Better late than never?

Eric Miller on 05.29.08 @ 05:21 PM PST [link]  

While cities are hot spots for global warming, people living in them turn out to be greener than their country cousins.

Each resident of the largest 100 largest metropolitans areas is responsible on average for 2.47 tons of carbon dioxide in energy consumption each year, 14 percent below the 2.87 ton U.S. average, researchers at the Brookings Institution say in a report being released Thursday.

MORE

Eric Miller on 05.29.08 @ 02:17 AM PST [link]  

Heart disease, the No. 1 killer of women, may hit closer to home than many realize. The American Heart Association’s Go Red For Women movement recently released a study, conducted by Sperling’s BestPlaces, revealing the nation’s top 10 most – and least – heart friendly cities for women. Minneapolis-St. Paul took the title of Most Heart Friendly city for women with the lowest cardiac
mortality rate for women, low hypertension rates and highest exercise rates. Nashville, on the other hand, finished at the bottom of the rankings with high obesity and smoking rates.

Based on the heart friendly benefits cities have to offer their residents and the personal lifestyle choices of its residents, Go Red For Women and BestPlaces found the following Heart Friendly rankings:

Most Heart friendly Cities for Women
1. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN
2. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC
3. San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland, CA
4. Denver-Aurora, CO
5. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA
6. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
7. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR
8. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
9. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
10. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ

Least Heart friendly Cities for Women
1. Nashville-Davidson, TN
2. St. Louis, MO
3. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
4. Pittsburgh, PA
5. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
6. Columbus, OH
7. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH
8. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
9. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
10. Indianapolis, IN

Fast Facts:
• Minneapolis-St. Paul, Boston and Phoenix reported the lowest female cardiac mortality rates in the
country; Detroit, Nashville and St. Louis reported the highest.
• San Francisco, Denver and Los Angeles were the thinnest mega metros; Cleveland, San Antonio
and Columbus were among the most overweight.
• Surprisingly, our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., reported the lowest stress ratings of all the mega
metros while Portland, OR reported the highest stress levels in the category.
• Generally, California and Colorado cities scored well in the Heart Friendly Cities study; the metros
that scored the lowest in the study were found in the South and Midwest.


Heart Friendly Tips… No Matter Where You Live
Regardless of where your city falls on the list, cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 killer of women in all 50 states. Living in a heart friendly city does not automatically make you heart healthy, and the reverse is also true. Whether you live in Denver or Detroit, your heart is in your hands. Heart disease is largely preventable if you work to lower your risks by making changes to your everyday lifestyle.

Eric Miller on 05.26.08 @ 03:22 PM PST [link]  

My wife and I were bicycling the KATY trail over spring break, as part of a little get-away from our children. We rode the area around Rocheport, Missouri, heading southeast, under Interstate 70, along the Missouri River. This particular trek hugs the bluffs of the river to the east, and the river itself to the west. An absolutely fantastic section of a worthwhile ride it was.

MORE

Eric Miller on 05.25.08 @ 07:20 PM PST [link]  

Not that it ever did make sense, except in a narrow opportunistic way, but look at this picture--it is just a small sample of the truck-jams that occur at the stores across the street from our apartment more or less every day:



And what vital goods are these immensely heavy trucks carrying, at the cost of jamming taxpayer-built lanes, breaking up the asphalt, poisoning the air, destroying the climate, and depleting the world's oil supply?

Just look at the signs painted gaily on their sides: one is carrying Coca-Cola, that is, slightly flavored sugar water, dyed dark brown; the other is carrying--yes, fruit-flavored ice cubes!

The main cargo weight of the Coke truck is then plain water, which is delivered more effectively by pipe, and the glass bottles. The main cargo weight of the other truck is also water. Both trucks also carry fossil-fuel-powered generators to run their refrigeration systems.

Now, since people will drink silly stuff like Coke, wouldn't it make more sense to use lighter trucks making less-frequent deliveries of just the Coke syrups, to be made (as restaurants used to and perhaps still do) into Coke at the point of sale, and put into refillable glass bottles that are returned to the point of sale and washed there? It makes more sense than carting them about at great energy cost to and from bottling plants, or even melting them down in recycling plants to be made, at great energy cost, back into Coke bottles elsewhere. Ditto the flavored ice cubes--just ship the damned flavoring and make them in ice machines locally, with less energy waste!

Those two trucks in the photo represent the paradigmatic stupidity of our economic culture. We can do better than that.

