PDA

View Full Version : Where does your city rank in "Sustainability"?


Drew-Ski
May 1, 2007, 9:37 AM
About Us | SustainLane.com | The Unsustainables | US City Rankings Sustainlane
HOME SEARCH UPLOAD DIRECTORY ARTICLES BLOG Register Login



Overview
Methodology
Categories
Select City, Commuting, Metro Public Transit, Metro Congestion Air Quality, Tap Water, Quality Waste Diversion Planning / Land Use City Innovation, Affordability, Energy/Climate, Local Food/Ag, Green Economy, Knowledge Base, LEED Buildings, Natural Disaster Risk


The SustainLane 2006 US city rankings of the 50 largest cities is the nation’s most complete report card on urban sustainability. The rankings explain how people’s quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future. These indicators gauge, for instance, which cities’ public transit, renewable energy, local food, and development approaches are more likely to either limit or intensify the negative economic and environmental impacts of fossil fuel dependence.

Since the first SustainLane US City Rankings came out in Spring 2005, world events have made “sustainability” an even more vital concept. Hurricane Katrina has shown how vulnerable city dwellers can be, and also how our nation’s economy and way of life is dependent on often-unpredictable natural and market forces. After Katrina and Rita hit in late summer 2005 destroying New Orleans and Gulf oil processing facilities, gas prices shot up. Prices subsided only to move up again in 2006 to record levels because of global political events combined with steadily growing demand for oil in Asia.

50 Largest US Cities Overall Sustainability Ranking
1 Portland, OR: 85.08

2 San Francisco: 81.82

3 Seattle: 79.64

4 Chicago: 70.64

5 Oakland: 69.18

6 New York City: 68.20

7 Boston: 68.18

8 Philadelphia: 67.28

9 Denver: 66.72

10 Minneapolis: 66.60

11 Baltimore: 64.78

12 Washington: 63.14

13 Sacramento: 62.64

14 Austin: 62.00

15 Honolulu: 61.42

16 Milwaukee: 60.42

17 San Diego: 57.18

18 Kansas City, MO: 56.64

19 Albuquerque: 56.10

20 Tucson: 55.86

21 San Antonio: 54.60

22 Phoenix: 54.60

23 San Jose: 54.28

24 Dallas: 52.58

25 Los Angeles: 52.28

26 Colorado Springs: 51.36

27 Las Vegas: 50.24

28 Cleveland: 50.10

29 Miami: 50

30 Long Beach: 49.46

31 El Paso: 49.10

32 New Orleans: 49.04**

33 Fresno: 48.96

34 Charlotte: 47.58

35 Louisville: 47.14

36 Jacksonville: 46.80

37 Omaha: 46.56

38 Atlanta: 45.20

39 Houston: 44.68

40 Tulsa: 43.73

41 Arlington, TX: 41.80

42 Nashville: 40.70

43 Detroit: 40.30*

43 Memphis: 40.30*

45 Indianapolis: 38.40

46 Fort Worth: 37.50

47 Mesa: 36.70

48 Virginia Beach: 34.00

49 Oklahoma City: 32.92

50 Columbus: 32.50

*denotes tie

**reflects per-Katrina data
Neither world politics nor global oil supplies are expected to be stable until the end of the decade or beyond. And the carbon emission-created global warming of the Atlantic’s water temperatures is influencing more stronger-than-average hurricane seasons. So the term “sustainability,” officially defined as meeting the needs of the present generation so it doesn’t compromise the quality of life for future generations, has taken on new urgency.

Quality of Life and Clean Technologies
Besides city energy crisis preparedness and natural disaster risk, SustainLane’s rankings cover quality-of-life indicators such as local food availability, tap water quality, air quality, walkability, park space and roadway congestion.

Providing an atmosphere for healthy living is only part of the picture. To illustrate the path cities need to take to maintain regional economic competitiveness, SustainLane’s city rankings track the growth of complementary clean technologies providing jobs and tax base expansion. Exciting developments in renewable energy, advanced transportation, alternative fuels and green building technologies are emerging in and around U.S. cities because of city policies and practices, combined with venture capital investment and consumer demand.

Why Rank or Focus on Cities?
The prosperity of cities and metro areas is critical because for the first time in history they represent the majority of the world’s population. Unlike nations or even states, cities are sited in specific climates with distinct economic qualities and geographic features. Wind turbines, tidal energy and locally produced biofuels capitalize on geographic differences. Local food system development and green building approaches also are the result of regional geographies and climates--food systems and architecture can be further enriched by local cultural and historic preferences and knowledge.

