i consider myself a rather environmentally conscious 20-year-old: i eat plant-based, contemplate my clothing sources, despise single use-plastic, bring reusable bags and bottles—i even tried the whole zero waste thing. despite my efforts, living sustainably as a student in rapidly changing, business-centric cities like new york and washington, d.c., has been more than challenging. 

moving to copenhagen has made me realize that instead of constantly evaluating my personal habits, perhaps i should be more critical of the systems which ultimately shape society’s collective impact because real improvements will only transpire when we collectively take action.  

in 2020 denmark was ranked as the most sustainable country by experts from yale and columbia universities, according to the 2020 environmental performance index (epi). reasons for this high ranking include denmark’s reduction of co2 emission by more than half since 1996, and that 47% of electricity was sourced from wind power in 2019.

furthermore, as identified by the united nations, these high ratings likely correlate to the fact that denmark is a front runner in other aspects of sustainable development. the danish government provides citizens with universal health care and education, there is high gender equality, a generous social safety net, personal freedom, and more.  

these high rankings are also largely thanks to the shared philosophies of sustainability and minimalism which are upheld in the home, and beyond. this collective mindset is often neglected when discussing global sustainability methods, but i believe it should be emphasized. 

to find out more, i decided to talk with other students who have also recently moved here, to see what they’ve noticed living in copenhagen and whether these differences have impacted them too. these conversations have left me with a freshly optimistic outlook on how sustainability within cities can not only improve the health of our planet but also improve people’s mindsets and happiness overall. 

i’ve come to think that perhaps we are looking too far into the unknown for solutions to our biggest climate challenges. rather than waiting around for another ambiguous statement from our world leaders, or some unidentified technological solution, let’s examine the cities who have already implemented tangible and effective sustainable systems into daily life. 

it all started with a mirror. 

this recent incident with my father perfectly illustrates the first major difference i noticed when moving to denmark: the absence of online shopping.

my dad needed to acquire a full-length mirror. after days of careful window shopping around town, he finally picked one out online and reserved it for same-day pickup. as my dad insisted that everything was transportable via the holy bike lane, he and i cycled out to the store and purchased the mirror. realizing that it was indeed far too large and heavy to cycle with, even for a full-blooded determined dane like my father, we resorted to balancing the mirror on one of the bike pedals and walking it all the way home, fighting the wind as we went. yes, this entire fiasco could have (and would have) been avoided in new york city with the ease of a click on amazon prime. but, this would have also come with an environmental cost, going against danish values of minimalism—as well as the notion that everything is possible on a bicycle.

it feels strange that purchases do not involve the corporate monstrosity that everyone in the united states hates and loves all at the same time: amazon. online shopping here is virtually unheard of. 

some people may do it occasionally, but the presence of amazon and its associated delivery services are nothing like what i am used to. another university student who moved to copenhagen from london six weeks ago, calum kendal, 21, has noticed stark differences in online shopping here too. 

“if you want to use amazon you have to go through the u.k. or germany, so it’s much less accessible, certainly to me,” he said. 

furthermore, things you would normally order online are often accessible in shops only a bike ride away.

when calum searches for items online, he’s found that they are available within biking distance of his apartment. this allows him to pick goods up conveniently and sustainably, rather than having them delivered via amazon as he did in london. 

minji suh, a 22-year-old from montreal, canada, who moved to copenhagen in january, says she noticed the collective support for local products and an emphasis on minimalism right away. 

“people are willing to pay a little more because they want to support their community,” she said. 

overall, minji feels that in copenhagen the mindset of having and spending less is celebrated, so that when you do purchase an item, it is one of high quality and necessity. 

minji is passionate about sustainable fashion, incorporating predominantly second-hand and homemade clothing into her wardrobe. she explained to me how the attitude around clothing in denmark has inspired her to think more consciously, and creatively, about her clothing purchases.

“a lot of danish people i’ve met have this very minimalist mindset, where it’s not about having as much or showing off, but it’s about being comfortable and presentable,” minji said.

minji explained to me that the societal differences of life in copenhagen versus in north america contributed to the amount of clothing she felt was needed to fit in.

“back home i lived such a fast-paced life, it felt like i had to have a big wardrobe, with lots of different options, to fit all my parts. so, unfortunately, as a student you gravitate to fast fashion,” she said.

“there is also more pressure to assert your personality through clothing in the states,” minji continued. “but coming here, and seeing people be so mindful about how they dress and how they consume, made me think that i don’t actually need to buy all these things so quickly. i know now that i can live a happy life just having a select amount of clothes.”

this shift towards minimal, yet quality items did not just manifest in her clothing choices, either.

“it translated into other things too, like me wanting to own a nice set of kitchenware” she said. 

i too, have recognized this emphasis on owning quality material things, and its effect on me has certainly been positive. danish design is popular all over the world for its simplicity, durability, and usefulness. minji therefore justifies purchasing a few expensive items that will last her years.

“i know that if i take care of it, it will last me way longer than scrappy ikea stuff. already i see the changes it has had on me.”

another friend of mine, christina hermanson, 19, who is originally from samoa, has been living in copenhagen for the past two years. 

“we have four trash cans,” she begins. “there’s one for trash, the second is divided into two—half for hard plastic, half for aluminum— then there’s the biodegradable bin, and the last bin goes to cardboard boxes.” 

when christina was living in samoa and new zealand, she only had two: one for trash and one for compost.

“if you had a compost bin in new zealand people would comment and say, like, ‘oh you really are one of those people, so environmentally friendly,’” she said.

the miniature size of trash bags in copenhagen also took me (pleasantly) by surprise. forget your mammoth 13-gallon glad bags; here, the average trash bag is barely bigger than a supermarket plastic bag. this subtle difference makes so much sense. not only does a smaller size insinuate less waste, but people are no doubt more conscious with their waste, having to maximize the space in their trash cans. on my second day in copenhagen, my dad was quick to criticize me for “wastefully” throwing out my trash.

“you need to fold it really small, otherwise it takes up too much space in the bin,” he said. 

the differences in trash disposal goes beyond the physical act of sorting, however. there is an additional shift in people’s attitude toward trash too—that we have a collective responsibility to do our part. if you fall short, you feel poorly, because everyone else is doing it.

