5/20: Initial Thoughts

Being a lifetime resident of the Bloomington/Normal area, any progress is great in my opinion. For as long as I can remember, Downtown Bloomington has been the "place to be" and a lot more inviting to pedestrians than the Normal area. One of my biggest complaints of Normal has been its driving traffic. Granted the uptown area should encourage more walkers and bikers, with current transportation trends, it still must accommodate cars. Street lanes have always been extremely tight, with little parking, and extremely sporadic traffic control (which led to a traffic citation towards me on once instance)!

The new turnabout,widened streets, and less-clustered/parallel parking actually seems to decrease the congestion and making driving through the uptown area quite a bit easier. In turn, I believe this creates a more inviting and comfortable atmosphere for pedestrians when cars are whizzing by and turning around to avoid one-way streets. Hopefully the not so great drive-ability of the area will encourage people to utilize the trail or walk to uptown normal in the first place.

I like that uptown is trying to clean up the area and make it more sustainable. This gives community citizens a place to hangout without the congestion of vehicle traffic, and also encourages commerce and attracts many businesses and residents to the area, reviving the entire district. It compliments the nearby universities very well and provides an atmosphere that is diverse and generally representative of the entire community. Uptown Normal is very easily accessible from any direction especially utilizing the trail which enters the area north at the turnabout and extends in all directions. The activities available seem plentiful and quite diverse. My family and I, still have yet to go "hang out" in the area though, so it must not yet be appealing to everyone.

While I think the efforts are a great start and initiation, the area still could use some improvements. It's possible the development is still well underway, but I see little attempt to incorporate green space, trees, vegetation, etc. As well, the walkways aren't so large, plentiful, and inviting that they will be utilized like some of the downtown areas exemplified in class. Also, with so much renovation, I would think it would have easy and quite cost effective to utilize more energy efficient options such as living machines, on-site energy production, waste management, etc. The energy supplies and means still seem quite conventional and non-sustainable. These are improvements that could definitely be incorporated to make it a more sustainable area.

I think its location and accessibility contribute greatly to its sustainability. Also, the LEED building plans help. The actual land area isn't that large in comparison to other downtown districts, but the space is fairly well utilized. It is also a multi-use space and has accommodations for guests. I think what generally keeps me and my family away, is that it is not yet as popular. Possibly its just the norm to hangout in Downtown Bloomington, but I like to be around people I know, which aren't in uptown Normal. The Pub II is a hotspot that I go to sometimes, but it is not connected very well to the uptown area, so most visitors don't make it past the bar.

5/19: Initial Thoughts

Although human waste is a completely natural process, the way we currently dispose of it is not so. It seems second-nature to use urinals/toilets and the only option short of pissing and shitting on the ground is to dispose of our waste through current management systems. What if though, there was a way to eliminate the negative, disgusting vibe that human waste currently has, and still dispose or reuse it in a manner that did not involve so much energy, water, and human input. After researching living machines for a brief while, they could potentially be a very viable alternative to the current water/energy powered system we see today.

The reason for bringing up an alternative is to eliminate the need to use massive amounts of potable water, which takes a lot of energy to transport and treat prior to getting to homes/buildings, only to dispose of it through sewage system moments after dirtying it. I agree that leaving grey and blackwater sitting idle in our homes and buildings is not a feasible option to eliminating our need to potable water, but being able to manage and re-use these water forms on-site would be a huge resource saver in our society.

Initial problems will involve getting around notions that human waste can only be dealt with by taking it as far away from the site as possible. Instilling human trust that living machines can deal with their waste away from their contact, yet still on-site and allow them to re-use it in valuable forms will be a key factor in living machine adoptions. Most likely, up-front cost of new systems or retro-fits will scare some away, but seeing the endless cost savings benefit will hopefully lure societies into utilizing living machines in new and current development. In the long run, this tool has the ability to greatly decrease our dependency on potable drinking water, for which we mostly use for purposes other than drinking (90%) and with the current success, can be easily adopted in many infrastructures.

5/18: Initial Thoughts

We as Americans are being spoiled in terms of water supply and its quality. For most people in this country, we can use water almost unlimitedly, for fractions of pennies at a time. Not to mention, the usual sole source of water coming into our homes is perfectly suitable for drinking at any faucet output. For a variety of reasons though, we now over-exaggerate the quality of water in our homes. Much more is wasted when a false light is shed on our drinking water, and people are scared into believing waste water is similar to some deadly chemical. We are in the habit of letting faucets run without reason, flushing the toilet every time anyone urinates or even disposes a tissue in the bowl, and let our hoses run for hours watering our overly large yards.

