Governing Sustainable Communities

Governing and the governance of sustainable communities is paramount to their success. Like any aggregate group of people, from the community, to the city, to the country, state, or national level, leadership is a necessity. Roseland defines the difference between governing and governance in that government the doing aspect, while governance is the leading aspect. Both of these are necessary for a sustainable communities success.

As with any democracy besides government and governance, a sustainable community also needs public participation, even more so than a regular community. The notion of public participation relates back to one of the earlier ideas we have discussed in this class, civic mindedness. The concept of civicness. Civicness is a component of social capital and is necessary for attaining the full potential of the agents within a sustainable community. By having aspects of public participation such as shared decision making or consensus decision making, within a sustainable community there is a certain amount of civicness being cultivated. With an increase in civicmindedness of the constituents of a sustainable community the social capital increases. This leads to a healthier and more equitable living situation.

An example of public participation within governance in Bloomington, is one that we have been working with all semester, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability (BCOS). Although BCOS has appointed officials it is open to the constituents in the city. These people can share in the decision making process by attending meetings and bringing in helpful information. The leadership that the commission provides can then work towards forwarding these people's agendas, thus creating an outlet for Joe Everyman to be heard, however, this does require active participation to be part of the decision making process.

A counter example would be my hometown of Tucson, Arizona. The city had received a surplus of monies which was to be determined for a variety of uses. The city held closed door meetings to determine the best use of the money. Community members clammored for different uses, such as education and various sustainable infrastructure. In the end the money was sent to road projects, in many areas that did not even require such improvements, but since there was not a hared decision making process the community members were left voiceless, jaded, and feeling everything but civic. In the future the city could do many things to avoid this hit to its social capital. Especially in a city where the members know both water and energy shortages loom, many people have the desire to be involved, but not the outlet. Past attempts to set up government structures such as BCOS in Tucson have failed due to weak leadership. I can only hope that since I have been absent from my state someone has taken it upon themselves, as a group or individual, to lobby the city for more governance towards the sustainable aspects the city will require in the near future.

Natural Capitalism

Paul Hawkin (Natural Capitalism 1997) defines Natural Capital as the resources we use, both non-renewable and renewable, wherein the importance of their value lies in the services they provide distinct from the resources themselves. Roseland sees natural capital as any stock of natural assets yielding a flow of valuable goods and services into the future. The resources that are defined as natural capital can fall into three categories.
-Non-renewable resources: an example of this in Bloomington would be coal, as the cities electricity is primarily dependent on this resource.
-Renewable resources that are only renewable if their natural systems are not overexploited: there are numerous examples of this in Bloomington such as water supplies from Lake Monroe, food supplies from nearby farms, and forestry products from Yellowood State forest and Morgan Monroe State Forest.
-The capacity of natural systems to absorb our waste, pollutants, and emissions without side effects: and example of this in Bloomington would be the city owned street trees in the city which assimilate carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

The important part of natural capital is the service provided from the resource. For instance, the service provided by street trees in this example would not be trees, but CO2 sequestration, the service provided by a forest would not be the wood, but forest cover and soil stabilization, and the value of farms would not be food, but be topsoil. The most important thing to note about natural capital is that there are essentially no substitutes for these natural services. Natural capital for that reason has become the limiting factor for development. Development is slowed by a lack of services provided by natural capital. Hawkin points out the following limits which would typically occur due to limited economic capital yet are caused by lack of natural capital: limits to increased fish harvests, not due to boats, but due to lack of productive fisheries, limited irrigation, not due to pumps or electricity, but lack of useable aquifers, and the limits to pulp production are not sawmills, but lack of productive forests.

The American Southwest serves as a prime example where development has taken a large step back due to limited natural capital. In an area already dry and sparse, metropolitan cities like Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas have all been affected by a similar problem, lack of water caused by depleted groundwater, depleting reservoirs, and reliance on the lowering Colorado River. The lack of water has caused some suburbs to become ghost towns, and the same problem has stopped some planned communities from being approved, because they can't provide a guaranteed water source.

What are some other examples of regional, or community development stagnation due to limitations caused by lack of capital from your neck of the woods?

Themester Event 11/4 Thomas Friedman Q&A

On the day Thomas Friedman came to give his lecture at the IU Auditorium, titled after his book "Hot, FLat, and Crowded" he gave a question and answer session at Woodburn Hall. Although questions were only open to the undergrad t-200 class there were a few notable questions and responses.

One of the questions was regarding some of the issues which arise due to the problem that, global warming and other current issues will not likely effect us but future generations. Friedman addressed this as a question of environmental stewardship, and noted that this problem is difficult because CO2, the main climate change factor is a gas you can neither "see, touch, or smell", which makes it difficult for people to deal with. These people don't want to take action and this creates a problem with demobilizing people. This is an issue that we should notice from our Roseland readings of social and community capital. If we can increase social capital it will cause people to care more about what happens to those around them, even generationally. An increased social capital will increase not only awareness, but the desire to make a difference.

Another question dealt with Friedman's concept of "crowded", and how we can deal with crowding. The solution he put forth was to make education and technology available to everyone on the planet. This would serve to lower birthrates. Additionally, economic development also reduces crowding, but also increases environmental harm, so there must be a balance, which can arise from technologies which reduce environmental degradation from development. Unmentioned in Friedman's response was the possibility that development does not necessarily have to incorporate growth, and we could develop and retrofit existing areas to provide more use and support to individuals and communities.

Another question was what can developed countries do to aid developing countries. Friedman's response was akin to my own thoughts on this subject, in that the developed countries must further and purvey technologies scaled for nations which will allowing developing nations to grow in an environmentally sound manner. This is an example of stewardship but on a much larger scale.

