Studying the success of Garden Cities and Fractal Architecture in Re-connecting people to nature23/12/2016 ![]()
0 Comments
The sprawl of cities has been a phenomena ever since the car and highway system made it easily viable. Back in the 1940’s, GM bought out the trolley and electric-rail lines of National City Lines (NCL) in most cities in the Unites States, dismantling their infrastructure, in an attempt to monopolize surface transportation. They promoted tires, gasoline, and cars to the American public to purchase. Roads were pushed into legislature and the federal highway was born. In lieu of public transit, people began buying more cars because more of the infrastructure for them got built and was the only way then to get around quickly. It was advertised as the new frontier that every American could freely navigate wherever they wanted; to new cities, to new exploration of the country and wilderness, or the freedom to be liberated from living in the city. This became the icon of independence, hot rods, muscle cars, and teen rebellion! This was a terrible ideal to put into the American head and has had negative impacts on community, neighborhoods, housing, and cities ever since.
Negative effects sprawl is commonly associated with are, the abandonment of urban centers and cities, less time in the day to enjoy due to long commutes, and isolation (both from neighbors and the rest of the community from lack of community and urban fabric). Houses continue to spread further and further from cities, big box department stores (not community fabric) are the only things that follow. People are isolated from walking to anything. Anything at all. Maybe the local housing addition’s playground but that is about it. They are stuck on an island…an island on which the only way to get to anything is a 5-20 minute car ride. All of the shopping and food centers are located in one area that all of the housing additions must drive to. They are not spread throughout the housing. Even then, there are no local places to eat, maybe a local Mexican or Asian restaurant but other than that, everything is a chain. A chain that uses the same junk ingredients in the rest of the country from junk ways of growing the food. Too many hormones and pesticides and genetic modification on everything. There is no such thing as local in suburbia. To get to work they have to drive anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour if they are in the central city location. Why not just live near work? Yeah, brilliant idea right, it would be nice if people would get that in their heads instead of continue being caught up on the “American Dream” with having a brand new track home built for them in a new addition. Repopulate the old additions that were once neighborhoods built for the city. Where every house has some character and is different from its neighbor. Where there are most likely mature trees due to the age of the area. But no, people would rather go through the same routine every day of getting frustrated in morning rush hour, then again in the evening, wasting all that time on the road when that could have been spent with their families, and not ever building community because by the time they get home they eat dinner and go to bed and repeat. Wake-up, Commute, Work, Commute, get stopped in traffic for an hour, Eat, Sleep, Repeat. Suburbia has created zombies ladies and gentleman. zom·bie/ˈzämbē/noun
A slave to the road, long commutes, and daycare late-pickup fines, synonyms: living dead, suburbian dweller, "Why is dad always such a zombie?" Along with being isolated from everything out of walking distance (everything), people are isolated from other people. Suburbia’s prominent feature is the garage! Standing proudly in front of the rest of the ugly house is the garage doors, equally as ugly as the façade. People click their garage-door-openers and quietly drive into their houses unnoticed by the rest of the world. Nobody is ever seen again until the next morning, as a car is pulling out of the garage. Nobody interacts in suburbia! Sure the local kiddos might interact…maybe but as far as I have seen, kids don’t play like they used to. There is too much technology to keep them inside their McMansion. They barely step foot into the wild of their manicured lawns it might be dangerous and they could get a grass stain. It might be too dangerous to play with the other neighbor’s kids too, if something goes wrong you might get sued for stepping on sally’s toe too hard on accident. Better lock yourself away in your house with all the electronics that make you happy, all the social media that make you “social”, yet leave you so empty, and so without friends. The rare breed of the suburbianite might come out to grill on game days, Fourth of July, or any other grilling season, but other than that, they stay secluded and repeat the same pattern of work and commute every day, eat at the same boring restaurants every week with very limited choice due to distance of things, and shop at the same boring big-box store. It seems to me like that is no life, people are a slave to the system if they live in suburbia. They are a slave to the same routine and never getting to do anything else. Never having the time. Too much of their time is spent driving. If they do have friends, it takes their friends 20 minutes to come over, 20 minutes