Keith Hall's novel idea of utilizing the rainwater that spills off our roof, into gutters, yards, and streets inches at a time is a brilliant one in my opinion. Implementation aside, I would like to focus on the immense benefits that would come from rainwater storage and re-use. Considering only a small portion of the water our municipalities across the nation spend much time and energy resources bringing up to a standard suitable for drinking, actually makes it to the dinner table, why not use natural rainwater for the portion we do waste our potable drinking water on. Being able to capture and manage stormwater to use in an efficient manner, and at times we deem appropriate and to meet demand efficiently instead of the natural way in which stormwater reaches the land and disperses without us being able to control it. This is one way we can control the environment in a positive manner so long as we let water still run its natural course and provide nutrients and moisture to the land in a necessary amount to allow for natural life to flourish.

Being able to prevent pollution and incorporate rainwater into our current systems with less waste would be a great direction for sustainability. As with other efforts, rainwater management has a systemic impact and would reverberate in other areas of sustainability. I believe this area would do a lot for our environment in many areas of sustainability and hope that we continue moving in the direction of utilizing water falling from the sky.

5/13: Reflection

The problem with this area of sustainability, involving race, gender, age, etc. segregation, is a difficult one and is comparable to quick sand. After seeing many of the graphs and comparisons during the class lecture, my hypothesis was mostly confirmed in that the worst sustainable design areas of our nation are strongly related with income, race, and other demographic factors. I would compare these problem areas to quick sand, because from personal experience and statistics support, people of similar race, age, etc. tend to gather and flock together. Poverished, low income regions then, continue in their habits and spiral out of control. This effect is magnified when government funding and decisions ignore and neglect these regions, due to the power money plays in government decision making.

The conflicts and tensions then, are really a reflection of the problems themselves. The way our tax system works, and is likely changing to, taxes the wealthy more than the poor. Therefore, and I can't blame them, they don't necessarily want a larger portion of their tax money going towards helping the slums and povershed areas of cities especially when they pay significantly less and therefore aren't really helping themselves. Sustainability though, is a collective effort and the decisions and implications will overall help everyone. We have to see past the immediate costs of sustainable decisions and trust in them that they will benefit the entire nation over time.

My thoughts on this topic have changed in that, unfortunately, my thoughts on helping out those who don't seem to be helping themselves are similar to the high bracket tax payers. I didn't want my hard earned money helping drug dealers and other stereotypes typical of low income, poversh regions. I see now, that it is a collective effort and many sacrifices must be made in order to make this nation sustainable. These decisions will affect everyone, but must be trusted by everyone.

The questions I would ask the authors then, would be how can we convince everyone that sustainability will affect everyone differently, but must be accepted by everyone in order to be successful. Short of this class lecture, I would probably still be slightly bitter when I see my tax money cleaning up slums that I didn't create. How can we convince the wealthy and thos not in slums to contribute to the common good? And when we do start altering slums, will those that live in the regions, buy into our goals and start living better, more sustainable, productve lives, and overall, start helping themselves?

5/13: Initial Thoughts

Members of different age, race, gender, etc. experience regions in vastly different ways. I would say that regions shape the way members of the region live and feel about the region. Influences come from many different areas and a handful of small influences can shape a region's style and being to spiral and reflect that affect. Members of the region, will have their lives shaped by their surroundings, the other people in the region, and the opportunities placed in their environment. For example, there are many regions of the United States that are recognized and characterized by their reputation for having a majority of people being of a certain race, gender, age, economic status, etc. Areas like Naples, Florida and many places in Arizona are retirement hot spots for white, wealthy, seniors to live in during retirement. Realizing this then, the regulation, business attractions, and environments reflect the people that live in the region. Houses and living accommodations are more luxurious since these wealthy citizens want and can afford them. Luxury car dealers start popping up, and high-end retailers are seen all over the city.

Although the physical characteristics of a region are static to begin with when certain people arrive in them. The surroundings start to conform to the demographics of the people that live within them. Without getting into too much detail, there are obvious features of neighborhoods, communities, and regions that strongly reflect and correlate with the people in them. Like people are generally attracted to each other, so these regions attract more and more people of similar demographics. Regulation then starts to reflect regional demographics, whether good or bad in some cases. These occurrences can be great for sustainable design in some cases, and terrible in others depending on the demographics and what the people want.