 “there is more shame in not properly throwing trash away here. and it’s just normal—you don’t even question it,” christina said. 

i do feel my actions subtly changing because of this collective attitude of responsibility. i would never, ever, spit my gum out on the street here, for example. whereas in new york city, or d.c., i probably would without guilt, simply because it is so normalized. 

christina could relate to this feeling, too.

“i actually just experienced that last week,” she said. “i had a half a drink left and i threw it in the trash can and my danish friend was like, ‘why didn’t you just leave it on the bench? someone would have just come along to recycle it for pant.’” 

it is evident that every individual in copenhagen holds great responsibility for their personal environmental footprint, and also, that people feel as though they have a joint responsibility to contribute to larger sustainability measures, such as the recycling system. 

christina works in a sushi restaurant, and notices how even people who aren’t dining come in to ask for a tray to properly dispose of their cigarettes. 

“it’s also a standard thing with cigarette butts,” she said. “in other cities i’ve been you just leave them about, but here, even working in a restaurant, people come in to ask for a cigarette tray.”

the ‘pant’ recycling system, which successfully recycles over 50 million bottles and cans every year, is another widespread eco-friendly approach found in denmark. this was the first noticeable difference that came to calum’s mind when i picked his brain about sustainability in copenhagen. 

the system is based on a small deposit being paid on every bottle when it’s purchased, which you then get back when you return the bottle to a ‘pant’ machine, which are located at most supermarkets. danes return an average of 3.8 million bottles and cans daily. 

something else slightly different about living in copenhagen is the way natural light is used as a replacement to electricity. alex groth, 22, has lived in copenhagen for six months since graduating from university college london. one difference we can both agree on is the sparing use of bright lights in homes. instead, people rely on sunlight and candles.

“the architecture here is a lot more about having natural light—we barely have lights on in the summer because it’s just so bright,” he said.

in contrast to the 24/7 fluorescently lit cities of new york and london, danes often disregards the use of lights completely. 

“half the time when i come home at night, my house is only lit with candles,” he said. 

maybe it was because i grew up mostly in big, bright cities that made this shift especially obvious to me. the popularity of adjustable lights was a subtle way i observed that likely contributes to the fact the danes consume far less energy per person when compared to the other nordic countries (sweden, norway, iceland, and finland). this practice holds true even during the winter months, and when it is dark at night, according to alex. 

 “most houses i know use adjustable lighting, and even at night we never put it up all the way,” he said. 

a contributing factor to utilizing natural light whenever possible is that the price of electricity in denmark, as of march 2020, was the third-highest in the world. to avoid staggering prices, many households adopt led lights, which are up to 80% more energy-efficient, too.

all this is not to say that denmark is perfect, and that american ways of living and consumption are inherently bad. only that in many cases, we can do better, and we should be trying harder to. as i discussed with minji, it’s difficult to directly compare the sustainability practices of two vastly different places.

while the wealth of denmark certainly aids in its ability to run these operations smoothly, the sustainable lifestyle is one that’s firmly chosen by the individuals and local communities. alex, who has grown up with family in denmark, tells me how local communities in denmark have far more influence over people’s actions than the government. at the end of the day, it really comes down to the decisions of individual families, neighborhoods, and communities. this gives me hope that with a shift in mindset and responsibility, these kinds of changes are possible elsewhere, too.

the key to creating sustainable cities isn’t extreme—we don’t all need to go zero-waste. as young and adaptable people, we can set an example through subtle and collective changes. if we all take the time to sort our trash, recycle our bottles, if we chose to dim our lights and only purchase long-lasting items when necessary, we will mutually reap the benefits.

i sat down with professor josh cousins at suny-esf and talked about this topic. cousins, who has a ph.d. from the school for the environment and sustainability at the university of michigan, teaches community planning & sustainability, sustainable urban development, and an environmental energy auditing course. urban resilience, according to cousins, is “ultimately a social concept. we developed it, we created it, and we use it as a metaphor to describe something we see in the natural world.

“it has this positive connotation along with it in terms of applying that metaphor to a city; thinking about how a robust ecosystem is able to bounce back from certain shocks and stresses. so when applied to a community or city, how can a city respond to different shocks and stresses? whether it’s a hurricane or an economic downturn, etc.”

this resilience is really important when we’re thinking about what we want a sustainable future to look like. with rising sea levels and more extreme weather-related disasters, resilience is crucial in how our cities can bounce back from these shocks and stresses.

the main question isn’t if we should make strides for our cities to be more resilient, but rather: resilience for whom? with any policy or social change, certain groups always seem to be excluded. obviously we want our cities to be able to bounce back from environmental stresses, but if this happens only in more affluent areas of the city, for example, is the city truly resilient?

an important way to combat these disparities within urban resilience, according to cousins, is to “start at a local, grassroots level and try to incorporate (a diverse group) within planning processes. give them the resources at the grassroots level to do that, rather than initiating that from a top-down drive.”

many cities are implementing a resiliency leadership position, which cousins argues isn’t a bad idea, but there needs to be an emphasis on encouraging citizen-led change through local movements. those who live within a particular area of a city are the most knowledgeable about the day-to-day resiliency strengths and weaknesses, since they are witness to it every day. this aspect cannot be acknowledged and utilized enough.

a lot of general greenspace development, according to cousins, has been linked to gentrification and displacement because as more projects work to make an urban area appear more green, certain groups are pushed out of their familiar urban environments. this also plays into that question of: resiliency for whom? the adverse effects that green space planning might actually have can be significant. sometimes certain amenities can bring certain disservices. for example, something like tree planting might result in added labor for a community that might not have the capacity to maintain new trees. the result is an environmental benefit that may turn into a disservice to the community in the long run.

resiliency is crucial in order to create societies that thrive and react to growing environmental concerns. but resiliency also must be sure to include low-income communities and communities composed mainly of minorities.

said cousins: “resilience is here to stay whether you like it or not. you have to engage with it. overall, more resilient futures are better futures.”

soon after, many concerned city and state leaders announced their commitment to combating climate change by sticking to the ideals of the paris agreement at local or regional levels. among the cities to make a pledge was the nation’s largest: new york city.

mayor bill de blasio was quick to declare the city’s continued allegiance to green initiatives despite the federal decision, a move which de blasio tweeted was “unconscionable.”

