Boston is 8th as green city

philip · 06-01-2006, 12:05 AM

By Donna Goodison
Thursday, June 1, 2006

Boston ranks eighth among the nation?s 50 largest cities when it comes to sustainability, according to a survey unveiled today by SustainLane.com.

Portland, Ore., topped the list.

Sustainability is generally defined as the ability of current generations to meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

?We just want cities to develop healthier economies for citizens, better quality of life and to be prepared for events like rising energy prices, so that they?re more economically and more environmentally sustainable,? said Warren Karlenzig, chief strategy officer at SustainLane, a nonpartisan San Francisco-based Web site.

Boston ranked 12th last year, when the 25 largest cities were compared.

Areas of improvement included a first-place ranking in the local food and agriculture category for the Hub?s 13 farmers markets and 175 community gardens.

Boston had the third-highest rate of public transit use in the nation at 32 percent and scored fourth overall in the transportation and commuting category.

The Hub was No. 3 for planning and land use, which takes into account sprawl and the percentage of parklands.

While the city had the top East Coast rank for deriving 8.6 percent of its energy from renewable sources, it did not score as well for its green building incentives.

?I think the city looks to the state for a lot of those things,? Karlenzig said.

Boston?s poorest showings included 42nd among the 50 cities for housing affordability and 40th for tap water quality, as ranked by the National Resources Defense Council. The city placed 33rd for road congestion.

Waldorf · 06-01-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip

...and 40th for tap water quality, as ranked by the National Resources Defense Council.

I guess I'll stop drinking the tap water. :shock:

Ron Newman · 06-01-2006, 10:31 AM

That one surprises me, since I thought the Quabbin system was well-regarded.

Waldorf · 06-01-2006, 11:52 AM

Yeah, and now they use an ozone purification system, so it should be pristine.

I think it may actually have to do with the old mains and pipes in and around Boston. A lot of them (the pipes leading to homes) are made of lead. I know Somerville is actively replacing these, but many still exist. Stupid state.

quadratdackel · 06-01-2006, 02:50 PM

These rankings are always pretty arbitrary. For example, if we didn't have so much road congestion, we probably wouldn't have so much transit usage. We also have by far the most pedestrian commuters, which is even more efficient than transit. Also, if housing wasn't so expensive, there wouldn't be so much incentive to build dense and mixed-use. And what does water quality have to do with sustainability? Water supply, yes, (i.e. is the water supply based on a depletable source like ground water or is it from rain/snow), but not quality. Local food is only slightly relevant, because it means less energy for shipping food long distances, but then to rank Boston first is ridiculous, because we're not in a good agricultural region. Our "farmers markets" sell food from around the globe. (Those are not locally grown bananas!) Including housing costs, water quality, and community gardens seems like they're really making some hybrid sustainability/"quality of life" ranking, which is fine. In a pure sustainability survey, rankings should be based exclusively on energy efficiency (including transport and proximity to agriculture) and water supply. Really, other than enough energy (which could be achieved by using less of it), food, and water, what does a city really need? I'd expect NYC to be #1, since it uses by far the least energy per person and has a healthy water supply, even though its sheer size poses some logistical challenges. Maybe SF, with its temperate climate (little need for heating & AC), decent transit system, and abundant agriculture, although there are water supply issues there, and of course earthquakes, which should be factored in somehow. Boston & DC should be next, then probably Chicago & Philly. Portland gets lots of notice for its policies, and it is improving substantially, but it has a long way to go before it catches up with the bigger, denser cities.

garbribre · 06-01-2006, 04:36 PM

I hated Boston area water. My parents' tap tasted better during my last visit.

When I moved to the Bay Area (from NYC by way of Boston), I was still doing the bottled water thing. Then I tried the tap water one day and have never gone back. And Oakland's water rocks! (What a dork!)

Quadrat--I never put much value in these surveys, places rated stuff, etc. Satistical analysis is bullshit. (justin and others will be retaliating.)

Waldorf · 06-01-2006, 11:11 PM

Is Oakland's water from the Hetch Hetchy? Or some random reservoir in the hills?

garbribre · 06-02-2006, 07:04 PM

^Nope. We get our water from about 50 miles northwest of that. The East Bay Municipal Water District's (EBMUD) water supply system begins at the Pardee Reservoir in Amador County, then runs along the Mokelumne River watershed with aquaducts that extend about 100 miles to the East Bay.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Boston done in Sim City 4!	kz1000ps	General	150	03-08-2013 08:00 PM
Shirley Kressel vs. Boston City Council	commuter guy	General	48	12-12-2008 07:22 PM
Cartography of Boston City	Turilly	Existing Development	7	05-19-2008 12:29 PM
Green Cities: Lessons from Boston and Beyond	briv	Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events	0	03-01-2008 03:05 AM
New PBS special focuses on Green Design (features Boston)	briv	General Architecture & Urban Planning	0	06-02-2006 08:56 PM