The local nature of every city’s economy is reinforced by a tax bases, school districts, elections, sporting teams, events, seasons and even the weather. Residents often identify first and foremost with their cities. And proximity to other residents and offices of local government means that many citizens are more directly engaged with their city than their state or nation.

In many cities, you can meet your city’s mayor, or at least your elected city officials, without much difficulty or travel. This means that cities get feedback in near real time: when a subway line suddenly needs serious repair or when a water main breaks, city management usually finds out the same day. Said Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle, which was ranked #3 in SustainLane’s city rankings, “I’ve worked in local government my entire adult life. Because it’s a place where you can make a difference: you can roll up your sleeves every day and at the end of the day see the difference you’ve made.”

Because of all the local cultural, economic and political influences, cities are the ideal geo-political medium for sustainability-related improvements, pilot projects and awareness campaigns.

What Makes a City #1?
The SustainLane US City Rankings focus on the many ways in which city policies and practices differ from one another and how that affects the people living in those places. This year’s #1 most sustainable city, Portland, captured the top spot with an all-around good to great performance in most every category we analyzed. Ranked below average only in affordability and natural disaster risk, Portland excels in clean technology and green building development, overall quality of life, and in sustainability planning and management.

How did Portland get the top spot? People in the city identify with having a high quality of life more than in most cities. They work hard at being involved in city policy, boards, projects and practices that impact sustainability.

Said Portland’s Mayor Tom Potter, “We’re definitely proud to be recognized by SustainLane for all the ways Portland’s citizens and businesses are working together to create a more sustainable community. In Portland the local governments are leaders for sustainability but it’s really the grassroots actions from the neighborhoods and the businesses that make this a special place. The City is buying renewable power and conserving energy, and so are tens of thousands of residents. The City has a green building policy, but it’s the builders and developers and buyers who actually change the market. It’s the people who shop at the farmers markets, the growers who manage their farms sustainably, the folks who choose to bike or take the bus to work, and all those day-to-day decisions that are making a huge difference.”

Now Portland is using its sustainability ethos to attract businesses, residents, tourists and conventions. Its city slogan, "It’s Not Easy Being Green," reflects a marketing savvy that gives the city national currency as one of the capitals of a powerful emerging domestic economy.

Other cities are involved in leading the way as well: Chicago in renewable energy and urban greening; Boston, Minneapolis and Oakland in local food development; Denver in citywide transit oriented development; and Atlanta in green building.

Next Step: Best Practices
We welcome your input on these issues and thank all the people who provided great ideas over the past two years that helped improve the SustainLane US City Rankings. Each of the 50 cities analyzed in this ranking has a dedicated page with a summary of its progress in sustainability programs and practices.

If you are a city, county or state official, please register and submit a best practice in sustainability or environmental management to our best practices knowledge base. If you are a citizen, please contact your local government officials to let them know about SustainLane Government’s free best practice knowledge base.

That way the innovations your city is implementing so it can become more sustainable in terms of its environment, its economy, its people and their future can be utilized by local government across the nation.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

We respect your privacy.


About Us|Contact Us|Press|Sponsorship Opportunities|FAQ|Terms of Use
Copyright © 2006 SustainableCircles Corp.

holladay
May 1, 2007, 9:46 AM
Finally. A list that has some validity.

cur_sed
May 1, 2007, 10:30 AM
Agreed - by the look of it, these are well-chosen variables that, together, give a pretty good picture of a city's sustainability. which makes the results worth considering.

It's interesting that Portland comes in number 1. It's great what they're doing, but affordability (which is -very- bad in Portland) is a problem. If other citys were to follow Portland's lead, would we just end up pushing poor people to the margins while the rich lived in guilt-free, enviro friendly cities?

shovel_ready
May 1, 2007, 2:15 PM
It's interesting that Portland comes in number 1. It's great what they're doing, but affordability (which is -very- bad in Portland) is a problem. If other citys were to follow Portland's lead, would we just end up pushing poor people to the margins while the rich lived in guilt-free, enviro friendly cities?

When a city becomes a desirable place to live, demand goes way up. Therefore housing becomes more expensive. How hard is this to understand?