trump’s decision to promote anti-climate policies has pushed de blasio to work aggressively to protect new york city and the future of the planet.

as an island city in a geographical vulnerable location, new york city has already seen climate change in action with rising temperatures and sea level. to insure the longevity of the city, swift and serious action is essential.

perhaps that’s why, on june 2, 2017 (just one day following president trump’s announcement), mayor de blasio signed executive order 26 committing new york city to the principles of the paris agreement. specifically, new york has committed to keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees celsius.

but how does new york, the largest city in the united states, plan to keep it’s eco-impact in check? several initiatives are already underway, with many more on the horizon for continued roll-out. new york has made strides in reduce its climate impact; still, some strategies face large hurdles as the city strives towards sustainability.

the 1.5c climate plan

the city, at least so far, seems to be holding true to its promise. in addition to executive order 26, on oct. 3, 2017, the city released its 1.5 c climate plan, which contains both immediate and ongoing action plans to reduce new york city’s climate impact. the press release is extensive and detailed, calling for a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort between various organizations, leaders, and citizens to turn climate goals into a reality.

the 1.5 c: aligning new york city with the paris climate agreement document contains both short and long term goals. the 16 near term goals are aimed to drastically reduce emissions, and if achieved will result in an estimated 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide reductions (enough to power 1,079,797 homes) by 2030.

in the long-term, nyc has set a 80×50 and carbon neutrality by 2050, meaning new york city has ambitiously committed to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions 80% below the 2005 and achieve zero net emissions citywide over the next 33 years. these efforts are built on an already solid sustainability foundation. long before the paris agreement, new york city has been striving towards sustainable growth. since 2005, ghg emissions have decreased 14.8% despite population and economic growth, and the average per capita ghg emission of new york city resident was 6.1 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, significantly lower than the 19 carbon dioxide national per-capita average.

but striving for carbon neutrality will require far broader efforts. by tackling various areas of the energy, waste, and transportation sectors, new york hopes to translate their ambitious goal into reality.

power in the city that never sleeps

previous to 2013, the largest contributor of citywide ghg emissions came from electricity usage. the drastic drop in ghg emissions can largely be attributed to the switch of power plants from coal to natural gas, and the construction of efficient gas power plants within and outside the city. the push towards gas has helped reduce emissions from this source significantly, but still, more work needs to be done. most of the large drop occurred early on, and progress reducing emissions in this sector has since slowed.

in a city that never sleeps (or powers down, for that matter), reducing energy consumption is a challenge. city data has shown stationary building energy contributes the largest proportion of energy use and despite efforts mentioned above, 67% of citywide greenhouse gas emissions came from the use of natural gas, electricity, steam, biofuel, and heating oil in new york city buildings, in 2015, 31% from natural gas and 25% from electricity.

to target reducing emissions from buildings, new york city recently became the first city to pass mandates requiring all owners of existing buildings over 25,000 square feet to meet fossil fuel caps over the next 12-17 years.

the initiative, inspired by president obama’s clean power plan, is aimed to reduce fossil fuels used for heat and hot water in new york city buildings.

if successful, the mandate would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new york city by an astounding 7%. the program has also promised to create up to 17,000 green energy jobs, a decreased reliance on fossil fuels, less carbon pollution and lower annual energy costs for building owners in new york city.

with a diverse and aging building scape, this is no small task. moreover, the mandate that heat and hot water must be included in all new york city places of residence, combined with old building infrastructure, at times encourages inefficient use of heat and electricity. the aggressive initiative could make a large difference, but only time will tell if it can be implemented successfully.

as the city sector itself owns and operates many buildings, the city is also committing to 100% renewable energy in all city operations as part of the 1.5 c climate plan. the commitment comes with a caveat, however. this initiative can only be rolled out once a sufficient supply can be bought online.

to further reduce energy consumption, 50 new solar projects on public buildings are also being rolled out this fall, with hopes of putting the city a quarter of the way to the goal of 100 megawatts of solar energy on public property by 2025. existing power plants within the city are also being targeted for efficiency improvements and reduced emissions.

initiatives have also been implemented to reduce street light ghg emissions, which have cut rates since 2006. still, a great amount of power is used to illuminate the iconic, ever-glowing skyline of the city. the 24-hour, bright lights big-city vibe seems almost as embedded in new york city culture as jumbo bagels and dollar pizza, and to achieve carbon neutrality, energy use in street lighting and signs may prove a challenge.

in the long term, new york hops to roll out microgrid community energy networks. microgrids, or small-scale electric grids that connect more than one building to a power source, can integrate distributed energy resources and deploy electricity and heat resources at a community scale, potentially reducing energy costs, improving air quality, and strengthening resilience in case of future power outages and natural disaster.

it seems new york is serious about reducing energy consumption. regulations on buildings and investment in solar energy could prove effective, but with a city obsessed with illumination and filled with aging buildings, will not come without challenges.

toss it: waste in the big apple

new york makes a lot of waste – 20,000 solid tons and 1 billion gallons of water each day, to be exact. and it’s contributing to city-wide ghg emission: management of solid waste and water treatment were responsible for 1.84 metric tons of co2 emissions (equivalent to burning over 2,000 pounds of coal) in 2015.

acknowledging this, new york has set a goal to send zero waste to landfills by the year 2030. to achieve this goal, the city must fully implement all existing commitments diverting waste from landfills to producing enough renewable energy at wastewater treatment sites to meet on-site energy needs.

organic waste, such as plant-based material and paper, comprise the largest majority of nyc waste, and are responsible for producing the most significant generator of ghg emissions within the waste category. when landfilled, methane gas is produced, which can have catastrophic impacts on climate change. nyc is striving to accelerate diversion of tons of organics from landfill by expanding their organics separation program to all new yorkers with curbside pickup or convenient drop-off by 2018, which could reduce the ghg emissions the city produces from waste.

the waste sector is also taking aim at food waste, the largest source of waste-related ghg emissions in the city, striving to transform table scraps into compost or using it for energy production.

single-stream recycling will also be rolled out city wide by 2020, meaning new yorkers will no longer need to sort their recyclables. by making recycling easier for residents, they hope to drastically increase those who participate.