06-01-2006, 12:05 AM	#1
philip Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 71	Boston is 8th as green city By Donna Goodison Thursday, June 1, 2006 Boston ranks eighth among the nation?s 50 largest cities when it comes to sustainability, according to a survey unveiled today by SustainLane.com. Portland, Ore., topped the list. Sustainability is generally defined as the ability of current generations to meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. ?We just want cities to develop healthier economies for citizens, better quality of life and to be prepared for events like rising energy prices, so that they?re more economically and more environmentally sustainable,? said Warren Karlenzig, chief strategy officer at SustainLane, a nonpartisan San Francisco-based Web site. Boston ranked 12th last year, when the 25 largest cities were compared. Areas of improvement included a first-place ranking in the local food and agriculture category for the Hub?s 13 farmers markets and 175 community gardens. Boston had the third-highest rate of public transit use in the nation at 32 percent and scored fourth overall in the transportation and commuting category. The Hub was No. 3 for planning and land use, which takes into account sprawl and the percentage of parklands. While the city had the top East Coast rank for deriving 8.6 percent of its energy from renewable sources, it did not score as well for its green building incentives. ?I think the city looks to the state for a lot of those things,? Karlenzig said. Boston?s poorest showings included 42nd among the 50 cities for housing affordability and 40th for tap water quality, as ranked by the National Resources Defense Council. The city placed 33rd for road congestion.

06-01-2006, 10:31 AM	#3
Ron Newman Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Davis Square, Somerville, MA Posts: 7,910	That one surprises me, since I thought the Quabbin system was well-regarded.

06-01-2006, 11:52 AM	#4
Waldorf Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 517	Yeah, and now they use an ozone purification system, so it should be pristine. I think it may actually have to do with the old mains and pipes in and around Boston. A lot of them (the pipes leading to homes) are made of lead. I know Somerville is actively replacing these, but many still exist. Stupid state.

06-01-2006, 02:50 PM	#5
quadratdackel Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Back Bay, Boston Posts: 145	These rankings are always pretty arbitrary. For example, if we didn't have so much road congestion, we probably wouldn't have so much transit usage. We also have by far the most pedestrian commuters, which is even more efficient than transit. Also, if housing wasn't so expensive, there wouldn't be so much incentive to build dense and mixed-use. And what does water quality have to do with sustainability? Water supply, yes, (i.e. is the water supply based on a depletable source like ground water or is it from rain/snow), but not quality. Local food is only slightly relevant, because it means less energy for shipping food long distances, but then to rank Boston first is ridiculous, because we're not in a good agricultural region. Our "farmers markets" sell food from around the globe. (Those are not locally grown bananas!) Including housing costs, water quality, and community gardens seems like they're really making some hybrid sustainability/"quality of life" ranking, which is fine. In a pure sustainability survey, rankings should be based exclusively on energy efficiency (including transport and proximity to agriculture) and water supply. Really, other than enough energy (which could be achieved by using less of it), food, and water, what does a city really need? I'd expect NYC to be #1, since it uses by far the least energy per person and has a healthy water supply, even though its sheer size poses some logistical challenges. Maybe SF, with its temperate climate (little need for heating & AC), decent transit system, and abundant agriculture, although there are water supply issues there, and of course earthquakes, which should be factored in somehow. Boston & DC should be next, then probably Chicago & Philly. Portland gets lots of notice for its policies, and it is improving substantially, but it has a long way to go before it catches up with the bigger, denser cities.

06-01-2006, 04:36 PM	#6
garbribre Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 245	I hated Boston area water. My parents' tap tasted better during my last visit. When I moved to the Bay Area (from NYC by way of Boston), I was still doing the bottled water thing. Then I tried the tap water one day and have never gone back. And Oakland's water rocks! (What a dork!) Quadrat--I never put much value in these surveys, places rated stuff, etc. Satistical analysis is bullshit. (justin and others will be retaliating.)

06-01-2006, 11:11 PM	#7
Waldorf Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 517	Is Oakland's water from the Hetch Hetchy? Or some random reservoir in the hills?

06-02-2006, 07:04 PM	#8
garbribre Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 245	^Nope. We get our water from about 50 miles northwest of that. The East Bay Municipal Water District's (EBMUD) water supply system begins at the Pardee Reservoir in Amador County, then runs along the Mokelumne River watershed with aquaducts that extend about 100 miles to the East Bay.