Chicago makes the top 10 in Popular Science's list of greenest cities
Posted 2/22/2008 by Patrick RollensHere's an item from earlier this month: Popular Science gave Chicago in the number-nine slot in its America's 50 Greenest Cities feature.
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Geographic Society's Green Guide, the magazine evaluated 50 cities in four categories: electricity, transportation, green living and recycling / green perspective.
Portland, Ore., was number one, followed by San Francisco and Boston. Popular Science singled out Chicago for its 12,000 acres of parks and public green space; the city led the Midwest in the rankings, beating out Minneapolis (11) and Milwaukee (22).
Six cities got individual write-ups in the magazine for particularly sustainable urban design elements. Chicago's (the second item in this slide show) described the cogeneration processes used in some city's power plants.
Comments
2/22/08
Carter said:
I strongly encourage everyone here to take this article to heart, I've pasted in just a snippet:
http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/current/feature1.htm
A Cautionary Tale
Amid our green-building boom, why neglecting the old in favor of the new just might cost us dearly
BY WAYNE CURTIS
Jan/Feb 2008
…And though hardly anyone would argue against the need to reduce our consumption of dwindling resources, one other word might come to mind when listening to those who envision a brave new world filled with environmentally friendly new buildings: Uh-oh.
… Yet when it comes to green, the gulf between the two may be broadening. New green buildings, brimming with the latest in modern technology, are perceived to be on one side; the old buildings, full of quaint, inefficient technologies and drafty windows, are on the other. Which leads one to ask: Just how "ungreen" and energy inefficient are those older buildings?
Not very, it turns out. The reputation of older structures as energy sieves, in short, is simply not justified by the data.
Kurt said:
The Popular Science editors must not know the truth about Daley's Blue Bag Boondoggle.
Dmac said:
Good point, Carter - what's usually missing from these discussions are the huge amounts of waste matter and energy costs that are produced every time a building is torn down vs. a rehab project. So what if the building is "green?" It doesn't matter much if the net byproduct is negative.
KW said:
Awesome article about green "building"! As one who buys her clothes used, lives in a 1924 coop, and buys produce from a local farm, I feel very vindicated. I have often wondered about whether it was on net less environmentally sound to tear down perfectly good buildings; now I know. Do you suppose it is true, too, of old kitchen appliances? I have thought about redoing my kitchen when we currently ancient fridge and stove finally go, but maybe I should do it before then. (The fridge is probably 20 years old; the range at least 30.)
2/23/08
pk said:
National Trust magazine? Give me a break. Consider the source.
2/24/08
Carter said:
great critique pk, that's a thesis quality analysis and debunking.
pk said:
Carter,
If you're interested in building energy consumption issues try reading something serious like the ASHRAE Journal rather than a fluff propoganda rag.
Carter said:
Attacking a source without addressing an issue is the sign of someone who has a weak argument - you can either rebut the stats and the point, or you can't. I'm betting "can't," personally, but feel free to post something of substance, I'm open minded.