Teshadoh
May 1, 2007, 2:22 PM
Obviously this list is valid for it's purpose. But I would still like to see a list that recognizes that cities like Portland, Seattle & San Francisco are also not affordable. For that matter my town, Boulder - which would also rank high based on it's own merits but it too has a serious affordability problem.

But perhaps the cities that should receive recognition should be cities like Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Baltimore, etc. that are ranked high but also reasonably affordable.

ColDayMan
May 1, 2007, 2:38 PM
I am glad to live in America's least sustainable city. Now, I'm on my way to the coffee shop.

Evergrey
May 1, 2007, 2:53 PM
it's a sad day in America when St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are smaller than Colorado Springs and suburbs of Dallas and Phoenix lol

oh well... kudos to Detroit and Memphis for tying for 43rd place... now it's time for the sustainability death match

Evergrey
May 1, 2007, 2:56 PM
btw, can you please provide a link for this study?

shovel_ready
May 1, 2007, 3:04 PM
it's a sad day in America when St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are smaller than Colorado Springs and suburbs of Dallas and Phoenix lol

oh well... kudos to Detroit and Memphis for tying for 43rd place... now it's time for the sustainability death match

Yeah what a crock of a list :(

I'm quite sure many of our favorite rust belters are more sustainable than the sunbelt sprawlers.

I'm sure those steep hills in Pittsburgh can grow lots of organic crops, right? :rolleyes:

MarkDaMan
May 1, 2007, 3:52 PM
It's interesting that Portland comes in number 1. It's great what they're doing, but affordability (which is -very- bad in Portland) is a problem. If other citys were to follow Portland's lead, would we just end up pushing poor people to the margins while the rich lived in guilt-free, enviro friendly cities?

rents are going up in Portland, but for a west coast city we are pretty cheap. My sister just got her first apartment, a one bedroom only 10 minutes from the core, for $500 a month. Portland has also built several 'affordable' complexes in the sustainable Pearl, comprising of over 500 units. The city council as well is now requiring the Portland Development Commission (our urban renewal agency) to spend 30% of their budget ($250M annually) on affordable housing.

So if everyone followed Portland's lead, you'd find all sorts of incomes in 'wealthy' neighborhoods. While Portland is learning and there is a curve, at least the city is trying and not turning its eyes against the lower income population.

Visiteur
May 1, 2007, 4:12 PM
it's a sad day in America when St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are smaller than Colorado Springs and suburbs of Dallas and Phoenix lol

oh well... kudos to Detroit and Memphis for tying for 43rd place... now it's time for the sustainability death match


open thought-but maybe it has to do with the remaining industry in the rustbelt cities lowering their environmentral sustainability values, versus primarily commercial office/service oriented sunbelt communities (or maybe because they are mostly residential, and as a result there is little industry worth noting). Maybe somehow that outweighed their intensely autocentric lifestyles.

Just a thought.

MtnClimber
May 1, 2007, 4:30 PM
open thought-but maybe it has to do with the remaining industry in the rustbelt cities lowering their environmentral sustainability values, versus primarily commercial office/service oriented sunbelt communities (or maybe because they are mostly residential, and as a result there is little industry worth noting). Maybe somehow that outweighed their intensely autocentric lifestyles.

Just a thought.

Pittsburg is one of the most polluted cities in the country. So there is no reason for it to be considered sustainable

BnaBreaker
May 1, 2007, 5:17 PM
I thought Boston would be higher and that Vegas and Phoenix would be much lower.

Evergrey
May 1, 2007, 5:26 PM
Pittsburgh is one of the most polluted cities in the country. So there is no reason for it to be considered sustainable

ok... for one thing... I was just making a commentary on how it is slightly ridiculous to rank the Top 50 cities... since city boundaries are so arbitrary and vary widely across the country... Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc. are artificially small... locked into 19th century boundaries of about 50 sq. miles...

this also makes a point about the survey as a whole...

Columbus, OH has something like 220 sq. miles in its borders. Its "old city" is about 50 sq. miles. Over 75% of its land mass is typical suburban sprawl. Expand some other cities on this list to 220 sq. miles... such as Denver and Baltimore... and I'm quite sure their "sustainability" quotients would plummet.

