viernes, 12 de noviembre de 2010
jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2010
miércoles, 10 de noviembre de 2010
Article: Sidewalks Key Factor Influencing Physical Activity
QUOTE: The concept of the portable streets
martes, 9 de noviembre de 2010
miércoles, 3 de noviembre de 2010
VIDEO: American Makeover Episode 1: Sprawlanta
martes, 2 de noviembre de 2010
viernes, 29 de octubre de 2010
martes, 12 de octubre de 2010
MED report. Centro Cultural Moravia
Enviado desde mi dispositivo movil BlackBerry® de Digitel.
lunes, 11 de octubre de 2010
Parque Explora
domingo, 10 de octubre de 2010
jueves, 7 de octubre de 2010
martes, 24 de agosto de 2010
FACTS: Driving is why you´re fat!!!
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1008/driving-and-obesity-3/flat.html
martes, 27 de julio de 2010
Quote
:
"... activist practice as the act off architects leaving the office, engaging a community, and seeking a need for design in that community, rather than passively waiting for clients to come to them" Roberta M. Feldman
"... operative practice as any intentional, creative action - formal, programmatic, fiscal, functional, physical, social, political, or aesthetic - that achieves lasting positive change" Jason Pearson
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
lunes, 26 de julio de 2010
jueves, 17 de junio de 2010
Blog ///INCORPORADOS, INTEGRADOS, INVOLUCRADOS
lunes, 14 de junio de 2010
jueves, 6 de mayo de 2010
lunes, 3 de mayo de 2010
domingo, 11 de abril de 2010
viernes, 9 de abril de 2010
Artículo: Lessons for an urbanizing world: the Curitiba´s experience
Lessons for an urbanizing world
- Top priority should be given to public transport rather than to private cars, and to pedestrians rather than to motorized vehicles. Bicycle paths and pedestrian areas should be an integrated part of the road network and public transportation system. In Curitiba, less attention to meeting the needs of private motorized traffic has generated less use of cars.
- A sustainable city is one that uses the minimum and conserves the maximum. This pragmatic application of demand management and recycling is exemplified in Curitiba by solid waste recovery, re-use of old buses as mobile schools, preservation and use of historic dwellings, and employment policies where poor people are employed in the waste separation plant and as teachers of environmental education courses.
- There can be an integrated and environmentally sensitive action plan for each set of problems. Solutions within any city are not specific and isolated but interconnected. The action plan should involve partnerships between responsible actors such as private sector entrepreneurs, nongovernmental organizations, municipal agencies, utilities, neighborhood associations, community groups, and individuals.
- Creativity can substitute for financial resources. Ideally, cities should turn what are traditional sources of problems into resources. For example, public transport, urban solid waste, and unemployment are traditionally listed as problems but they have the potential to become generators of new resources and solutions. Creative and labor-intensive ideas can, to some extent, substitute for capital-intensive technologies. Also, cities do not need to wait for bailouts or structural reforms to begin working on some of their problems.
- Social, environmental and economic solutions can be integrated into holistic approaches. Mayor Lerner’s leadership and creativity proved that there could be a sustainable solution for each set of problems usually found in fast-growing cities worldwide. A combination of public-private partnerships, transparency and participation was promoted in the development of equations of co-responsibility. The experience of Curitiba demonstrates that solutions, not only problems, can be seen in an integrated way.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Curitiba,_Brazil
viernes, 12 de marzo de 2010
Artículo: "How cars are killing us around the world"
Image: Infrastructurist
lunes, 8 de marzo de 2010
Artículo: Pedestrian Survival Techniques
The way it works is simple: As you're walking toward your destination, you remain constantly aware of the vehicular traffic coming from either direction. Once a clear break appears, you cross at that moment. There's no wait time, because you continue walking while you watch for the opening. It's highly safe, or at least you have maximum control over your own safety. Before "jaywalking" was stigmatized and banned through a campaign by automobile lobbyists, this was a perfectly acceptable way to approach a typical dilemma.
Walkers are now supposed to wait until they reach the intersection before crossing, but for obvious reasons they do not want to do this.
1. Vehicles could be approaching from a number of directions and its impossible to simultaneously monitor all of these possibilities.
2. Turning lanes increase the total distance that must be crossed.
3. Stoplights encourage a certain number of drivers to speed to try and beat the red light. The severity of a hit would be much higher.
The only three times I felt my safety compromised over this period was while legally crossing. On one occasion, watching the walk signal I almost stepped out in front of a truck careening through the red light. On two other occasions, right-turning cars were not paying attention to the crosswalk and had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting me. None of these were near-death experiences, but they underscore the tension pedestrians feel between trusting in official protection and using their own safety intuition.
Pedestrians should be empowered by engineering solutions to follow their own safety intuitions. They have a huge incentive to protect their life, and the truly reckless (or inebriated) will ignore signals or legalities anyway. FHWA sponsored major studies of various pedestrian safety devices in high-crash intersections and last year released a treasure trove of information about what techniques proved effective. In many cases, focusing on modifying driving yield behavior and speeds was more effective than attempting to herd pedestrians.