to go out to eat, an hour to get to work; where has the day gone?! A good example that was completely revolutionary was Glenwood Park in Atlanta. This was a designed addition, however their goal was to create community, walkability, and a sense of community. There were restaurants, offices and businesses, houses, apartments and condos, parks, sidewalks, and other features that made it a destination. People within the community did not need to drive anywhere, they can hop on a bike or walk. People can meet with other people, because they had a front porch to sit on and talk, there was no prominent garage facing the street as if to say “go away don’t bother me”. The streets are also appropriate for walking, biking, and driving to all interact in the same space. This allows people to work in an office there or local business instead of commute in town. What was actually going to be built instead was a Lowes, Target, Kroger, Best Buy, and other smaller box stores with large surface parking lots. Glenwood Park project beat out the isolated blacktop design because it is what people wanted. They rejected the idea of another chain coming into to that space. Glenwood might still feel isolated as it only exists within itself and once you step out of the boundaries you are in suburbia again, but at least it is an attempt and not just a repeat of every development out there. It might be a “fake” community center but at least they tried to do better than their precedents. ![]() Gentrification is a concept derived solely by humans and for humans. We created the social structure and rules by which we live today in order for this to even occur. Prior to that we were hunter-gatherers, tribesmen, and subsistence farmers, living off the land (Price 112). The evolution of thought, science, as well as human greed has gotten us to the modern 21st century architype we now use today. There is a class system brought about by humans in which social class and wealth create differences. There has always been a power struggle throughout animal existence. Humans, lions, spiders are all tops of food chains in their own respect, and are constantly struggling to keep it. However, many humans that don’t have the same food-chain advantage are those without money, also a made-up artifact derived from humans. Having a lot or having a little; this difference delegates whether or not one can afford to live in a certain district. The same could be said to occur in animal kingdoms, the most powerful animals can lay claim to a certain territory and protect it…until something more powerful comes in and takes over. That animal is usually government…or a revolution! According to PBS gentrification is a general term for the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban district, a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district’s character and culture (Grant). Basically outsiders or the wealthy come into an area and buy up the “blighted” properties and create new development that attracts the wealthy to invest and buy a house or apartment or business there. This outsider view is completely disregarding the existing neighborhood fabric that has been there for generations. The same happened in the pioneering days when settlers took over the land from natives, completely disregarding their land or opinions and attempts to fight back. This has happened throughout history worldwide. Some might argue that this is a natural cycle that occurs in nature, that eventually the more elite members of the species will take over. The larger lion will fight the weaker one and take over the pride, the larger wallet will buy out the lower-class citizen. One might also say that gentrification is a natural process in cities. That areas eventually become obsolete and underutilized as trends and waves of people come through. Different generations continually move into cities as well as move out. New architecture for the time period comes into style, but fads eventually change and that area is no longer “high-end” and up-to-date. That then becomes an area where investors might forget about and lower end business thrives once again; that is, until the next wave of investors comes along to revitalize the area again, creating the cycle of gentrification on an area. As sprawl occurs and business in downtowns expand, the poorer surrounding metropolitan areas become prime real estate. There is no more room to go up in the downtowns and planners and investors must look towards these neighborhoods. Urban gentrification manifests most visibly at the local level, as dilapidated low-rent neighborhoods are transformed into polished high-rent havens for the middle class through a process of disinvestment and reinvestment which results in the displacement of the lower income tenants; however this localized transformation is in fact the product of uneven development, and specifically the shifting of capital investment in both a sectoral and geographical sense, occurring at several larger scales, from the regional to the nation to the global (Darling 75-91). Are these people being forced, per say, to sell their land/home/property? Yes and no, the property values increase in the area as other parts of it get built up, oftentimes forcing out the low-rent tenants or owners as they can’t keep up with the skyrocketing prices of their infrastructure around