while these initiatives are promising, many targets for complete waste-reduction reply on the consumer and industry initiatives to improve packaging. the current zero waste goals depend on new yorkers shifting how they purchase products (i.e. selecting used products over new and opting for products with as little waste as possible), and assumes packaging designs will continue to improve.

while possible, relying on individual behavior to achieve such a large goal is reason for concern. individual behavior is difficult to change. one can hope the city also has plans to continue education on just how important every individual action in fighting climate change truly is.

commuter life

while new york is a very pedestrian-friendly city, most residents and visitors alike use public and private transportation to get around. between yellow taxi cabs, subways, buses, and cars, the transportation sector was responsible for contributing roughly 30% of total citywide ghg emissions in 2015. to reduce emissions in this sector, several initiatives are being rolled out.

the 1.5 c climate plan, for example, has targeted investment in sustainable transportation for the city. there’s also plans for continued implementation of select bus services, which aims to reduce transit time by allocating lanes exclusively for buses, giving buses traffic signal priority, and speeding idle time by collecting fares as passengers leave, rather than board, the bus.

while select bus service may reduce emissions, switching all buses to electric buses could be even more monumental. presently, the 5,700 buses that comprise the nyc fleet are a combination of diesel, hybrid diesel, and compressed natural gas buses. changing the entire fleet, which not in the current plans, could result in a drastic cuts in citywide carbon emission.

mayor de blasio set a goal of adding 2,000 electric vehicles to the city’s vehicle fleet by 2025, and with over 1,000 ev sedans already running by the end of july 2017, it appears this initiative is well-ahead of schedule.  because of the rapid implementation of this initiative, the mayor has vowed to go further, by expanding infrastructure for electric vehicles in hopes of making them more accessible to all new yorkers.

the mayor has even partnered with conedison, convincing the city’s major energy corporation to invest an additional $25 million in innovative electric vehicle strategies and infrastructure, which could help expanded the program. the city is also looking to implement public street chargers for electric vehicles, allowing electrification of private vehicles, as well as taxis and car shares and delivery trucks. should this ambition become reality, drastic cuts from vehicle emissions are possible.

implementation of low-emission zones, or areas where vehicles that do not meet pollution standards are charged to enter the controlled area, is also on the table, which would could further incentivize use of lower-emission vehicles.

new york also plans to build at least 50 miles of open bike lanes (10 of which will be protected) to encourage an alternative form of commuting, thereby reducing congestion.

biking, while carbon-friendly mode of transportation, may pose risk to the cyclist. researchers at columbia university have found bikers in the city inhale more than the epa limit of safe environmental particulate matter on an average day commuting. how the city plans to mitigate these health risks remains unclear, but adding trees and reducing overall city emissions may help.

why new york city’s response matters

as a coastal city, new york city susceptible to hurricanes, rising sea-levels, storm surges, and floods. moreover, as the nation’s most densely populated urban center, new york city has potential to either dramatically contribute to climate change, or set an example for other urban areas on how to run a clean, green city.

even though the country seems to be departing from the global effort to combat climate change under the current administration, one should not underestimate the impact that can be made at a local level. though there is a lack of commitment under federal leadership, it is both inspiring and empowering to see mayors and state officials committing their communities to leave a smaller ecological impacts as a response to the urgent global threat of climate change.

as the nation’s most populous city, new york is setting an example for communities large and small around the globe. it seems the city and it’s officials are doing good on their words and taking bold steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve sustainability efforts, and increase disaster readiness. if climate-friendliness can make it there, perhaps it can make it anywhere.

on the reservation, you are constantly reminded of the cultural loss of a harmonious lifestyle with the land. consumerism and acts of violence against the native people from european americans took away more than a lifestyle, leaving trauma and broken human hearts in its wake.

as an european american growing up on tribal lands, i saw glimpses of the mindset that allowed humans to co-exist with animal and plant ecosystems in many of the native traditions.  one example is through hunting; there is a respect for the animal that you are preparing to eat. there is a careful preservation of each part of the animal to be used for leather, antler bone, and meat for food to regalia. i also saw knowledge of local plants and what they offer (or how they can harm) humans. the lifestyle was social, efficient, and sustainable, but none of it sprung out of a desire to be environmentally friendly; native communities simply live this way to survive and enjoy life.

in the city i am constantly exposed to extraneous resources. it is almost laughably easy to find free food, furniture, or even clothes! the major difference is the availability of land for plants and living spaces. there was a huge movement in the lower east side to reclaim urban spaces for community in the late 70’s and 80’s. it sprung partially out of a need for safety and security, and partially for the lack of monetary resources available in the neighborhood. the increase in abandoned land and buildings made it increasingly unsafe for the remaining residents, so there was a movement to take back this land from its absentee “owner” and use it for community good. this was the impetus for local gardens grown on empty lots, squatters refurbishing and making abandoned and broken buildings safe again. the mindset wasn’t out of a need to become environmentally friendly, but these communities started recycling, sourcing their food locally, reusing and re-purposing their waste and the “garbage” of others. they became sustainable and happy from creating a sub-culture and way of life within new york city that didn’t rely on consumerism.

in new york city and on the reservation, i saw that sustainability can grow out of a need; not just an ethical sensibility or a desire to become more efficient. today we see a lot of differences pointed out in the media between rural and urban communities – which may distract us from environmental issues – but why not examine the common sustainable ingenuity arising out of the simple will to survive anywhere?

as an artist these revelations and others like them have inspired my work, but i hope that these communities can inspire more than that. i want to be a part a movement of people who are re-thinking how they fulfill their needs without consumerism. we should be looking to those who had no choice but to develop their own community sans consumerism, or those who had lost faith in consumerism because it could no longer serve their needs. let’s not try to re-invent the wheel, let’s do this together with past generations wisdom to rely on.
 

“so is my life at ivywall: replete with beauty and enjoyment. and the rose, that is its central ornament and pride.”  -thomas seaton donoho

donoho had a love for the ivy plant, so much so that he would write poetry and a book about the plant. but his greatest stamp on history for his love for ivy was the naming of the historic ivy city neighborhood in northeastern washington, d.c.

ivy city has a rose, the crummell school, which the residents in the neighborhood once had great pride and joy in. since its closure in 1977, the school has withered and been neglected by every stakeholder involved: local government, local businesses, and even the residents themselves.

after decades of neglect, in 2016 there were plans to redevelop the school after decades of no substantial plan. these plans would give the school the chance to bloom into the rose ivy city needs.

