, he would notice an astonishing change in the city’s once-harsh landscape: 500,000 trees planted, more than 80 miles of landscaped medians constructed, and 2 million square feet of green roofs built or negotiated—more than all other American cities combined. Among them are the green roof atop Millennium Park, the 24.5-acre post-industrial playground that sparkles with contemporary art and architecture, and its less flashy counterpart at the McCormick Place West Building, designed by TVS and the site of GreenBuild. (At press time LEED certification for the McCormick Place expansion was pending. If certified, it will be the nation’s largest certified structure.)
I once got a rise out of Daley by calling his penchant for trees, shrubs, and flowers the “Martha-Stewartizing of this tough-guy town.”..."

"...The city requires all new public buildings to achieve at least LEED Silver status. In addition, public and private projects receiving city assistance must either have a green roof or pursue green building certification. The city has matched such sticks with carrots. One example is a program that expedites permits for green buildings and a density bonus for downtown buildings that install green roofs. ..."

"...“We calculate that we are removing the air pollution from 40,000 cars a year,” says Sadhu Johnston, Daley’s deputy chief of staff and former commissioner of the Department of Environment. “For a city like Chicago, the benefits are really about quality of life.” Referring to the view of City Hall’s green roof from adjacent skyscrapers, he explains: “you’re looking down at a prairie with dragonflies, butterflies, and birds. You’re seeing the wind blowing the grass instead of a black roof with heat waves on it.” ..."

"...Within the city’s limits, Johnston speaks of the need to focus on greening existing buildings, such as Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture’s recent recycling of the Daniel Burnham Jr.-designed 24-story Medical Dental Arts building just outside the Loop into an apartment high-rise that is seeking LEED certification. While such conversions are far less sexy than new buildings like New York City’s Hearst Tower, they will do far more to conserve energy given the sheer numbers of older buildings...."

i like the greenhouse proposal. i think this could easily work, and here's how:

1. city council creates a tax incentive for a community to fix up a vacant structure in their neighborhood, such as taking a coupla hundred off your wage tax;

2. city council awards those who can practice sustainability, such as refunding some taxes to those members of a community with a veggie garden;

3.) members of the community, realizing that it's more profitable to grow more veggies in their garden, raise money to build one. it's just glass and steel; glass and steel are cheap.

4.) because a greenhouse is inherently green and stable, the community should get all sorts of tax breaks for having a project that beautifies the city and greens it.

5.) members of the community, if and when they get bumper crops, can sell the rest of the veggies to the public for a far lower cost than tomatoes from california. this, in turn, provides the members of the community with a small, but sustainable, source of income.
(plus the schuylkill punch will make those tomatoes taste better).

...because the neighborhood is now prettier and more sustainable, more people will want to live there, and keep it that way, causing property values to rise, so the city can collect more taxes. everybody benefits.

but the city should create a special "beautified" zoning so that these vacant lots that have been turned into small, community-cultivated parks, gardens, playgrounds, and greenhouses can't just be razed by greedy, overzealous developers following the money, and destroying the main reason why people like the neighborhood. on second thought, the gardens and greenhouses should be zoned "farmland."

__________________
This, this, this, and this are my new favorite things.

These two, not so much.

A great first step might be greening and/or installing a field of solar panels on top of the Convention Center. That roof holds acres of unused surface space and would be a highly visible demonstration project.

Or it could collapse under the weight of the panels.

The real question is what is the economic benefit for these projects? I don't want a grass roof as a requirement for new buildings - there are enough reasons for companies to stay out of the city. We don't need more roadblocks.
But maybe there are air pollution credits that could be provided if a grass roof cleans the air. So maybe a refinery (or some other industry) pays for the convention center (or some other building) getting a grass roof and they get to emit more pollution AND call themselves green.

That's not far off from how Solar-RECs work, you can get money back by selling credits you generate by producing solar energy. The Energy companies are required by law to produce a certain percent of their energy from renewable sources, and one way to do this is to purchase RECs.

__________________
"I been a prisoner to a white Mr. Coffee
Down here on Christian Street" - Marah

I totally agree! I think that the fallacy of cheap energy should be shattered and it would be cost effective to install solar panels or other renewable energy sources. I realize that some people think its rhetoric but climate change is real and we need to prepare ourselves for the future. Both to minimize future impacts and adjust to living on a warmer planet.

PGW shattered the "fallacy of cheap energy" a long time ago in Philadelphia. And why the obsession with solar panels? This isn't Phoenix. It seems to me that a green roof woudl be far more effective in our environment. Notonly does it work to keep building temperature's stable but it helpds reduce surrounding temperatures and water run off. How do you know the planet will be warmer in the future? what if it cools and Philadelphia becomes more like Portland, ME? Climate change is real, there's very little disputing that. It's been changing for the entire history of the planet, sometimes gradually, sometimes suddenly. What's less clear is what impact humans have or any idea they have. Ethanol, for example, may be increasing the cost of a keg by a third. Is it time for a Philadelphia Beer Party?

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

I agree that green roofing is more beneficial in this climate, in this location than solar panels.

Green roofing takes polutants out of the air, provides more oxygen, more space for wildlife, much needed parks, reduces or eliminates water runoff, lenghtens roof life, saves money on both heating and cooling a building, there is little reason not to do it, except for the intial cost. But the long term benefits are so great that citites which can afford it, are making it manditory, and providing tax breaks or rebates....