them, i.e. they would normally go get a $1 coffee down the street, but a new hipster coffee place open up and charges $5 a cup. The local family restaurant or consignment shop is replaced with an expensive chain and vintage clothing boutique. The standard of living in an area might increase making it harder for one of lower income to stay. However there are many benefits to keeping your house and staying in a gentrified area. New job opportunities emerge as more stores open and construction picks up. Longtime homeowners benefit from rising property values. There's often a decline in crime. On average, credit scores of the poor residents improve in gentrifying neighborhoods (Gillepse). Who really owns the land anyway? Does the government ultimately own it through eminent domain? As they clearly had no regard for the residents in Brooklyn when they built the Nets stadium, whether it was a public entity or for a private investor (the law states that eminent domain is only applicable in a public works project that betters the public, i.e. wider roads for safety, public parks, public facilities, irrigation and waterways, and entities). They took it over anyway. People that had worked really hard for that piece of property to create the neighborhood originally, was getting reclaimed into the cycle of gentrification. But really the ultimate owner is nature. Nature reclaims the richest of societies, Machu Picchu, and other great cities of old all ruins and subservient to nature. The natives originally watched over the land, remaining impermanent to it with temporary structures that returned to nature very quickly. Who is to say that we even “own” the land now? Just because a set of rules in a societal order we made up says so, I think not. Darling, Eliza. "The City in the Country: Wilderness Gentrification and the Rent Gap." Environ. Plann. A Environment and Planning A 37.6 (2005): 1015-032. Web. Gillepse, Patrick. "How Gentrification May Benefit the Poor." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. Grant, Benjamin. "Flag Wars." PBS. PBS, June-July 2003. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. Price, T. Douglas, and James Allison Brown. Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. Orlando: Academic, 1985. Print. ![]() The city is populated with fast food everywhere. Even rural towns are popping up with them as franchises spread and continue to take over the country. Often times, fast food and convenience stores are all the supplement to ones diet in an area. With advertising hitting you in the face everywhere on TV, billboards, online ads, and more, each restaurant looks appealing to spend money on and therefore people do. Other factors that are appealing are the convenience of the food (by not having to cook or prepare a meal) and the generally inexpensive prices of these establishments. It is the quick and easy option, oftentimes the ONLY option, to take for many with lower incomes, keeping them in a constant food desert. Class may segregate different earning groups as well, creating a class-based food desert. There may be access to better food in an area but the only ones able to buy it are the middle class who can afford the organic food prices of Fresh Thyme, or Whole foods. It seems as though this is a backwards system, the wealthy can eat healthy, while the rest get stuck with fast food and big box groceries that accept food stamps. I personally can sympathize with the latter with big box groceries. The only items my mother selects to purchase are the ones on sale and inexpensive. These are your typical processed, frozen, preserved foods with no supplemental value. I think that people sharing in this solidarity are blind to the healthiness of this type of food even if they are shopping at groceries. Sure, fast food restaurants and frozen dinners have “healthy options” on the menu or in the store, but looking at it from a larger picture they are not healthy for a sustainable life. Most of this food is raised on feed lots in tightly confined spaces, making the meat unhealthy and loaded with chemicals. Most crops, that are later processed and preserved, are monocropped in fields where they spray harsh pesticides and chemicals to get the highest yield possible, not the best nutritional value. The Lower class is truly stuck eating unhealthily with food of no nutritional value. Many people in generally poor neighborhoods, do not own land or very much of it. Many are in condo or apartment complexes or small plots that the house takes up most of the land on. This makes it hard to find a healthy alternative to grow one’s own fresh organic food. Back in the settling days when small family farms were abundant, people grew their own food. This was fresh, organic, and self-sufficient. Today in an overpopulated world, there is hardly any land (nor any time in this fast-paced society) for these poor income residents to practice subsistence farming, making it hard to be healthy on one’s own. Many people don’t have a voice and are stuck in this model across the country. Perkins + Will is a company that will listen. They are dedicated to serving people of every social status in improving the lives of everyone through architecture and sustainable design. Diversity to them means moving beyond barriers and stereotypes of gender, culture, color, race, religion, age, sexuality, physical