Built to Last: CNU video contest winner

[Dan]

The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), the leading international organization promoting walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl, announces the winner of its 2009 video contest. The team of First + Main Media from Julian, CA and Paget Films from Buffalo, NY, award-winning documentary film producers, won for their short film entitled Built to Last. Members of the team include John Paget, Dr. Chris Elisara, and Drew Ward.

The outstanding 3-minute video asks the question “What’s the greatest threat to our planet?” and shows how reimagining our cities and suburbs to be sustainable and walkable will cut carbon emissions, commutes and calories. "When it comes to saving the planet, what we build is the greatest threat…or the greatest hope," say the filmmakers in Built to Last.

“Built to Last made me laugh out loud,” said John Norquist, president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism, which offered the submitter of the winning entry a complimentary registration to this year's leading gathering of urbanists,CNU 17, which runs June 10-14th in Denver. “But this video is serious too. First + Main and Paget Films show how New Urbanism is the convenient remedy, providing quality of life and economic value while protecting the environment.”

"We're always looking to work with organizations and companies doing good, culturally transforming things, and have been following CNU for many years,” said Chris Elisara of First + Main Media. “We've wanted to bring our skill and talents to the movement, so this gave us a good opportunity to do so.”

The video is so good, says Norquist, you'll want to see it for yourself, probably before reading the rest of this announcement.

I'm not one for short "so, what do you think?" posts, but this video provided me some inspiration and talking points in efforts to promote a proposed unified development code and a recently adopted SmartCode in the community where I work. It's a bit preachy, but still worth watching. That a Buffalo-based documentary film producer had a major role in making this also gives it much more appeal.

[wahday]

Well, the video is definitely slick and well made. It makes its point, but like many things that are compact like that, it a) dosn't tell me anything I didn't already know (ok, I'm a planner, so maybe I'm not the target viewer) and b) probably won't convince many people who are proponents of or don't see a problem with sprawl.

I also noticed that when they speak about "what ifs..." they tend to use a good deal of drawings instead of real examples from actual New Urbanist developments or retrofits. That I would like to see and it reminded me of this article I say last night in the NYTimes about an affluent suburb in Germany that has done away almost entirely with cars (bicycles and peds only in the town). One of the things that is obvious from the slideshow is that Germans (even affluent Germans) are more willing to embrace dense living conditions than in the US. All the housing in that suburb are attached units that are designed for very high efficiency and don't even require heating.

It was all very exciting (except that it is the primary domain/benefit of the wealthy) but I had a hard time seeing that model working in the US. Americans (and especially Americans with means) are very wedded to their single family detached home which makes achieving some of the clustered development for increased parkland and open space a more difficult proposition. It also makes construction costs higher and increase the overall footprint of the development. Would Americans go for something like what is in that article? They don't call it NU over there, but that is exactly what they are talking about, right down to the mixed use elements. What is interesting is that this is targeting specifically at suburban and not urban development.

Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/sc..._r=1&ref=world

While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs and focusing specifically on environmental benefits like reducing emissions. Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.

[Hceux]

I stumbled upon this clip on youtube today and wondered if there has been some discussions about it on Cyburbia, a website that I haven't visited in quite some time.

I was surprise to see that there weren't a whole of discussions about it.

Here are my thought: How dense do the neighbourhoods need to be for them to be sustainable in the sense that there are the usual essential businesses and services in these areas?

Watching this clip kinda reminds me why I am happy with the house that I purchased last spring. I feel that it's one of the more walkable neighbourhood in this small city of 50,000 people. It's about 15 minutes walk from the downtown area where I go for the bank, the library, the post office, and maybe pick up a card at one of the shops. There are shops, galleries, and other businesses there. I can also walk to the waterfront in about 10 minutes. I can get to two grocery stores and three hardware stores in about 20 minutes or less. The hospital is just down the street.

The only snag is that it's 40 to 50 minutes walk to where I work. So, I drive, but at least it's only a 5 to 10 minute drive, depending on the traffic and red lights. Buses around here aren't full. Based on a reading I read a while ago, using a car with only one person in it is actually better than using a bus that is sparsely used.

I'm not sure if the concept of new urbanism or traditional city planning can sweep worldwide in a jiffy. The city that I live in is still building cul-de-sac style of neighbourhoods on the perimeter of the city and in in-fill areas. I feel that in the meantime, the best thing I can do is to focus on living in areas that are more walkable despite the sacrifices that may come with it.

[Richi]

I guess it's time to give up on attempting to get the correct plurals of some common words like:
Culs de sac (not cul de sacs)
Data is (no data are, but a datum is)
Oh weel, the bell just rang, Class is over.

[Luca]

I guess it's time to give up on attempting to get the correct plurals of some common words like:
Culs de sac (not cul de sacs)
Data is (no data are, but a datum is)
Oh weel, the bell just rang, Class is over.

"Data" can be intended as a collective noun and therefore take the singular form. Indeed, it seems to me that for decades now taht ahs been teh more common use in the US. In Britain, many (most) use the plural form, but then they even extend that to institutions/corproations (on the reasoning that they consist of many individuals).

Insofar as a phrase like "cul-de-sac", which is French, becomes in USian or British use an "English" word, I don't think it's wrong to impose an English plural form. Much like it would be acceptable, and IMHO better, to say "forums" rather than "fora".

[Coragus]

It's an interesting little video, but I don't think it's going to sway anybody's opinions one way or the other. It is my observation that unsubstantiated and unreferenced predictions of dire doom and gloom tend to hurt a movement's credibillity.

[stumpydoo5]

The only snag is that it's 40 to 50 minutes walk to where I work. So, I drive, but at least it's only a 5 to 10 minute drive, depending on the traffic and red lights. Buses around here aren't full. Based on a reading I read a while ago, using a car with only one person in it is actually better than using a bus that is sparsely used.

I might be on crack, but whatever reading you did a while ago was wrong. It's not about average emissions etc., it's about MARGINAL emissions.

When you ride a bus, the worst harm you are doing is making the bus brake and accelerate, and that's only if you're the only person getting on. But when you drive, you are creating emissions, and all of your emissions are marginal. So: Riding a bus: ZERO marginal emissions, because the bus was going there anyway. Riding a car: xxx amount of emissions.

The same goes if you jumped in the back seat of a friend's car, rode the back of a garbage truck to work, etc. It's all ZERO marginal emissions. I think planners need to dispel these rumors more often. They must make economists cringe.

[Hceux]

I might be on crack, but whatever reading you did a while ago was wrong. It's not about average emissions etc., it's about MARGINAL emissions.

When you ride a bus, the worst harm you are doing is making the bus brake and accelerate, and that's only if you're the only person getting on. But when you drive, you are creating emissions, and all of your emissions are marginal. So: Riding a bus: ZERO marginal emissions, because the bus was going there anyway. Riding a car: xxx amount of emissions.

The same goes if you jumped in the back seat of a friend's car, rode the back of a garbage truck to work, etc. It's all ZERO marginal emissions. I think planners need to dispel these rumors more often. They must make economists cringe.

Not to hijack this thread, but thank you stumpydoo5 for correcting me. I appreciate getting the correct information.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

Thanks for posting this. I'm actually using it to explain New Urbanism to my neighbors as we develop a placemaking initiative in my neighborhood.

Thankfully, we will have a new B.R.T. station and some T.O.D. in 2012 that can serve as a catalyst.