Engineering is incredibly important, but the best engineers will tell you that they offer sets of trade-offs not absolute solutions. The relative values between pedestrians' right to life, motorists' right to convenience, and costs of implementation cannot be calculated but must be provided subjectively by the ones who make the final decision. Hopefully in a democracy, that's you and me.
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/Home/29623
viernes, 5 de marzo de 2010
Video: The urban ‘moving bike’
Onno Sminia and Louis Pierre Geerinckx represent what we need more of. The two Dutch industrial designers simply felt there was a better way to move within their urban neighborhood without having to depend on their parents, renting a moving truck and/or finding parking, much less do it on any kind of regular basis.
So they innovated and built their own solution, a moving bike, and then formed a new company around it, Vrachfiets, which means ‘cargo bike’ in Dutch. How’s that for problem solving? Two pedalers provide the added power needed for heavier loads, while the next version will have solar-powered electrical assist the up the towing capacity even more.
They already have their first interested customer, the City of Delft, in the Netherlands.
Slowly but surely, the emerging generations are creating their own pedestrian-only/carfree world.
jueves, 25 de febrero de 2010
Articulo: Urban Renewal Through Public Art?
Yesterday’s post on the extraordinary rice paddy art of the Japanese village of Inakadate got me thinking about the power and purpose of art, public art in particular. Japan’s well-documented generational flight from the country to the city has gutted many rural communities that will likely become ghost towns once their predominantly elderly inhabitants pass on, and forgotten completely once their buildings rot. Yet here is Inakadate, drawing 150,000+ visitors annually to a village of fewer than 9000 residents 400 miles from Tokyo to stare out a tower window at rice paddies. Such is the power of art.
A recent article on the proposed razing of the infamous Jordan Downs housing project in Watts raised some questions for me about the underlying intention, the core goal, of urban renewal. Racism, classism, and other prejudices are probably inescapable, but I don’t find them to be legitimate motivation. Isn’t the point of urban renewal—as a process, not a product—to provide a struggling area with a neighborhood it can be proud of? After all, people who take pride in where they live also take care of it. They maintain it, cultivate it, activate it, personalize it, beautify it, protect it, and adapt it to their particular needs and desires. They become a true community, the Jane Jacobs kind.
Architecture plays a major role; enormous Communist Bloc-style “human warehouses” don’t make things easy, and demolition isn’t always a bad thing. But architectural interventions are expensive, laborious, and disruptive. Artistic ones, in comparison, can be much cheaper, more inclusive, more dynamic. They can create a unique sense of place, inspiring residents to take pride in what they already have—who they already are—instead of suggesting that nothing here is worth saving, the slate should be wiped clean. The inclusion of art suggests a process of improvement, not replacement. This is certainly not novel thinking. Still, I wonder how many failed urban interventions might have been successful had public art been a genuinely considered agent of change.
Of course, areas targeted for urban renewal (by whatever name) typically have more pressing needs than civic pride: education, opportunity, health care, nutritious food, a healthy home. Art might not feed the hungry (though Inakadate proves it can), but why should renewing dilapidated and impoverished areas be a linear process? If it requires engagement, communication, and commitment at all levels, then can’t art play a significant role? Whether it’s rice paddy art, city buses, murals, civic graffiti, chalk art, sculptures, building facades, signage, horticulture, folk architecture, or any other form, public art can help bring a community together. It can be a powerful force of renewal, without destruction, displacement, or disparagement.
Articulo: Driving Green
Plans to develop four so-called freeway cap parks have recently been announced in Los Angeles. The cap concept, which essentially covers a portion of a freeway with a planted concrete lid, has gained popularity in the last decade as an urban “greening” solution. The multibillion-dollar projects are meant to knit together previously disparate neighborhoods, theoretically creating cohesion and larger-scale community gathering places without having to destroy or displace existing infrastructures.
The four projects are spread across Hollywood, downtown LA, and Santa Monica. Hollywood Central Park would be built atop the 101 Freeway on a proposed 44-acre site between Santa Monica Boulevard and Bronson Avenue. Park 101 would be built atop the “Big Trench” over the 101 Freeway downtown. Santa Monica is hoping to cap portions of the 10 Freeway between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street, and between 14th and 17th streets, creating five- and seven-acre parks.
The cap park frenzy here can largely be credited to Don Scott, an investment banker and former chairman of the Hollywood Central Park coalition, also former chairman of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Scott said that his inspiration for the Hollywood Central Park cap came from an article he read about Boston’s Big Dig. “I remember driving over the Hollywood freeway and thinking about the connection between the two environments.”
After some research, Scott discovered other freeway cap parks in various phases in Cincinnati, Seattle, Phoenix, the District of Columbia, Boston, Hartford, CT, and Charlotte, NC. In LA, a small freeway cap park was built over the 210 Freeway in La Canada-Flintridge; another is under review in Ventura County. The rest of the chamber was quick to support Scott’s idea, and it took off.
According to Francie Stefan, community and strategic planning manager for the City of Santa Monica, no two freeway caps are the same. “Some are glorified bridges, some need center supports, and some just span the whole distance,” she said. Structural design is influenced by whether you get support from outside walls or from center posts, and have mechanical or natural ventilation and lighting.