Design that isn't directed towards certain demographics will be necessary to avoid the regional containment. Retail districts that invite not only people to them, but a diverse group of people by offering commerce options representative of all types of people in this melting pot of a nation. Living space that is reflective of not only cultural differences, but income spans as well will invite a range of demographic differences. There are many things we can do, but right now there is a lot of isolation in our regions separating different demographics from each other, and right now our regulation and design actually promotes this. These decisions are some that will need to change in the future in order to create diverse regions.

5/12: Reflection

After seeing another perspective through Professor Deal's lecture, it seems our sustainability problems are even further encompassing. He did a really great job of explaining the impact of our inefficiencies and in turn reliance on fossil fuels. I thought his illustrations and connectivity of our energy source uses and exactly where it is the energy comes from when we perform simple tasks such as turning on a light. I think the average consumer has knowledge that it takes a lot of energy to carryout the daily functions of our society. As Deal's lecture brought to light though, the systemic costs of even having the ability to burn the coal or natural gas it takes to produce on sight energy are much greater than the general public realizes. So sure a first step, as many advocate could be turning off the light switch, using less water during showers, driving hybrids, etc. These practices do a decent job of cutting back our usage, and is an initial step of conserving. This is the point though, where must un-sustainably-educated, greenwashed consumers will stop. This greenwashing has instilled in them the idea that they have saved the earth by taking a 9 minute shower as apposed to 10, or getting 27 mpg instead of 21. As Deal illustrated again, going a step further and conserving to the point of using more efficient energy sources, eventually alternate, and hopefully renewable, only then will we have conserved to a truly sustainable point and can then load from there.

The conflicts and tensions then, as discussed in the Growing Cooler article and reiterated in Deal's lecture is that we as a general public are first of all uneducated as to why we remain in such an unsustainable rate, don't take the responsibility for the problems, and are so used to our current way of life. Every day of every week we get up, use our cars to get to work, school, etc. and rely on them for transportation. Our communities and facilities, although not desirable in my opinion, are built to support driving. They and everything around them use energy and have become the American status symbol that is hard to avoid and live without.

My thoughts, now that I am becoming more and more informed and less of an average brainwashed consumer, have shifted to the how aspect of sustainable design. I am really interested in how we can get everyone to see our environment from the new perspective I have found. Once they are there, I don't think there will be much trouble in engaging in more sustainable activity and actions. I used to think these problems of unsustainable infrastructure, water waste, and poor economic decisions were not mine, but the problem of someone above me with more power. I figured these problems would work themselves out without my help, because for all I know ever time I flip the switch, the light comes on, what else should matter to me.

A question I would ask the authors and Professor Deal, would be first of all how do they choose and reach the audiences of their research, material, and findings. Secondly, what is their reaction to what they have to say. Is the message overwhelmingly absorbed, accepted, exciting, and involving to people? Does it spread easily this way? Do you find any people/audiences that blow off, or discredit what you have to sa regarding sustainable design?

5/12 Initial Thoughts

I think the first phrase of the Growing Cooler article sums up my reaction to the reading and thoughts, and that "you can't get there from here." When I look at my life alone, which I would consider fairly reflective of an average American, the phrase is quite fitting. Living at home still, several miles from school, work, shops, entertainment facilities, etc. walking is definitely not feasible without spending majority of the day walking. I ride my bike to school when I can but it's nothing short of a 35 minute drive. When it rains or I have to other places to go after school, riding my bike becomes a much less appealing option. There are no public transit stops within miles of my house, so my only option left short of quitting school and work is to drive a vehicle. This vehicle travel, is reflected for commuters, commerce, shipping, etc.

This sprawl is a very unsustainable example of infrastructure and development. With this current infrastructure and sprawl, CO2 emission reduction really is a point that we can't get to from here. My vehicle and VMT's is a similar figure to the other three driving members of family, all other families in my neighborhood, all other neighborhoods in this community, and all communities in this region. So now we have a nation made up of sprawling regions with very unsustainable infrastructure.

Similar to mass water use for domestic use, a similar statistic translates to fuel usage. Our lifestyles depend on the car. Granted I could drive a Prius and get better gas mileage, I would still be driving and filling up my tank in order to get those 50 mpg, which would reduce my fuel consumption but nothing more. It seems the only true solution to both fuel and water issues is re-structuring. This is a sustainable solution. By building with and in combination with our water sheds instead of on them, and constructing regions that allows people to walk or bike to school, work, shops, and entertainment, our water and fuel use would become much more sustainable. It's hard to imagine being able to walk to the places I drive to most, but I'm looking forward to the opportunity!