“the tale hath history told – but words are weak, and may not with the pencil’s eloquence speak.” -donoho

opened in 1911, the crummell school was named after african american preacher and academic alexander crummell. the school served the black community of ivy city, not only as a primary school, but as the community center that held the neighborhood together.

prior to the school closing in 1977, it experienced turmoil and problems that it never recovered from. in the years since, it has been a failed day care, a failed bus parking lot, and finally a d.c. historic site that the environmental protection agency has labeled a brownfield — a property “which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.”

for the crummell school, the hazardous contaminants include arsenic, barium, chromium and lead. this contamination not only impedes the economic development of the land, but creates a negative environment for the public health of everyone in ivy city. cleaning and redeveloping the land will increase the standard of living for the residents in the neighborhood.

“my ivy, and mist the storm soon tear thee from thy trust, strewn wild and withering, and i, alone, hopeless to battle with a world or wrath!” -donoho

there are two redevelopment plans being explored. one plan turns the land into a community center, health clinic, 100% affordable housing, and a park. the other plan turns the land around the school into townhouses, restaurants, community center and the expansion of a local fish distributor.

the first plan, developed by empower dc — a local grassroots organization aimed at improving the lives of low and moderate-income washington, d.c. residents—  ultimately lost in the bidding to ivy city partners, a group of businesses interested in developing the area, which has led to tension between all of the stakeholders.

parisa norouzi, the executive director of empower dc, hints that the tension of the crummell school project might increase.

“next steps may be lawsuits…by any means necessary,” she proclaimed.  “it’s not a matter of playing fair at this point.”  

the empower d.c. plan primarily was developed by the group, which already had represented the residents of ivy city in another instance when they faced a bus parking lot installation on the crummell school property. empower dc successfully sued to block the washington, d.c. government from turning the lot into a parking lot for tour buses. the project would have exposed residents to harmful exhaust fumes and other pollution, as well as additional traffic. the successful fight connected ivy city residents with empower dc, and proved the organization had the neighborhood’s well-being in mind.

the focus of empower dc’s plan was to create a space that would mirror the community’s needs with only 100% affordable housing, a health clinic and a community center. what would make the project elevate ivy city would be the addition of a park and basketball courts, in which the neighborhood has neither. both of these entities create positive environmental and public health outcomes that all members of ivy city will experience.

the benefits of a public park include decreased air pollution and car crashes due to the greater access to a walkable area, according to the center for disease control. the personal health benefits include  risk of some cancers, improvement of mental health and mood, reduced instances of obesity, and the strengthening of bones of muscles due to increased physical activity.

“parks are essential for high density, urban, walkable areas. it’s important that the parks you build are not only well planned, but more importantly well managed,” said christopher leinberger, chair for the center for real estate & urban analysis at the george washington school of business.

for a park to work, “its best if the neighborhood itself manages the park…[and] have a source of funding” he stated. “wishing does not make it happen, someone has to have the foresight and a checkbook.”

these factors have to be in place so that citizens can reap all the benefits of a park, which is a challenge for any neighborhood.

“for sympathy had brought our lives together in a sweet unison: we smiled, we wept, we hoped and feared together.” -donoho

the construction of the park is the major benefit of the empower dc plan, however the main issue with the plan is that many jobs initially created will be lost when development is finished. ward 5d, the ward that ivy city is a part of, had an unemployment rate of 18% in 2015, double the city’s average. the poverty rate of the ward is worse, with 30% living below the poverty line in 2015, one of the highest in the city.

a community center and a health clinic are some things that ivy city needs, but the most important need in for the neighborhood is more jobs, which is not something that this bid could deliver.

“how the ivy climbs the tower, embracing it so lovingly, and struggling upward, still upward, with a proud affection, till both together share the sacred light.” -donoho

the other deal from ivy city partners comes from a place that is completely opposite of empower dc. the members of ivy city partners, jarvis company, stonebridge carras, and profish, are corporations with only one, profish, located in ivy city. these companies have a goal for the project to be focused on typical redevelopment,one focused on mixed-income housing and corporate expansion.

chanda washington of the deputy mayor of planning and economic development picked the ivy city partners plan due to the redevelopment plan, the sustainable building practices, and the community involvement. “it was community driven. we are impacting the citizens of the community” says washington.

the greatest benefit of the ivy city partners redevelopment is the jobs created to fill the void in the neighborhood. having profish expand the size and scale of its business, the company also plans to increase the number of employees it has. this would be best for the ivy city, and other surrounding neighborhoods like trinidad, in which 45.5% of the residents have a high school diploma or less.

“this is good news,” says leinberger. “it’s bringing jobs closer to the minority housing concentration on the east side of the region. it’s going to bring jobs, real jobs, jobs where you don’t need a college education.”

what is most important, for leinberger, is that the residents can learn a skill or a trade and be a part of a regional economy. this will make ivy city much less detached than how it has been for so many decades.

one aspect of the ivy city partners bid that is different than the empower dc bid is that there will be a focus on mixed-income housing. this is something that is polarizing when it comes to the redevelopment of struggling neighborhoods. on one side, there is an injection of money and capital from middle to upper middle-class residents that a neighborhood like ivy city desperately needs.

but on the flip side, there is a change of neighborhood that current residents feel would push them out.

norouzi feels that the ivy city partners plan will do just that. “the ivy city community has teetered [with] gentrification,” she said. the washington, d.c. government has hurt ivy city before, with the bus parking lot problem, because she asserts that the administration is in favor of gentrification. for norouzi, ivy city will be changed for the worse if the ivy city partners plan goes forward and not the empower dc plan.

but leinberger emphasizes, “the research shows that gentrified neighborhoods actually have less displacement than non-gentrified neighborhoods because they want to hang around, things have gotten better, why leave?”

he continues by saying there has to be a focus on making sure there is affordable housing for low-income renters, but people want to live in a nice neighborhood that has the jobs that the residents need.