abilities, generational differences, and economic settings to form a team of talented professionals creating excellent work. It means matching the diverse clients and users we serve with an equally diverse design team. It means understanding how diversity affects design. It means creating a diverse workplace that attracts a diverse talent pool. They want to design for a sustainable future, and food is something that needs to be taken into account. They already have amazing buildings that are designed for our water stressed world, let’s see if they design for our food stressed world next, not only for the elite 1% with the money, but the lower class who are the majority of consumers. Designing better solutions for an end to food desertification in areas is needed, whether it be a modular scalable aquaponic greenhouse system, or designing low income housing with food growth integrated within. In this research paper I would like to explore the social impacts that the evolving transportation of today might cause on peoples everyday lives, as well as the economic impact of using alternative transportation methods. As the price of gasoline increases and smog rises, more and more people are beginning to bike and use public transportation to get places. This is a trend that is sure to grow in the future as well as new development in making greener vehicles. When the sprawl of suburbia in the United States occurred, due to the building of interstate highways for personal vehicle use, the infrastructure of these developed areas were geared towards automobiles. Big business steered away from the outdated rail or bus systems because the car was so prevalent. Using a personal vehicle today, however, is becoming a global issue due to limited foreign oil supplies and prices, smog emissions and the ozone, and costs of owning and operating a vehicle. Today, many are seeking other transportation options, and so are cities, with many reverting back to rail and trolley, train and bus, and even making pedestrian-friendly walking and biking lanes. The depletion of fossil fuels is pushing companies, scientists, and inventors towards the trend of creating newer clean-energy powered vehicles and methods of transportation. With these changes in methods come great change in the transportation infrastructure, effecting things such as the cost of public and personal transportation, affecting the economy, how people move about from place to place, and peoples livelihoods.
In order to understand where transportation is going in the near future, we must understand its deficiencies and why there is a need to correct them. To illustrate where the transportation system went wrong and why, I am going to provide a brief background on how it got there. First off Americans developed a love affair with their automobiles. Pressed by automakers and oil companies, on June 29, 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. This act established a foundation for building a $33.5 billion dollar, 41,000 mile network of roads connecting every major city of 50,000 residents or more (Weingroff 16). This was called by Secretary of Commerce, Sinclair Weeks, “the greatest public-works program in the history of the world.” However, many current issues the nation faces today are a direct result from the “greatest public-works program” (Weingroff 18). The very nature of an interstate allowed for cities to expand and suburban areas to sprawl. According to Ball State University Urban Planning professor, Scott Truex, this suburban sprawl has led to decentralized and inefficient areas of living, large commutes and traffic, as well as unhealthy lifestyles (Truex). These are the problems the United States face today as a result of creating this car-dependent nation. When conducting a poll on Ball State University's campus, 40 out of 40 people believed the personal automobile the only viable way to get anywhere of any substantial distance in a timely manner (Manners). This is due primarily to the distance people have to travel in order to interact with any kind of amenity. People heavily rely on the automobile if amenities people need to live and sustain their lives are not close to home. These amenities include workplaces, parks and recreational facilities, shopping districts for commercial or grocery use, and other facilities people use in their lives (Hall 328). Finding a good location that has all of your living needs taken care of within a reasonable distance is a good option when choosing where to settle down. “Given population growth, the ready availability of cars, and the fact that many areas were designed to require a car, such trends are hardly surprising” (Lyman 62). This decentralized model of distanced housing from amenities is outdated. One way to correct this is to create mass transit from these metropolitan and suburban areas, making fast and efficient travel to and from areas of commerce (Truex). Another is to market and popularize the electric automobile, that way the current infrastructure can still be used, but without the detriments of gasoline powered vehicles (Truex). Let's explore how these methods are being implemented in society today. There are a multitude of efficient methods of transport in use today. Conversely, plenty of inefficient vehicles and ways of travelling still exist. Automobiles are the prevalent way of transport