And as for Pittsburgh being one of the "most polluted" cities... get rid of your 1920 perception of us. Unfortunately we're getting a bit of bad press today because the American Lung Association ranked us as having the 2nd worst air pollution in the country after LA. However, the results are skewed due to one of the air monitors being located next to the largest coke works in the country in the suburb of Clairton. So while the air quality is quite poor in Clairton, most of the air monitors in the Pittsburgh region are complient with standards and is nothing unusual compared to the average American large city. Our rivers, for example, are now clean enough to support a diverse aquatic ecosystem and will be hosting its second BassMaster Classic next year. But let's not get this thread off topic... my comment was based on my disdain for rankings that include "suburb of Phoenix" or "inflated small city in the middle of nowhere" but not core cities of legitimate major metropolitan areas like Cincinnati, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc.

Buckeye Native 001
May 1, 2007, 5:53 PM
Personally, I think Los Angeles is too high on that list.

RAlossi
May 1, 2007, 6:51 PM
Personally, I think Los Angeles is too high on that list.

I think it's about right, considering the bus (CNG-powered) ridership in the urban areas is so high. Per-capita water and electricity usage is low too, AFAIK. Obviously the Valley brings it down a notch, but that's to be expected.

shovel_ready
May 1, 2007, 7:57 PM
ok... for one thing... I was just making a commentary on how it is slightly ridiculous to rank the Top 50 cities... since city boundaries are so arbitrary and vary widely across the country... Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc. are artificially small... locked into 19th century boundaries of about 50 sq. miles...


This is so true. Buffalo has had the same city boundaries since 1854, whereas the actual city should include the vast sprawl that surrounds the old locked-in 40sq mile city.

PhillyRising
May 2, 2007, 1:45 AM
Pittsburg is one of the most polluted cities in the country. So there is no reason for it to be considered sustainable

Let me guess....you've never been to Pittsburgh? I can't ever recall seeing the Pittsburgh skyline shrouded in pollution where it was hard to see the towers. I have seen that in Philadelphia years ago.

Pittsburgh has already proven it's sustainability in that the city never came close to decaying beyond repair after the collapse of the steel industry played havoc on the local economy which caused a large out migration of residents in the 1980's. Pittsburgh has been for a number of years, effectively replacing it's former old world economy, albeit at a slow pace compared to booming areas down south, with the influx of smaller high tech companies and it's emergence as a national leader in the health care industry.

pdxtex
May 2, 2007, 1:45 AM
its too bad we are going to outgrow our much lauded light rail system in 10 years.....but kudos for everything else....

arbeiter
May 2, 2007, 1:55 AM
I've noticed that rents in Portland and Seattle don't seem to match up with housing prices (to buy). It's easily possible to spend more on an apartment in Austin or Dallas, all things being equal, than in PDX or SEA, yet the cost to buy said square footage is much cheaper in either Texas city. I wonder why that is?

I remember seeing 2 bedrooms in Green Lake go for $900 as recently as a few months ago... yet a 2 bedroom in a similar Austin neighborhood (Hyde Park perhaps) is now $1200-1300 minimum.

Marcu
May 2, 2007, 3:05 AM
The term "sustainable" is highly subjective so any kind of attempt to rank cities on sustainability is also subjective.

Top Of The Park
May 2, 2007, 3:14 AM
....air quality and affordability.....but it has the worst public transit and city government :slob:

seaskyfan
May 2, 2007, 4:38 AM
I've noticed that rents in Portland and Seattle don't seem to match up with housing prices (to buy). It's easily possible to spend more on an apartment in Austin or Dallas, all things being equal, than in PDX or SEA, yet the cost to buy said square footage is much cheaper in either Texas city. I wonder why that is?

I remember seeing 2 bedrooms in Green Lake go for $900 as recently as a few months ago... yet a 2 bedroom in a similar Austin neighborhood (Hyde Park perhaps) is now $1200-1300 minimum.

$900 for a 2 bedroom in Green Lake is a great deal - I'm wondering if you were looking at an older building or one right by the freeway? I'd expect to see that kind of a price further out (Greenwood/Northgate/etc.) but near the Lake I'd be surprised to see much under $1,200.

cur_sed
May 2, 2007, 11:34 AM
When a city becomes a desirable place to live, demand goes way up. Therefore housing becomes more expensive. How hard is this to understand?
It's not hard to understand at all - but it is potentially problematic - a lot of Smart Growth and New Urban type planning initiatives don't take sufficient account of the less well off.