a noticeable downside of ivy city partners is the lack of green space in the redevelopment plan. there will be small community gardens around the actual school, which will become the new community center, which is a stark difference then the empower dc park. the ivy city partners plan loses all of the benefits of the park that will help all of the residents of the neighborhood.

of heart-glow that may make it dear to some – recalling memory in her fairest looks, giving new sunshine to the present day, and confidence to meet the veiled future.” – donoho

in a perfect world, the positive aspects of both plans for the redevelopment of the crummell school would be in place. a well-managed park and community center along with jobs and mixed income housing would replace a decaying school and an empty lot. but in the real world that plan does not exist.

the future of ivy city is veiled, and there are many people, like parisa norouzi, that are not excited about the changes to come, and they aim to stop the plan. others, like chanda washington, think that ivy city partners plan is by the community and for the community. but one thing is true, with a community divided over these two options, ivy city cannot be “fixed in amber in all time” as christopher leinberger will assert. 

often we think about climate change as a temporally and spatially distant phenomenon, something that doesn’t affect me. it’s not going to affect me in my lifetime, or maybe not in the next 10 years or at least the next 20 years. not at least until i’m old. but that’s not true. that’s not true here in the united states. that’s not true in other countries. we are already seeing the impacts of climate change in many dimensions.” — milken institute school of public health professor sabrina mccormick

increases in the global surface temperature are expected to continue for decades, regardless of the mitigation strategies we’re using to slow that process. the warming trend, in turn, contributes to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. as a result, adaptation and preparedness for extreme weather and other adverse events related to climate change are more important now than ever – but are u.s. cities ready?

how prepared are our cities?

in the first of a three-part study on climate change, sabrina mccormick, associate professor at the milken institute school of public health at the george washington university, and kathleen carlson (an mph student at milken sph at the time), conducted interviews with 65 local decision-makers in six major u.s. cities to find out how social factors influence whether u.s. cities are prepared for the consequences of climate change. mccormick found that portland, boston, and los angeles were best prepared for the effects of climate change, while raleigh, tucson, and tampa lagged behind.

“i was inspired to do this study on how cities in the u.s. are being affected by climate change and how they’re preparing, or not, for those effects when i was working on a study with the intergovernmental panel on climate change,” mccormick said.

what do the terms “adaptation” and “mitigation” mean?

adaptation: seeks to lower the risks posed by the consequences of climate change.

mitigation: refers to efforts to reduce or prevent emission of greenhouse gases.

“there was this kind of unwarranted assumption that cities in the united states are going to be fine in the face of climate change, and i thought we don’t really have the answer to that question — and we desperately need it,” mccormick said.

in the below visualization, we’ve illustrated some of the factors that influenced the six cities’ respective levels of preparedness.

why focus on cities?

“cities are a very important scale of study when it comes to climate change for a number of reasons,” mccormick said. “eighty percent of the united states population already lives in cities, so it’s the vast majority of our population.” furthermore, cities are at greater risk than rural areas because they contain areas of concentrated development and are populated by vulnerable groups.

why focus on adaptation?

many u.s. cities have planned and undertaken climate mitigation actions (i.e., the reduction of greenhouse gases) and, according to mccormick, a “wide range” of cities has developed climate adaptation plans. however, few have institutionalized those adaptation plans.

what hinders cities’ ability to implement adaptation measures?

mccormick identifies a few things that have prevented adaptation in the cities studied. the vast majority of investment money goes toward researching climate change risks, and cities also have planning gaps. they fail to consider factors that are not related to the climate or lack the capital needed for effective adaptation. overall, though, research is limited on why adaptation is underway in some places and not others.

what do adaptation measures entail?

adaptation measures, mccormick found, are often multidimensional and multisystem in nature. that means that various sectors, like transportation and energy, work together to prepare a city for the effects of extreme weather through land-use planning and emergency management.

who was interviewed and why?

in-depth, semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 65 local decision-makers in the six major u.s. cities captured by the study. most of these interviewees are from the public sector because “policy instruments are often critical to climate mitigation and resilience,” but a small percentage were from the private sector. here’s the break down of interviewees:

how were interviewees selected?

the first set of interviewees was identified through a purposive sample, meaning that specific individuals (key local government officials and nongovernmental representatives involved in climate change or environmental planning) were asked for an interview. a second group was selected via a snowball sample, meaning that the interviewees from the first set were asked to identify subsequent interviewees with applicable backgrounds.

why were cities ranked in this particular order?

the ranking is based on a qualitative assessment of climate mitigation and adaptation planning and implementation. although several cities included in the study had taken steps to prevent or reduce greenhouse gases (mitigation), only three had taken specific measures to plan for the effects of damage that had already been done (adaptation).

how do social factors influence adaptation planning and implementation in the cities identified here?

mccormick and carlson identified three categories of social factors that influenced cities’ preparedness:

swing: local events or characteristics that inspire or deter adaptation efforts.

• political culture: in general, politically conservative areas are less likely than their liberal counterparts to support adaptation measures.
• extreme weather events: for some cities, like los angeles, wildfires, droughts and even earthquakes have inspired adaptive measures. for others, like tampa, similar threats of extreme events like hurricanes have become a normalized aspect of life rather than an impetus for change.

inhibitors: pre-existing ideological frameworks that hinder decision-makers’ ability and desire to promote adaptation.

• scientific uncertainty about climate change: decision-makers who don’t have access to scientific assessments outlining the impacts of climate change specific to their city are less inclined to prioritize adaptive measures.
• politicization of climate change: decision-makers who are uninformed about climate change – or deny its existence – are less likely to support adaptation.

resource catalysts: types of information and moral grounding that provide a rationale for adaptation.

• advocacy and political engagement: communities that have a high level of interest and involvement in climate change issues can influence decision-makers in a way that encourages adaptive action and mitigation.
• academic resources: stronger connections between decision-makers and academic resources — local experts on climate change, universities and researcher centers — motivate the development of adaptive measures.