and they come in all sizes and fueling methods. There are consumer automobiles that range from 5-50mpg on gasoline, hydrogen powered cars, gas-electric hybrids, and even all electric cars that get 100+ miles per charge (EPA). The general public has not made the switch to anything other than the gas powered automobile as their prime choice of transportation in the United States. Although not prevalent, other methods are used within their niche. The majority of an individual’s use of these systems is multimodal. Multimodal usage is the changing over of transportation usage within a trip. Some are achieved with Park-and-Ride lots which redirect congestion and traffic from the city center to an outskirt having people park at the lot and then ride in by light rail or bus (Givoni 145). Others use different combinations such as biking and then rail. There are endless ways of arriving at one’s destination, each suiting the individual and location of the one using them. On average, people who walk or bike to shopping locations that are near, do not spend any more time than do people who commute from suburbs long distances to get to shopping locations (Givoni 147). Other methods in use that one can incorporate in their multimodal way of getting around are subways, trains, light rail, busses, and even bike shares. There are many driving forces behind people wanting to make the switch towards using alternative methods of transportation other than the car. “With or without changes in national policies, the most immediate problems of congestion and air pollution are driving some localities to find alternatives on their own” (Lyman 39). Los Angeles is a prime example of where the frustration might be mutually shared. Commuters spend three to four hours gridlocked just to make it less than fifty miles to their homes. According to the Highway Users Federation, traffic congestion is estimated to cost drivers a combined $25 billion dollars in wasted fuel in the United States annually (Lyman 36). Neither the economy nor the country can afford that loss in energy wasted. “Foreign oil is expensive enough as it is, and it is being wasted by idling cars sitting in congestion” (Lyman 36). The cost of personal gas powered automobiles is both costing us the Earth’s environment and people’s pocketbook. Another reason to make the switch and find alternative methods of transportation is the rise of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from vehicle exhausts. CO2 is now being declared a danger to human health by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its significant threat as a greenhouse gas is given added importance as the leading cause of climate change and rising temperatures on the planet. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, gas, & oil) has increased by around 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Carbon Nation). As the level increases in the atmosphere and the oceans, we're getting further away from the solution. Pretty soon the Earth’s ozone layer will not be able to tolerate any more carbon and we will reach a peak threshold. At this limit, it will become an irreversible process and the ozone will continue to decay, leaving the earth exposed to direct sunlight and causing sever climate change (Carbon Nation). Carbon dioxide levels varied between 180 and 300 parts per million in the atmosphere for the 650,000 years prior to the industrialization of the 18th century. Now with factories and gas combustion from engines, we have achieved over 400 ppm in the atmosphere, an almost irreversible measure. If the human race does not do something to cut back on carbon emission the ozone could very well become unstable (Carbon Nation). Big businesses are realizing this and actually developing cleaner all-electric cars as well as retrofitting cities with electric rail and bike lanes. One completely effective way towards achieving zero emissions is to become automobile. Self-transportation and automobility, the act of making oneself mobile under one’s own power, is becoming increasingly popular (Furness 6). As a way to cut back on operating costs of vehicles and transit, people are biking or walking places. Just like the sidewalk, found on most streets, bike lanes are becoming popular, making it more plausible to ride a bike to work or the grocery. Many cities are realizing the commuter potential of bike lanes and are having them installed, even entire bike pathways separate from the road (Sweatman 46). Some cities have even listened to its residents by putting in bike lanes in response to demonstrations. In 2006, over 24 bike rides of 5000+ people took place in downtown Manhattan. One such ride, the 5000+ cyclists blocked traffic, causing it to come to a grinding halt. Within the next year over 15 miles of bike lanes were installed throughout the city (Furness 3). Walking has its benefits too, you do not need to worry about finding any kind of space to park your car or bike, you simply go as you are. There are savings everywhere when you choose either of these options. It saves you money because you no longer have to buy gasoline for those miles travelled, find a parking spot in a lot or garage that charges a fee, or keep up with the expensive upkeep of owning a car. A bicycle is a small initial investment compared to a car. The only upkeep might be occasional inner tubes