Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » 2006 US City Sustainability Rankings - Detroit « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Kahnman
Member
Username: Kahnman

Post Number: 31
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 3:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I found this take on the D very interesting.

http://www.sustainlane.us/city _study_43%20Detroit.jsp

Never mind the ranking of #43, I like the description - "Opportunities for Change".

I live near the #3 city where we almost peg the meter in danger of natural disasters and runaway housing prices.

So tell me, what is YOUR definition of sustainability?

Kahnman
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 887
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 5:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very well summarized in these few paragraphs I think:

"If Detroit could harness its old-school transportation supply and labor base with alternative-fuel technologies and products, it would possess a ready-made migration path into the future. The city has no shortage of brilliant engineers, marketers, and mechanics to draw upon.

The US automotive industry has been slow to embrace change, instead lobbying against raising the nation’s fuel efficiency standards. Large vehicles with high-powered engines have ruled the day in Detroit, but with higher gas prices, they don’t appear to have a bright future. By investing in renewable energy, alternative fuel, local food, and green building, Detroit stands to improve the lives of its residents—and keep more of them in town."
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 315
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 5:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nice. To whom should we send these recommendations?
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 894
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well who knows, Professorscott? That quote from the article is probably preaching to the choir on this forum.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kahnman
Member
Username: Kahnman

Post Number: 32
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 1:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you check out the #1 rated city, Portland, you'll find the mindset of the urban public to be obsessively green. That goes for #3, Seattle as well.

Even though Michigan has scenic beauty as well, it always seemed to me that it was more "segregated" rather than integrated in the mindset of the urban public. For example, when we would go on vacation, it would always be to Sleeping Bear Dunes, Honor, or the UP. That's where "nature" was.Down in the lower LP was where we worked the other 50 weeks of the year. O.K., stay with me here, I'm about to make my point.

People want to be in a "liveable city" that integrates scenic beauty with cultural diversity. They want to feel that the city is thriving along with themselves. The Green Building concept is something that Detroit needs to focus on to provide the image of a progressive city that treasures it's environment.

Hey, I realize the Detroit river is not Puget Sound, but I can show you some areas in Seattle that that mirror the D's urban decay. Conversely, I'm sure you all can think of some scenic areas in the D that rival Seattle.

The sooner Michigan realizes that the natural beauty of the state should be marketed to more than just tourists, the sooner everyone could reap the benefits.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eastsidedog
Member
Username: Eastsidedog

Post Number: 959
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One thing I can't help notice when I read these sorts of reports is that the "greenest" cities are also the least affordable (i.e. the wealthiest). Seems there's no place for being poor in green cities (i.e. Portland). And the affordable cities aren't too green (i.e. Detroit).
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitbill
Member
Username: Detroitbill

Post Number: 231
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is a sound report that has a lot of insight for a good urban planning /renewal department to absorb and use as a model. The problem in Detroit is who do you go to here with this information and use it in a positive manner. Detroit has many of the tools needed to improve already here but we lack cohesiveness and coordination. If only, If only, we could harness this, the D could improve vastly in a short time as there are many people here who would welcome it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 938
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 2:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I like the comment about the water. For some reason, people on this board treat Detroit water like holy water, when it consistently rates less than clean (#36 in this study). When I lived there, I thought it was shit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 1394
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you want real shitwater, Focusonthed, come on out here to Las Vegas. Genuine ca-ca. But it's better than nothing, although we ain't too far from that, either.

Thank God for bottled water.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cman710
Member
Username: Cman710

Post Number: 297
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 4:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Whenever I have visited Las Vegas, I have always had trouble shaving without cutting myself. I have always blamed the water!

I am from New York City, which is known for good water, and I do think it is quite good. NYC has one of the only, if not the only, water system that is exempt from certain federal regulations.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 2085
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 4:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The scariest water situation I have encountered happened in Phoenix a few years ago. One day the water had a strong odor of hydrogen sulfide (sewer gas). The next day it had a stronger, very strong, odor of chlorine.

What that means, I think, is that there was sewage contamination in the tap water but not just locally because the water treatment people apparently detected it and reacted to it.

I have no idea how widespread it was because they tend not to report such incidents in the papers due to the effect it might have on the tourist industry.

Detroit water is delicious. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Kahnman
Member
Username: Kahnman

Post Number: 33
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 4:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitbill, you answered your own question. Your urban planners are the ones that need to embrace new technology mindsets and convince government officials of the need.
If the elected officials do not heed the planners recommendations, GET NEW OFFICIALS!!
It all starts at the grass roots and your best chance of success is with you urging your planners to do the "paradigm shift" thang and get with it!
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2435
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

One thing I can't help notice when I read these sorts of reports is that the "greenest" cities are also the least affordable (i.e. the wealthiest). Seems there's no place for being poor in green cities (i.e. Portland). And the affordable cities aren't too green (i.e. Detroit).



Portland is probably the most affordable city on the West Coast.

Detroit, on the other hand, is far from affordable. Anyplace you have to spend $3000+ a year on car insurance alone (never mind gasoline for driving through a sprawling area, etc) is far from affordable. In a truly sustainable city, you would need a car at all.

The difference is that in Portland, you can realize appreciation on your property, and you can't typically write off car insurance on your taxes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bpjeff
Member
Username: Bpjeff

Post Number: 73
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 8:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oregon has a 9% Income Tax. I say that is far from affordable.

Furthermore, in Portland you generally need 25% of your income for your mortgage payment http://www.housingtracker.net/ affordability/oregon/portland, in Detroit only 16%. http://www.housingtracker.net/ affordability/michigan/detroit

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.