‘it’s not tomorrow. it’s today.’

when it comes to effecting meaningful change on an individual level, mccormick said that speaking up is key. “one of the findings in the study is that public engagement and civic advocacy really matter. so for individuals living in cities — really any city in the united states — if you’re concerned about climate change adaptation or mitigation, you should take action,” she said. “particularly in light of this study, the action we would recommend would be engaging with your leaders, telling them what your concerns are, and asking them to take action themselves on a policy level.” whatever the approach, however, that action must happen sooner rather than later. “it’s not tomorrow,” mccormick said. “it’s today.”

source: carlson, k. & mccormick, s. (2015). “american adaptation: social factors affecting new developments to address climate change.” global environmental change, 35, 360-367. retrieved from their website.

—

this article was reprinted with permission from the gw public health online blog. see the original post. 

learn more about the mph programs at gw. to connect further with mph@gw, see: facebook, twitter, linkedin, google+, and youtube.

christopher b. leinberger, a professor at george washington university and president of a national coalition of real estate developers and investors called locus, felt the same way and co authored a report with michael rodriguez titled “foot traffic ahead” to highlight the rise and benefits of walkable urban places (walkups) in america’s largest metros.

“the reason i’m in this is because of climate change,” leinberger said. “i don’t need to do this stuff. my wife and i could be on the beach in the south of france but from a sustainability point of view we need to find a way to address climate change and the best way is by building great density and walkable places that would cut down 50% to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.”

stephen gyor, lead urban sustainability planer at the dc office of planning, agreed and said land use decisions like increasing transit-oriented development to allow the greatest density along transit corridors are crucial to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

creating high density walkups is difficult. “it’s really easy to build this stuff, not,” leinberger said. “this kind of stuff is really complicated to do. it is very risky, much riskier than a strip mall and on top of that, it’s illegal in 95% of the country.”

leinberger built 15 walkable urban projects throughout the country. his projects were illegal as proposed because they were too dense, mixed use, and broke zoning requirements that called for more parking spaces than he believed was necessary. “i had to go change zoning to make it possible and it took years of time, brain damage, and millions of dollars,” leinberger said.

zoning laws aren’t the only opposition to expanding urban sustainability.

“many mayors say that they don’t talk about sustainability in their cities,” said lisa benton-short, former director of sustainability at george washington university. “rather they talk about lowering asthma rates, increasing resilience to storms, and generating jobs that are safer. i see some possibility in getting residents on board with sustainability when it’s contextualized in a way that people can understand the direct benefits.” 

according to leinberger, the education needs to be done at the neighborhood level. if dupont circle only consisted of town houses, then hotel, retail and restaurant proposals would probably face not in my backyard opposition. however, the value of residential areas within walking distance of great urbanism goes up by between 40% and 100% on the price per square foot basis. he went on to say these people have the best of both worlds because they can live in suburbia and walk to great urbanism.

“that’s not a hard educational lesson to pull off,” leinberger said. “you’re not telling people to accept this because it is good for society, because it’s environmentally sustainable. no, accept this because you’re going to make money and it’s going to be a better quality of life.”

research supports leinberger’s belief that urging people to act solely because it’s a good thing for the planet has limited motivation. “we’re not as rational as we would like to think,” cicero’s research director steffen kallbekken told the guardian. “more information is not the answer.”

the dc office of planning took a different approach using amenities to draw people to walkups. “as mayor bowser stated, the district’s investments in neighborhoods – from affordable housing, public infrastructure, and transportation to public schools, parks, retail, and the arts – are all making dc a highly desirable place to call home,” gyor said.

leinberger spoke with the washington monthly, a left of center policy journal, and the american conservative, a right of center magazine, to bridge the gap between politics and infrastructure. both publications will run the same article in which he said infrastructure should be driven by whatever local governments decide they should be able to get funding for, and not by the federal government or state departments of transportation.

“the federal role should be reduced to 20% to 30% federal funding because nobody wants to raise taxes,” leinberger said. “the rest can be financed by the real estate development community paying their share of the infrastructure. we’ve seen this done throughout the country and it’s also how we used to do it 100 years ago. one hundred years ago all of the rail transit was paid for by developers. we need to take a page out of that book.”

market demand for walkable urbanism is at an all time high. leinberger is currently working on the first ever 100% census of all real estate in new york and dc to better understand where the walkable urban places are and how well they perform economically. he is also in discussions with gw’s milken institute school of public health about a place based public health metric and in discussions with us green building council about a place based environmental metric.

“the research we’re doing demonstrates that there’s an economic reason to do it, as well as an environmental reason, so i’m basically trying to compel people to, and this is my favorite phrase, to do well while doing good,”leinberger said. “it’s possible and that’s what we’re trying to demonstrate. you can make a buck and still do the right thing.”

i had the chance to dig deeper into my fascination with dutch infrastructure when i met martin aarts, marathon runner and senior advisor for urban planning for the municipality of rotterdam. we met at esri’s geodesign summit europe, at the delft university of technology, or tu delft.

tu delft, is ‘just down the road’ from the hague. or a 45 minute bike ride, for an amateur like myself.

delft is a halfway point between the hague and rotterdam, aarts’ city. rotterdam has transformed over the past decade, due in part to aarts’ efforts. aarts spoke at the summit about their 2007-2030 city plan that changed rotterdam from being known as the “different” dutch city (according to aarts) to what cnn just called the ‘new capital of cool’.

their innovative city planning turned the 2008 financial crisis into an opportunity to build more hospitals, and aarts says the call of the paris climate change conference for sustainable cities and a fossil-free future, is another such opportunity. you can see their newest plan, released in november 2016, the roadmap next economy, here (or the brief).  here’s our conversation.

kara morgan: how long have you been working for the city of rotterdam?

martin aarts: thirty years. i’m a marathon runner. i know it takes a lot of training to get things done.

km: at the geodesign summit, you mentioned your team’s 2007-2030 plan for rotterdam, which was actually jumpstarted by the 2008 financial crisis. what happened there?

ma: on a very abstract level, nothing really changed, of what we wanted of course, to execute. the conditions to execute had completely changed. because there were no developers any more, or artisans. financing was highly frustrated, for the developers…. 

there was a project i didn’t talk about before. hospitals, which couldn’t be built before the crisis, because the price was 50% too high then. because it was financed by the state, everybody was sad that the money wasn’t there and it couldn’t happen.

