On February 4, 2019 the Green New Deal was released at the 116th congress. It was sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey and was a list of economic stimulus programs that focused on combatting the effects of climate change. Since its release the Green New Deal has faced positive and negative feedback from both liberals and conservatives. The main question being, is it possible? This paper aims to outline the four major components of the deal that will impact contemporary urbanism. As well as look into the feasibility and potential outcome of their implementation through the analyses of contemporary and historic urban planning initiatives.  The four components of the Green New Deal that will affect our built infrastructure are: “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification” (House of Rep. 7), “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector”(House Rept. 8), “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” (House Rept. 7), and “Building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather” (House Rept. 6).

Energy Efficient Buildings

Urbanism began with buildings, how they were placed, and the space they created. Early European cities were centered around a church with a main public courtyard. As urbanism progressed, the design of the city was formed from the architectural principles of the time, such as modernism and post modernism. Modernism focused on function over form with simple lines and clear goals (Weller, 2). Post modernism was a direct retaliation of that notion. It believed in individuality and context and the idea that buildings should reflect the vibrance of their communities through color and ornamentation (Weller, 3).

If we are to move into a new era brought on by a New Green Deal, where energy efficient buildings are a requirement for new building design, how would that change the form of our buildings and therefore our cities? Energy efficient buildings must utilize natural lighting, they must collect and store rain water, and they must be properly insulated to retain heat while also allowing for passive heating and cooling. Functionality of the building would be the most important component of New Green Deal urbanism. The main function of the building would be to utilize natural forms of energy in order to limit the use of electricity and natural gas. This focus on function would shift us back to modernist design concepts. However, the need for proper siting of the buildings for solar and rain water harvesting, and a requirement to use locally sourced materials would cause the buildings to differ regionally giving them local context. In the end New Green Deal urbanism might become a combination of modernism and post modernism; form following function with contextual differences.

Is this possible for the United States to make this necessary move in building construction and how? France has tackled energy efficient through stringent energy requirements for new buildings. In France new buildings are supposed to have an immediate 15% efficiency rate and a 40% efficiency rate by 2020 (France, 1). A policy like France’s can affect building design and therefore the urban fabric. If we were to implement environmental requirements for new buildings the form of our cities would change. Such design changes would include solar orientation of buildings, the inclusion of rain collection systems, and locating door and windows for passive heating and cooling.

Transportation Overhaul

The second goal of the new deal is to change how we move through our cities, primarily through a shift to public transit. Our transportation choices have historically made large impacts on how we develop. European cities were pedestrian sized, the roads were narrow, and alleyways crisscrossed the city. Streets were used for public space, promenades to people watch and window shop. After the invention of the car cities and urban spaces began to increase in size and capacity. Cities stretched themselves for the first time. The car allowed people to go from home to work in a short amount of time and in complete isolation from one another. Thus, the creation of suburbia; large, cheaply constructed housing developments in rural areas.  

Only too late have we realized our grave error. In the late 20th century planning shifted back to the pedestrian through New Urbanism and Transit Orientated Development (TOD). New Urbanism started by Andre Duaney, tries to remediate the problem of car-centric suburbia by designing walkable developments. Duaney’s plans were designed for the pedestrian but they forgot about the importance of public transit and how people would get to these walkable developments, which ultimately kept residences car dependent (Weller, 4). Because of this, planners have recently focused on transit -orientated development. Transit orientated development primarily consists of large housing developments located within a half mile to quarter mile from a transit stop. Critiques of this planning intuitive are that it causes gentrification around public transit stops, making it more difficult for lower income residents to use it.

The New Green deal proposes a shift from our gas-powered cars to electric vehicles, and expansion in our public transit, which would include electric buses and high-speed rail. Norway has been able to shift 50% of their cars on the road to either hybrids or completely electric. This was done by incentivizing electric vehicles through tax breaks and free parking while also increasing the cost of owning a gas-powered car. In Shenzhen, China they put in 16,000 electric buses on the road in five years (Borunda, 4-5). If we were to incentivize electric vehicles and implement large-scale upgrades to public transit system in the United States, what would this look like? With a switch to prioritizing public transit and electric vehicles our streetscape should change drastically.  More of the road would be allocated for public transit, and with the potential invent and deployment of autonomous electric vehicles we would need less space for vehicles and more room for bike paths and stormwater infiltration. High-speed rail would connect cities and create an alternative to vehicular travel. Rural highways and roads might begin to decay and disappear through lack of use. We would begin to place Andre Duaneys walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods at transit stops, allowing people with varying income levels to access transit without using cars.

100% Renewable Energy

As New Urbanism continued, a new paradigm emerged to counter it; Landscape Urbanism. Landscape Urbanism differed from New Urbanism because it located large swaths of green space for ecological health, water filtration and productive spaces such as for food and energy within cities. The main critique of Landscape Urbanism is that the increase in public green space can lead to sprawl, and it can cause the city to be less dense limiting housing and the area’s walkability. The concept that emerged after Landscape Urbanism was Green Urbanism, which according to Timothy Beatley, aims to design cities with a closed loop metabolic system, where there are no CO2 emissions. Green urbanism strived to have a combination of New urbanism and Landscape Urbanism with density, walkability, and public space. It also aimed for 100% renewable energy (Weller, 5).