Co-housing and Its Gaining Popularity in the United States

Co-housing is a type of shared living community that meets multiple aims of sustainable developments. As defined by the Co-housing Association of the United States; "Cohousing communities are old-fashioned neighborhoods created with a little ingenuity. They bring together the value of private homes with the benefits of more sustainable living. That means common facilities and good connections with neighbors. All in all, they stand as innovative answers to today's environmental and social problems."

From this definition a few sustainability issues should jump right out at you. First off lets address the impact of co-housing on land use and urban form. Co-housing takes existing developments and retrofits them to support more individuals, thus increasing density. The goal of co-housing is to increase density by creating shared facilities. Some might feel that the effects of increased density could be strongly felt with shared facilities, but this is done in such a manner that the people do not feel on top of each other, but along side each other.

Which brings us to another trait of co-housing, a greatly increased community capital. This occurs from a multitude of interactions which result in increased community capital. The minimization of the consumption of natural capital from the conservation of natural resources that occurs when from the shared facilities. By sharing kitchens and laundry services the wasted utilities are minimized and by sharing duties energy use is also minimized thus increasing natural capital. Also economic capital becomes strengthened. This is due to the affordability of co-housing, saving residents countless dollars in mortgages and services. Human capital becomes increased from the increases in health, education, and safety that accompany co-housing. These may not be as direct, but by creating a community which implores and necessitates that people work together, they are more prone to watching over one another and caring for each others well being. Finally the biggest impact on increasing community capital comes from the multiplied social capital which will come from co-housing. Co-housing requires a certain level of collaboration and partnerships which is guaranteed to bring the community closer together. This thoughts correlate with what Roseland supplies for "Strengthening Community Capital for Sustainable Community Development".

These reasons are why I believe co-housing has received an increase in popularity. By increasing community capital and thereby integrating a certain mindset of civic mindedness co-housing gives people peace of mind when it comes to sustainability. Their footprint is lowered and they feel more attacthced to the community. Additionally by working together within the shared facilities a certain burden is reduced that comes with owning and living in a private house, and that comes with knowing that you have like minded people working with you in the hopes of achieveing a common goal.

The following are a few websites for co-housing communities:


The Cohousing Company Architecture firm, with examples of cohousing neighborhoods, even offering cohousing neighborhoods

Pioneer Valley Cohousing, Amherst, Mass

Jackson Place Cohousing, Seattle, WA

Our Trip to the Monroe Water Treatment Plant

On Friday October 29th the water group, Stephanie, Natalie, Rachel, and myself went to the Monroe Water Treatment Plant, South of Bloomington next to beautiful Lake Monroe. It was incredibly interesting to see how our drinking/shower/tap water comes from Lake Monroe to the Water Treatment Plant to our homes.






The journey for water starts here at the Intake tower,





which is home to the intake pumps which uptake from the lake.












One must be careful in this room.











The water runs uphill to the treatment center where it undergoes its purification and filtration steps.



It starts in the settling basin where chemicals bind with impurities and settle out from the water.




















The water undergoes more chemical treatment and then goes to the rapid sand filtration which eliminates many microbes and continues filtration.

















After more chemical treatment the water is sent out to the town and other holding basins, while some is stored onsite in a 5million gallon reserve tank.










So you may be asking what happens with the by product or sludge?









Well it is left out in retention to dry and is then compressed into this comact version, which smells not so pleasant and feels like clay rubber.







Thanks to Tom Golson and Jon Callahan from the Monroe Water Treatment Plant for giving us the tour.

Low Density, Cheap Fuel, and Decreasing Community Sustainability

Sustainable land use can do so much for a community. It can increase economic, social, human, environmental, and community capital. However, factors such as low density and spread out housing as well as cheap fuel work against community sustainability. One of the ways that these two factors interlink is through the efficiency and compactness of land use patterns. In the United States recently there has been a strong move out of the city. This move leads to cities made up almost entirely of sprawl, with no central point. This creates inefficient transportation within the city, and discourages people from using public transportation. Cheap fuel only serves to compound this problem by giving Americans little financial incentive to change these patterns.

Cities that are more centralized and have higher densities reap great benefits. According to Roseland they have more intense land use, which consists of more people and jobs per unit area, which also leads to increased social and economic capital per area, they are more oriented to non-auto modes of transportation, which leads to greater environmental capital due to less automotive air pollution, as well as place more restraints on traffic, a prime example of traffic calming, which creates an environment more suitable for bicycles and pedestrians. Cheap fuel seems to work as a barrier to becoming centralized. There is almost a stigma to the centralized city and town structure in some areas of the country which can be noticeable from satellite images. Pan over a random city using Google street view and see if the city is grid based or if the roads take on the dead worm form, bending and breaking into culdesacs and roundabouts.

So would the two solutions then be increase density and centralization as well as fuel costs? Saying that out loud you can almost hear the arguments build. Wheeler makes note of how density is often viewed as a negative, people many times feel increasing density as encroaching on their personal space. However, increased density brings residents, jobs, and business to a community, and by using infill development with shops on the bottom floors and housing on the top floors, well executed architecture can create appealing buildings that serve multiple purposes. The arguments against increasing fuel prices are not as easy to address, and it simply stems from America's obsession with the automobile, and until we ween ourselves from the personal auto, or an engine is invented that can run on a literally infinite source of energy, this will continue to be a problem. However, if land use patterns can change as to make a personal vehicle obsolete, at least in the city, the effects and or arguments to increased gasoline prices wil be less profound.

The picture shown are examples of proposed infill for a neighborhood in Baltimore, MD. Here is a link to another blog describing the survey

To end I would like to pose two questions to you. Does Howard's "Three Magnet Model" (from the first reading) pose an accurate description of where most people live nowadays and if so, how do we bring the town-country people back to the town?