for the tires which only cost $20, much less than a tank of gas (Sweatman 40). Aside from owning a bike, cities are also creating a network of bike shares. These are bikes available for short trips and can be returned at any bike-share rack within the city (McCormick 39). On average, houses located near a bike path raise in value 10%. The average increase in value for homes was $34,000 located in areas with above-average walkability or bikeability compared with similar homes in areas with average walkability and bikeability. There are benefits to both walking and cycling other than just saving money and the environment. Nevertheless, saving money and having zero emissions are great benefits of being automobile, it positively impacts one's health as well. Health is a large concern for Americans and using these methods of transportation in a positive way is a another driving force behind automobility becoming a growing trend. Obesity and laziness have stricken the youth and followed into adulthood due to cheap factory produced food, preservatives, fast food restaurants, and the increase of computer based jobs where sitting all day is the norm. Obesity rates are lower in countries where lots of people bike and walk to work (McCormick 39). Biking, depending on the distance, is a great workout to and from your commute location. It combines two popular routines into one. Many people belong to a gym and work-out after work. By biking or walking to work, you are getting your work-out in your daily routine when commuting (Furness 28). It is also mentally healthy. You control your machine and legs and know exactly what inputs are being made. You are either controlling the bike, or your legs, self-propelling you to where you need to go. Many studies have been executed showing the positive health and mental effects of both walking and biking (Furness 30). Walking is the most common form of exercise for most people. It helps reduce weight, maintain cardiovascular fitness, strengthen bone and muscles, and improve cognitive brain function. When trips are within one mile, 40% of people walk to work, school, shopping, and other destinations (McCormick 37). When trips are a little further out, transit is a good option. The steady growth of public transit in the United States indicates that people want to live and work in places where transit is an option (Bruun 26). Studies show that people who are more active tend to choose transit-accessible urban neighborhoods (McCormick 41). According to the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, light rail riders showed that they lost weight and body mass consistent with adding 1.2 miles of walking to their daily routine. In the United States, all varieties of public transportation modes – heavy rail, light rail, buses, trolleys, streetcars, ferryboats, and vanpools show an increased ridership (McCormick 41). According to the American Physical Therapy Association, what matters most to riders are convenient high quality transit options with frequent service, rather than what particular mode it is. 51 percent of U.S adults prefer to live in a community with public transportation options. This impacts the social dynamic of living. People get to be more intimate as they are in a tight knit community with walking and riding. So, all options are viable as long as they have a frequent schedule. Using these mass transit options rather than hopping in the car, have many health benefits, save you money, and help the environment (Bruun 26). According to the poll I conducted on Ball State University’s campus, 25 out of 30 that rode the MITS bus system liked it and it was a convenient way to get places (30 people have ridden out of the total 40 polled) (Manners). The positive responses I received about them were they were fast, always on schedule so they could plan out how to get places, plenty of them making stops, and they even drive to Walmart and downtown for shopping districts. The reasoning for not trying the bus system I found to be, was not having the time or people believe buses to be scary and/or lowly (Manners). This stigma is popular among mass transit options. People are just afraid to get on one and try it out for themselves. Hopefully this paper will shed some light on mass transit and remove that stigma. As gas prices rise, people look to alternatives. The cost of getting an annual pass for a transit network is much less than maintenance and gas for your car, making a combination of walking and mass transit much more affordable than driving (McCormick 45). The national trend is growing steadily towards using mass transit. This trend is already having a social impact on people’s lives. It is affecting where people are choosing to live, social interactions between people, and how people live, work, and play within the same system (Mesnikoff 80). By popular demand, more cities are becoming oriented for biking, walking, and transit due to the added benefits of these types of transportation options and the efficiency they have in moving people within a city and metropolitan area quickly (Hodge 6). These methods help to reshape the thinking of going out somewhere. They may also lead to more simple ways of life that include having less. As people move inward towards cities that have all of these amenities and transportation options for better living, housing