Years ago, while working as a graphic designer, I presented a project logo to my client, an NGO. After a brief review, one of the board members said the logo reminded him of a gun. No one else, by any measure, could see what he was talking about, but everyone, while agreeing that it was a great logo, certainly didn’t want their project associated with guns.

I repeat, no one else could see how this logo (that everyone else loved) could ever be mistaken for a gun. Nevertheless, the clients curled up into conservatism, and disabused themselves of any associations with imaginary guns and the logo was changed, changed again and again. No one, not even me, remembers how it turned out. As to why the NGO’s project ultimately failed…

Arthur Siegal Editor, 1971.

Gorgeous minimalist cover art via Book Worship.

Green Space on the costs of LEED:

Beedie Group executives do cost-benefit analyses on all aspects of projects. They calculated a few years ago that it would have cost $300,000 to have the CGBC certify that one of its projects, Refrigerative Supply’s building in Burnaby, meets LEED standards.

“We’ve never had a client who has wanted to incur the cost to get LEED certification when there’s many things that they can use that money for in the construction process to have a more green and energy-efficient building,” said Beth Harrington, the Beedie Group’s manager of industrial development.

Is it really that insane to think that by now we should have systems in place that financially reward green design? I’d say we’ll be closer to solving our problems when it cost you an extra $300 000 to not build green.

Full story.

Great collection. I could spend hours on this site.

Link.

Andrés Duany on Mark Lamster’s blog:

You can make the Asians do anything. They can drink their own piss. You tell them do it and they do. There is no comparison between an Asian situation and an American situation. They will do anything they are told. We will not. They will do anything they are told.

I’m not sure what bothers me most about this, the blatant racism, the complete lack of outrage among urbanists or that Scientific American chose to edit the racism out of Duany’s statements and thus presented his arguments in an undeservingly rational light.

Unacceptable no matter how you look at it.

Edward  Glaeser writes for Boston.com about the environmental impacts of urban agriculture. While making many solid arguments about inputs for food production in northern vs. southern climates and economies of scale, he then sites this as his major focus:

But the most important environmental cost of metropolitan agriculture is that lower density levels mean more driving. Today, about 250 million Americans live on the 60 million acres of this country that are urban — which is about four people per acre. By contrast, America uses 442 million acres for cropland and 587 million acres for pastureland, which is about 1.4 and 1.9 acres per person respectively. If we allocated just 7.2 percent of this agricultural land into metropolitan area, we would halve metropolitan area densities.

The National Highway Travel Survey teaches us that when densities drops in half, holding fixed location within the metropolitan area, households buy about 107 gallons more gas per year. If halving densities also doubled distance to the metropolitan area center, this would add an extra 44 gallons of gas annually. Together, the increased gas consumption from moving less than a tenth of agricultural farmland into metropolitan areas would generate an extra 1.77 tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is 1.77 times the greenhouse gases produced by all food transportation and almost four and a half times the carbon emissions associated with food delivery.

First of all, I don’t think there are many who would reasonably assume that we can meet all of our food needs within a city’s limits certainly not to the point of reducing density by half. Instead, what the local food advocates I work with propose is higher densities, creating less sprawl, preserving existing agricultural land and freeing up more urban land for agriculture and other public use while supporting rural economies. Secondly, and let’s be serious for a moment, urban agriculture is hardly a major land-use concern especially as we continue to do things like this:

Charlotte’s new NASCAR Hall of Fame by Pei Cobb Freed & Partners. Image credit: Paul Warchol.

Here we have a monument to what may very well be the single most mindless waste of natural resources conceived by humankind: NASCAR. Only war can compare to the pure and senseless squander involved in this “sport” – at least you could argue for a just war. I would be, by any measure, far more interested in an analysis of the various benefits, agricultural or otherwise, we could achieve from the reallocation of resources currently squandered on this mind-numbingly short-sited spectacle than any critique of a non-existent large-scale urban agriculture schema. While we are at it let’s focus our ire on another existing density increasing, resource wasting urban land hog: golf. With about 17 000 course in the USA alone surely we can think of far better targets for our agricultural development arguments?