The Green New Deal aims to meet 100% of the United State’s energy needs by renewable energy. Several states are already on board, such as; California, Hawaii, and New Jersey. These states have committed to 100% by 2045 to 2050. In order to have 100% renewable the whole country would have to be involved. Six countries in the world have gotten to 100% renewable, they include: Albania, Coast Rica, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, and Tajikistan. Many of these countries did this by depending on natural resources that are scarcer in the United States. Iceland sits on an active volcano and Norway and Costa Rica rely on hydropower (Borunda, 2-3). Germany has begun to ween itself off coal with the recent creation of a coal exit commission. The commission will make recommendations for an end date for coal mining and create a phase-out plan for coal plants. Recently they have planned to stop coal mining and production by 2038 (Wehrmann, 1). France has been able to go from 10% low carbon to 65% in just ten years. This was primarily done by turning on nuclear power plants.

If the Green New Deal were to be implemented, policy and planning initiatives would need to be done, like the coal exit commission in Germany. However, in the United States it may have to be implemented through state-based programs. Each state would have to come up with their own energy commission and they would have to draft a plan towards 100% renewable. Federal oversite and guidance would be required, and the plans would most likely need federal funding or incentives.  Once all states are on board our cities would change drastically. Energy would be the next hot commodity and lots of space would have to be used for energy production. This means that most space will have to serve dual purposes, parks may have to start producing energy, panels or gardens will have to be on every rooftop, and many agricultural fields will also have wind turbines. Because land will have to serve multiple purposes, the private energy companies will need to work with the both the federal and state governments and the citizens to create an energy plan that works for everyone. This is what Germany is currently doing to make their coal exit plan work.

Building Resilience

The Green New Deal specifies the need for cities to be designed for climate-change related disasters. Resilience is a recent concept that has begun to replace the idea of sustainability found in Landscape Urbanism and Green Urbanism. According to Richard Weller and Billy Flemming, resiliency theory stresses adaption and the ability of people to cope within a specified range. Resilience calculates risk and designs from there. More closely mimicking and responding to how the world works than the more utopian ideas of sustainable design (Weller, 5).

How do we begin to design for resilience? The Dutch have been implementing flood infrastructure since 1953 when a storm led to a fast-rising flood and killed more than 1,800 people. After the 1953 storm they developed the Delta Program, where they relocated communities out of the floodplain and left it for agriculture. If the farm fields flood and crops get ruined the state reimburses them. In more densely urbanized cities the Dutch have built flooding infrastructure that protects their cities from storms. They re-evaluate the sea level and climate change factors every five years to see if any changes need to be made to their previous designs. The infrastructure is designed and built so that adaptions can be easily made (Borunda, 3-4).

Resilient design reframes green infrastructure as a tool to save and protect development, housing, and people from flooding and the effects of climate change instead of a purely ecological benefit, as seen in Landscape Urbanism and the concept of sustainability. With federal support for resilient infrastructure in our vulnerable cities the urban fabric will change, and we will see more wetlands, green infrastructure, and flood defenses along our coastlines. This will push development inward and cause it to densify as we preserve the coast for its protection.  

In 2017, President Trump removed the United States from the Paris Climate agreement. The Paris Climate Agreement was the main driver for the global climate adaptation efforts mentioned in this report. With the removal of the United States from the agreement it has left our country in dire need of an environmental call to action. I believe this call to action is the Green New Deal. Looking at the other contemporary examples and our past urban examples, it seems that policy regulations and governmental oversite will be the primary tool of the Green New Deal. These regulations will change how we build or homes, transport people, produce energy, and develop on our coasts, which will ultimately shape the design of our future cities.

Bibliography

Borunda, Alejandra. “What Can a Green New Deal Learn from Other Countries?” Some Parts of the Green New Deal Have Played out in Other Countries. How Did They Work?, 11 Feb. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/green-new-deal-learn-international-experience/.

“France.” Building Code Assistance Project. http://bcapcodes.org/code-status/country/france/

Wehrmann, Benjamin.“Preview2019 - BUND: Germany's Energy Policy Will Change Substantially.” Clean Energy Wire, 7 Jan. 2019, www.cleanenergywire.org/news/preview2019-bund-germanys-energy-policy-will-change-substantially.

U.S. Congress House of Representatives. “Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.”4 February 2019. 1-14.

Weller, Richard. “Lecture 2: The Modern City.” Contemporary Urbanism Course, Philadelphia. 2019. Lecture.

Weller, Richard. “Lecture 3: The Post-Modern City.” Contemporary Urbanism Course, Philadelphia. 2019. Lecture.

Weller, Richard. “Lecture 4: The Traditional City.” Contemporary Urbanism Course, Philadelphia. 2019. Lecture.

Weller, Richard. “Lecture 5: The Denatured City.” Contemporary Urbanism Course, Philadelphia. 2019. Lecture.