density becomes more populated and buildings downsize rooms to accommodate more people within (McCormick 64). Having these smaller rooms, in order to live near all of these means people might have less personal belongings and live more nomadic (McCormick 65). With many more options available, people’s traditional way of doing things with a personal automobile can be greatly changed into using a combination of walking and transit to get somewhere. People may be more involved in the culture of their city if it is easily walkable or if people can get to a particular district fairly quickly (Hodge 12). This makes cities more vibrant when people are out on the streets instead of in their vehicles sitting at lights. Many smaller trips can be made when goods or food is needed, rather than one long gas-burning trip to the shopping district and grocery by car. By making more, smaller trips, this further increases the benefits of using any of the alternative transportation methods such as staying fit. Routines become developed and there is a lot more interaction that can arise when using these methods (Truex). Stepping out of that routine is also easy when everything is easily accessible and one can experience everything in one central place rather than driving to everything separate one might need. The need for parking is also eliminated, saving space and time (Fuhs 94). Automobility and transit have great social impacts on how people interact with one another. The car, however has still defined the last century and even though trends tell us that mass transit is on the rise, cars will still be around. Their existence has helped define generations, and made true the meaning of the American love affair with vehicles. However, the growing trend now, to get away from the expenses of petroleum and its byproducts, is the electric vehicle (EPA). This platform allows the American people to still have their independence but for a much healthier, cheaper, and environmentally friendly option. According to Professor Scott Truex, “People will not give up the automobile, it is engrained in our culture, that is why engineers are designing them now to be eco-friendly with zero-emissions” (Truex). Electric cars can be powered using electricity harvested from the sun using solar panels. This is completely renewable and doesn’t require any burning of anything. Companies that have stepped up to the plate are producing vehicles such as the Chevrolet Spark EV, the Fiat 500e, Volkswagon e-Golf, Nissan Leaf, Kia Soul electric, and the Tesla Roadster as of 2015 models; All of which are currently achieving over 100 miles to the charge (EPA). While using the same outdated interstate infrastructure from the 50’s however, the same problems with traffic and congestion will still be present on the roads even though the electric cars will no longer produce emissions (Truex). Electric vehicles may run on the same road infrastructure from the 50’s, but the “charging” infrastructure will grow with the popularity of EV’s (electric vehicles). Tesla has created a charging station that drops out the dead battery from under the car, and installs a fully charged one, quicker than you can fill up your gas tank. If a network of these stations were in place just like a gas station, people could travel even further than the limit of their battery (Sweatman 72). For most commuters however, 100+ miles of range will get them to work and back and then maybe some errands; then they charge their car up at night and go again in the morning (Sweatman 80). So the current battery capacity on the market that is available to consumers is a viable option to a gasoline car, having the ability to go 100 miles, more than enough to get most people to work and back. This future is a reality, the real challenge is popularizing electric vehicles and creating the charging infrastructure so people are incentivized to drive them. With the future of electric vehicles also come vehicle shares and rentals. These are being introduced in cities all over the US. According to McCormick, “Car-share programs are filling the gap for bike and transit using urbanites who don’t want to own a car” (McCormick 43). Car share programs have existed in Europe for decades and are finally making their way to the United States. Twenty three US cities have implemented them into their infrastructure using hybrid vehicles (Fuhs 86). Many of the cars used in these rental/share programs are smart cars or electric. They dock at electric charging stations throughout the city, taking up less space than a full sized sedan too (McCormick 44). Both cars and mass transit have the capabilities of becoming all electric. There are currently all-electric cars, as well as all-electric light rails and transit options (Bruun 23). The shift needs to happen towards making every piece of transportation infrastructure electric. The benefits of electrifying transportation are substantial. For one, the sun is the biggest and most abundant resource. The Earth receives 174 petawatts of solar radiation in the upper atmosphere (Carbon Nation). Barely even 1% of this is even harvested through solar-panel battery banks. If the energy were to be stored in battery banks, the whole world could be powered off of only 18% of that. Which means all lights and electricity and vehicles could thrive on 18% of 174 Petawatts of solar