aarts spent some time explaining to me the process of how they negotiated with construction companies to lower their prices for the building of more hospitals. essentially, the city did not have the budget to pay the proposed price for the project. but due to the financial crisis, the construction companies were losing work anyways. at the rates that the government could pay, the companies would not make any money, but at least their employees would get paid and they would still have their companies when the crisis ended.

ma: i was also accused [confronted], when i said that rotterdam should be more of a “normal” dutch city. because the rotterdam mindset was descending, people would say that rotterdam is boring…people began defending themselves, saying “we are different’. of course, rotterdam is different, amsterdam is different as well. so, you don’t have to worry about that.

but, we must not be different by having a huge scale of city. we must not be different so that people with children cannot live here in the city center. because, people constantly have to move, and for me the most important thing is that rotterdam would never not be attractive to people. and also for students, because students always choose for half their city and half their studies. or for companies, who want their employees, that their employees want to live there. so the blowback of being just different, or to defend yourself, is that rotterdam was not an attractive city.  

ma: since we enjoyed this kind of “new city”, and the people of rotterdam, since 2014, really are kind of glancing. now, if someone makes a compliment like, “i like your city,” now you can believe them…i say “yeah, yeah, we learned!”

km: you said that with the paris climate change conference and the corresponding push for more funding into sustainability, it also gives another opportunity. as you’re moving forward with different plans, are you considering ways to change rotterdam to make it more resilient or sustainable?

ma: we are very firm on it, in all kind of ways. we have, as we speak, today, the roadmap next economy‘s launch. the main reason for this roadmap next economy is that we should build our economy without fossil energy, so, how to do that? a circular-economy, bio-based. the optimistic part of this vision is, if we start now, we have work to do, so that is employment, and we may be on the front row of this transition, so maybe this also delivers us work in the world. because we not only going to try and protect, but be an example of this new age of economies without fossil [fuel].

ma: so it’s [the roadmap] kind of hopeful, but of course, it’s insufficient. on that abstract level, we’ve introduced [these ideas] in the city itself, so the roadmap next economy, is for the whole region, so the metropolitan area of rotterdam-the hague. so that’s about 2.2 million people, in 23 different cities. rotterdam, the hague, and delft, are the bigger ones, but there are also a lot of smaller cities in the region. rotterdam itself, it’s not very original, but still, it implemented a law that it is impossible for diesel and old cars to drive in the city. not only the city center, but the surroundings of the city center, which was just implemented in may, of this year (2016). it already reduced the co2 emissions…we hope to get 40% reduction. 

ma: my big statement with planning a city that…it’s not only going to deliver a lot of employment, but the footprint will be enormously reduced…at the same time, make the public transport more efficient, so that it is more sustainable. rotterdam at this moment, already, the public transport, it’s not profitable, but it is zero, at-cost. it could be a firm, as a matter of fact. i think that the nice thing about it, because investment in public transport, for me, is always good, but if you increase that, it is sustainable, because no one is going to discuss a good business case. to get things profitable, it helps also, to get more people using public transport daily. 

km: how do you think rotterdam compares to cities in the united states?

ma: i think, in dutch cities, quality of life is fantastic. so, we are aware that we should, it is not about improving the quality of life, but to get hold of it, so that it doesn’t disappear.

ma: since the crisis, the city has put a lot of money into real estate and things like that, because the extensions of the city. and now, so, we have less  money, and we want to to keep the quality of life of the cities on the same high, so what we are doing, at the moment, which is also very fascinating, is that initiatives and ideas of the inhabitants  are taken much more seriously. so people can, for example, ask, “give us the budgets for our area”, for safety, for maintaining the greenery, etc., etc., for the public space, “give us it all, and we will take care of our safety and public safety ourselves, because, we think, if we look around, it is much better than, for example, police.” then we make a contract, to make sure. we monitor [to see] if they lie, because if you say “give me the six million”, and they go on holiday, and everybody’s happy, then nothing has changed. 

ma: so what we hope, is that the consciousness and the kind of…that they take responsibility for their own city, comes back to them. because it was kind of, it was of course the normal morals after the war [world war ii], and everybody took care of his neighborhood, but then it somehow disappeared… so to give everybody back the responsibility is…it’s not neutral, maybe, but it makes people look around, and feel that the city is theirs, and not from the city bureaucrats, or something.  

km: do you see that in other cities in the netherlands?

ma:i see that, actually, in bigger cities. because…in smaller cities, mayors and politicians want to have a role: “i am the mayor, so i want to say something”. and in bigger cities, the mayor ought to be more facilitating. they are proud that people take control, take back control, of their situation. there’s a kind of different mentality. because, you see, rotterdam is a very experimental city, so we are used to that energy. so maybe rotterdam has a little bit more, but i see that same things in amsterdam, utrecht, and then it’s kind of–the hague*, i don’t see that, and i don’t know other situations. it can also be my knowledge, you are always already talking to your colleagues of other cities who are in similar said situations; it could be a lack of knowledge, but i know that rotterdam has, a lot of times, it used to be an example in the newspapers of this.

* to test martin’s statement, i found an interactive tool by the municipality of den haag/the hague. it lets users explore and compare different information about the city or neighborhood where they live. it states that the hague has a rate of 18% of local residents who participate in activities to improve their neighborhoods (updated 2015). i struggled to find comparative numbers for the netherlands overall or the city of rotterdam.

source: https://denhaag.buurtmonitor.nl/jive?cat_open_code=c923&lang=en

km: what are you concerned about next?

ma: we are now really in the situation where we don’t have to…inhabitants in the city are going up, because the glass is now more than half full, and the developers and the investors are really discovering rotterdam. so, at this moment, there are, for example, for the next two years, plans for 5,000, apartments, houses, in the city. so that is 4,000 houses more than we normally would expect…it’s not only discovered by the press, by the rankings, it’s also discovered by investors, developers, and financiers. 

ma: it’s not my concern, but what i hope for, is that they control the quality and that we go on, because…we are kind of cool, and sexy, and then it stops. and i think “no!’, now we are on this good wave, and if you are not on the wave, you always need help, and to find financing, and we cannot afford it. so i hope that we can continue our ambitions to be an effective city, in this basis of a very sustainable way, with an increasing density. which means, for all people who can say, “ahh, why don’t you stop now?”, i hope that we can motivate…because if we stop, then this is just a moment in history. if we go on, we can really make a difference.