Ewing and O'Toole, Wheeler and Owen

Ewing vs O'Toole:
Ewing's article discussed how compact development will help with urban development, travel distance, and even CO2 emissions.  If compact development is instituted and more commonly implemented, then the miles that people drive to work/recreation will decrease.  Also, people might instead walk or bike to work, also creating better health conditions.  Some of the things they wanted to implement include:

• cap and trade
• greenhouse gasses being federally regulated
• state spending will align with climate and smart growth goals
• pedestrian and bicycle facilities will increase

O'Toole disputed Ewing's claims.  He thinks that more compact development will result in higher densities, which will decrease productivity, create less affordable housing and higher taxes.  O'Toole also argues that there is no problem in need of the solution presented by compact development.  Also, he argues the following costs of compacting:

• loss of property rights
• reduced geographic mobility
• higher house costs and lower home ownership rates
• higher taxes or reduced urban services to subsidize compact development
• increased traffic congestion
• higher consumer costs
• reduced economic mobility

Wheeler and Owen:
Both of these pieces argued for more environmental activism and planning of metropolitan landscapes per sustainability.  They argued for a deep history of sustainability, and the input of regional and political perspectives.  Finally, they argued for more public transportation and life in cities, which is more environmentally sustainable.

LEED standards

The LEED article was concerned with potential population growth and how that will have an impact on the planet, and its ability to survive the pressures.  The landscape and environmental conditions are the focus of LEED.  One way to conserve the environment and landscape is by looking at the ecological species community.  These communities are studied by biologists and they can be supported through correct neighborhood management.  Wetland and water body conservation is another way to manage natural areas.  If the water bodies are near neighborhoods they could be incorporated into the landscape.  Also, the LEED article emphasized the importance of key agricultural land in maintaining crop production.  Finally, flood plains and steep slopes need  to be carefully managed, as they also have impacts on water resources and water flows.

To sustain these natural areas, and to build strong communities, planners can develop existing developmental areas instead of expanding into virgin lands.  Also, they can try to minimize auto emissions in a particular region through careful use of roads and signage, and by increasing bike networks and storage areas.  Housing also needs to be located near jobs, thereby also decreasing emissions and increasing community connectivity.

Other design ideas want to implement walkable streets, compacting development instead of expanding into new regions, connecting diverse communities, including integrating communities instead of intentionally separating them, or creating regions where people feel accepted no matter what their economic status or race.  Also, access to public spaces and green spaces, including tree-lined streets, is important to ensure.

Finally, landscapers need to consider water and energy efficiency and landscape water efficiency (including parking areas).  They can also attempt to create venues for local food production, and to create buildings from recycled materials.  The Green Community Criteria included checksheets and lists of changes similar to the LEED list.  For example, it advocated for renewable energy sources and the use of recycled/salvaged materials.

Food and Planning

FOOD
The US food culture is very ingrained into most Americans.  From the minute we wake up and flip on the morning news, and witness commercials about James Dean breakfasts, to our afternoon study sessions at cafes, to our evening tv programs, with commercials about frozen appetizers and instant side-dishes, we are surrounded with food.  In most cases, however, the food being pushed our direction is both unhealthy and highly processed food that covered great distances to get to our mouths.

Roberts discussed how factory farms are being redesigned to imitate the mass-production scheme of factories.  Also, farmers are being pushed into a "technology treadmill" complete with the latest and most pollutant technologies that produce a greater crop-yield at a high cost to the environment and their pocket-book.  However, if they stop to examine the costs, they might risk being run out of business by their neighbors who purchased these machines and pesticides.  We have become, through these farming technologies and the distance from the farmer to the grocery store (with all the stops in between) a petroleum-fueled economy, with agriculture consuming the most in both fuel and water resources.

Further, Roberts points out that we have not developed new technology that drastically changes (and updates) the agriculture economy, both in terms of crops and animals.  The future of agriculture could rest on the shoulders of ancient and diverse agriculture systems, but we seem to not want to take that risk.  Instead, we continue to push non-sustainable food systems that are draining our natural resources and the environment.  In addition, "local" and "sustainable" food adds extra costs to customers that most won't be able to pay.

As the Wren article points out, the climate has always been an important factor in agriculture.  Plants are limited by temperature, seasonality, moisture and soil quality.  In addition, the Lobell article highlights sensitive regions across the globe that might be unable to produce crops if not assisted, given that they are risky places to grow crops.  With the increase in droughts and climate changes, the marginalized places will become more marginalized.

PLANNING
Campbell's article highlights the role that planners play in sustaining the environment.  They try to solve both environmental and economic injustices through their building projects.  Instead, they seem to head toward vague sustainability ideals with no planning for true inequalities or economic injustice.  Planners also struggle to coordinate property, resource, and development angles into their planning schemes.  Frequently, low-income areas have to decide whether to value their economic survival or the safety of their health/environment.  As a result, they often settle for short-term economic benefits, which will negatively impact their overall health for years to come.  Therefore, Campbell argues for a redistribution of the wealth allotted to the financially secure individuals, who get to pick their poisons and not settle for the negative health consequences, to insure the survival of lower income populations and neighborhoods.