energy. If enough solar farms were to be produces to capture only 18% we would have no need to rely on any other type of fuel. It would be completely clean energy over the current method of producing electricity with coal and gas burning (Carbon Nation). Then the cost of transportation would really become small the pocketbooks of people globally. In reality, we only produce .5% of that 18% through solar energy. Either way, it is still more cost effective and cleaner to produce electricity to power things rather than have internal combustion engines. All of which are only 30% efficient, whereas electric rotary engines are 90%-99% efficient (EPA). In knowing that a higher electricity output is achievable, major power companies are changing their platform of coal and oil and harvesting electricity from the wind and sun (Sweatman 32). Electricity’s use plays a key role in the future of transportation just as gasoline does today. Within the next decade (2020-2030), it is estimated that the switch from gasoline to electric powered vehicles will be the prevalent method of powering cars and other transportation means (Sweatman 34). This switch will be a huge achievement in defining the future of transportation. There are a multitude of advantages to using alternative transportation methods other than the gasoline powered personal automobile. The trend of transportation in population masses is straying away from the car and incorporating other methods such as walking or biking into their routines. By walking or riding a bike and being automobile, you are creating a healthy lifestyle, working out while you commute, saving money, and building cognitive skills at the same time (Mesnikoff 88). New plans and projects are emerging in cities all over the country for better walkability and bikeability (McCormick 47). Using mass transit is shown to produces equal effects as being auto-mobile (McCormick 42). Alternative methods globally make sense as well, as energy is saved and not released into the atmosphere destroying the ozone layer. The general public needs to be aware of all of the benefits travelling by other means provide. It will be exciting to see what the future holds as global issues rise and transportation is altered to help alleviate those issues. Even with the sprawl of suburbia in the United States, mass transit and alternative methods of navigating them can be made possible and are being made possible. Mass transit lines are being extended to reach metropolitan and suburban areas to extend their beneficial services even further. I hope that in reading my paper, you too start to think about and maybe seek other transportation options; Possibly even move to a pedestrian friendly city to incorporate all of the mass transit benefits in your lifestyle. Having amenities nearby your home and workplace creates for better healthier living (McCormick 43). The social benefits of living a simpler more nomadic lifestyle improve one’s health, mindset, and body. Transportation today truly effects these basic human needs, let’s embrace technology to get us more connected with the simpler things in life and move about the world in a greener way. Works Cited Bruun, Eric Christian. Better Public Transit Systems: Analyzing Investments and Performance. Chicago, IL: Planners, American Planning Association, 2007. Print. Carbon Nation. Dir. Peter Byck. Perf. Bill Kurtis. 2010. Carbon Nation Documentary. Earth School Education Foundation. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. EPA "The Most Fuel-Efficient Models." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014. Fuhs, Allen E. Hybrid Vehicles and the Future of Personal Transportation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009. Furness, Zachary Mooradian. One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility. Philladelphia: Temple UP, 2010. Print. Givoni, Moshe, and David Banister. Integrated Transport: From Policy to Practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010. Print. Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design since 1880. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell/CAIPE, 2014. Print Hodge, David C. "Attitudes and Future Transportation." Journal of Transport Geography 5.1 1997 Lyman, Francesca. "Rethinking Our Transportation Future." The Environmental Magazine. 1990. 34-41. Print. Manners, Scott K. BSU Transportation Poll. 26 Oct. 2014. Raw data. Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. McCormick, Kathleen. Intersections: Health and the Built Environment. N.p.: Urban Land Institute, 2013. Print. Mesnikoff, Ann. Reimagine our Transportation Future. 78 Vol. Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012. Sweatman, Peter. "Defining the Future of Transportation." The UMTRI Research Review 43.2 2012 Truex, Scott. "Trending Transportation Methods." Personal interview. 30 Oct. 2014. Weingroff, Richard F. "June 29,1956: A Day In History - 55th Anniversary of the Interstate Highway System." June 29,1956: A Day In History - 55th Anniversary of the Interstate Highway System. US Department of Transportation, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2014. |
Research TopicsThese are articles or items that I have read and invested time researching to further develop my knowledge in the field of architecture and the built environment Archives
December 2016
Categories |