Richard Risemberg on 05.24.08 @ 06:30 AM PST [link]  

This is what gets me. Why do newer cars get lower gas mileage than many older models from the early 90s? The 1986 Cheverolet Sprint ER got 44 mpg in the city and 53 on the highway. CNN just ran an article on the Geo Metro from the early 1990s--the earlier models get the same mileage as the Toyota Prius. The Smart 4 door coupe gets about the same (for a smaller car!). My 2002 Ford ZX2 (Escort) can get in the mid 30s on the highway, outdoing its replacement, the Focus. Even the AMC Gremlin with six cylinders was not as economical as smaller, lighter subcompacts with four-cylinder engines, but it did get 28 to 30 miles per gallon. It would seem it's time to bring back cars like the Sprint and Metro, but even the new small cars get lower mileage. I'd love to hear any analysis as to the why of that.

Eric Miller on 05.20.08 @ 04:38 PM PST [link]  

Just encountered a marvelous video from Streetfilms.org examining the stunning changes wrought in Melbourne, Australia, to convert it from a typically dreary autocentric grid to a delightful, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly conglomeration of street villages bustling with radiant life (and profitable businesses).

View it here:



Or see it with additional commentary at Streetfilms.org

Richard Risemberg on 05.12.08 @ 05:49 AM PST [link]  

Eric Miller on 05.11.08 @ 10:09 AM PST [link]  

It's hard to find lumber or someone who will cut it to specification in the city, so Home Depot was the answer. So, why not pick up the adjustable shelf clips at the same time? Something so basic, yet after three salespeople and 30 or more minutes on the cell phone, it was another Home Depot doesn't have it moment. This is what as far as I can discern from the conversations Home Depot doesn't have

Eric Miller on 05.11.08 @ 09:48 AM PST [link]  

I'm reading this Whole Foods article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The author seems to be lamenting that the Cleveland Heights store is better than the Pittsburgh store. Why? Well in part it's bigger.

In Cleveland, shoppers bag their habanero peppers in a produce section with room for 14 rows of bananas, choose from 24 rows of prepared meats, 22 rows of meat cuts and 11 rows of handmade sausage at the butcher's shop, after they dine on Risotto Di Giorno ($9) at a trendy restaurant counter.
This goes back to the Home Depot thing. If all you're going to buy is maybe five bananas at most, why does it matter if there are 14 rows of bananas? What matters is that there are bananas. Some of the smaller stores have more individual items than these larger stores that have many of the same item. That may not be the case with Whole Foods particularly, but generally true of big box stores. Still it's clear they're trying to impress with a large supply of a single item, which just makes the store needlessly large and hard to traverse.

Link to the article

Eric Miller on 05.06.08 @ 04:03 AM PST [link]  

It always gets to me when people living in urban neighborhoods want things to be quiet enough to hear a pin drop. I recently responded to a message board complaint about a loud radio with this response:

In Park Slope, Brooklyn there are signs that warn of a $300 fine for honking. I think for the most part cities are full of noise and if they meet the needs of the typical suburban resident, they cease to be cities. I wouldn't enjoy my transome rattling particularly, but I do enjoy hearing "12A Downtown," the AGH Lifeflight Helicopter and when I hear the Norfolk Southern trains lay on the horn. A few years back when the Stones played at PNC Park I could hear it in the back yard--that was awesome. I am enjoying the subway gently vibrating the floor beneath me right now. When I lived in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco-- where everyone came to party-- some idiots tried to keep things quiet. McCandless is the home of quiet, so is the grave. Sure, some noise is just purposefully obnoxious, but generally in the city noise is a sign of life and life is good. Enjoy it.

Eric Miller on 05.05.08 @ 04:28 PM PST [link]  

More examples of commercial uses in residential spaces have been added. I'm not suggesting residential buildings be demolished for commercial ones. I am advocating that artists, notaries, insurance agents, etc. should be able to hang a shingle on their residence. If a quiet business can be conducted inside the space of an existing residential home, allowing that is of great benefit to city neighborhoods.
Link to Photos

Eric Miller on 05.04.08 @ 07:16 AM PST [link]  

I haven't lived in an apartment for some fifteen years, and I'm new to the process of downsizing. I really didn't want a bicycle in the hallway or living room, so I decided to trade the regular bike for the foldable kind. If you haven't seen these, basically the frame folds in half so it can be stored in a closet. I had thought of this before as a fumbled with a bike rack. I was always afraid of having a bike fall off a car rack. This one would fit in the trunk.

Some models have small wheels, but this one has a full-size frame and wheels. It's made by Dahon and so far I am pleased with it. It's not heavy to carry and I didn't have any trouble taking it on the Long Island Railroad or subway (although the LIRR requires you have a bike permit-$5 available on the train, and requires you travel off-peak).

The Dahon is about the economy if fitting into small spaces, but its also about design. The design seems so good I am suprised I have not seen these around before, although maybe I have just not folded! The pedals fold, the frame folds, the front wheel is removable and when you remove the seat there's a built-in tire pump.

I'm not that much of a cyclist, I prefer walking, but with Prospect Park so close, a bike seemed to be a great idea. Check out Dahon bikes here

Eric Miller on 05.02.08 @ 12:15 PM PST [link]