The largest and furthest along of the parks, the Hollywood Central Park project, would cover a wide swath over the 101 that currently cuts through residential neighborhoods. “The feasibility studies have just been completed,” said Scott. “Friends of Hollywood Central Park is raising money for an environmental impact report, and we’re lobbying for money in Washington.” Designed by AECOM (which has its hand in all four cap parks), the project is expected to cost about a trillion dollars, and though heavy hitters like Senator Dianne Feinstein have pledged support, it is at least several years from groundbreaking and a decade from completion.
The Park 101 project has been given the tall order of knitting together what is one of the world’s most jumbled downtown districts. In an LA Times op-ed in June 2008, project lead Vaughan Davies, director of urban design at AECOM’s LA offfice, said, “The proposed site separates some of our most prized and appealing landmarks—Olvera Street, Chinatown, and Union Station on one side; Disney Hall, the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, and City Hall on the other—creating isolated pockets of activity rather than what we need: a livable, walkable, and unified downtown district.”
Unlike the other projects, Park 101 is designed to host larger events, and also includes “lots of surface parking and at least a million square feet of new development that might include educational, residential, and commercial spaces,” said Davies. The park is in the very early stages of funding and has gathered a “significant” but undisclosed portion of the funds needed for the next study phases. Officials are seeking funds from a variety of infrastructure and stimulus spending packages.
The two projects in Santa Monica, one that would tie together Main Street with downtown Santa Monica, and another that would function as a green space near 14th and 17th streets, are both undergoing preliminary feasibility studies. These too have been awarded to AECOM, but have not been started, though the site at Ocean Avenue and 4th Street would theoretically come first.
“There is no design,” said Sarah Lejeune, senior planner for the City of Santa Monica. “We are just getting the contracts completed for the design and feasibility study, and we’re beginning to build momentum and awareness.” When pressed for a projected date of groundbreaking, Stefan said, “If money grew on trees, we would start tomorrow. Right now, we are trying to figure out what we can afford.”
Articulo: Your Car & Your Meat-Eating: The Biggest Causes of Climate Change
photo: Mark Woodbury via flickr.
A new study coming out of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that when it comes to the net contribution to climate change on-road transportation, burning biomass for cooking, and raising animals for food are the biggest culprits. Since I don't suspect many TreeHugger readers regularly use biomass stoves to cook, as do millions of people in developing nations, that leaves us with your car and your diet to tackle. But first, the study:
image: GreenCarCongress
Emissions That Slow Warming Subtracted From Those That Increase
Rather than looking at the sources of different chemicals linked with global warming, the GISS study looked at net climate impact from different economic sectors. By net impact, we're talking about emissions than contribute to warming (the usual suspects CO2, methane, black carbon, etc) minus those emissions that actually slow warming (some aerosols, sulfates, etc) by reflecting light and altering clouds.
In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest net contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term [...] The researchers found that the burning of household biofuels--primarily wood and animal dung for home heating and cooking--contribute the second most warming. And raising livestock, particularly methane-producing cattle, contribute the third most.The industrial sector releases such a high proportion of sulfates and other cooling aerosols that it actually contributes a significant amount of cooling to the system. And biomass burning--which occurs mainly as a result of tropical forest fires, deforestation, savannah and shrub fires--emits large amounts of organic carbon particles that block solar radiation.
it should be noted that in that 'motor vehicles' description, that does not include aviation, which as an industry was ranked well down on the list of net climate contributors--but above the shipping and industrial activities.
So how where does that leave us as far as making technological and societal changes?
Green Cars Are Good, But No Cars is Better
Creating cars and trucks running on clean electricity is no doubt part of the solution. But we're well on our way to doing that, at least conceptually and in the public imagination. We know we need green cars. However that is really only a small part of the solution and frankly seems sometimes like a distraction from the bigger issue, which is all too often sidelined.
What we don't seem to know yet is that we need to create communities and spaces where for the vast majority of people an owning an automobile is not required in their day-to-day lives.
As Zarchary Shahan correctly states over at CleanTechnica the benefits of this are numerous:
Getting out of the automobile habit altogether would be a great step forward for our society and the world. It would address this #1 climate change (and ocean acidification) concern, but it would also help address obesity tremendously, the economy, and other things. As Alex Steffen of Worldchanging writes, "we already know that the way to solve the problem of cars is to build better cities."
It's also in building better towns and expanding multi-modal public transit options, but "build better cities" is a decent simplification.
photo: Jason Anfinsen
Changing Your Diet = The Greatest & Greenest Personal Lifestyle Choice
As far as your diet is concerned, it really isn't as complicated as creating a new urban infrastructure. And strictly from an environmental perspective comes down to this: Eat Less Meat.
Personally I recommend eating no meat at all--the health, mental, and spiritual benefits are myriad and profound--but when it comes to addressing the environmental problems of our growing meat consumption, simply consuming meat at much reduced levels is sufficient, particularly reduction of meat from ruminant animals such as cows and sheep.
TreeHugger's Graham Hill recently pitched the concept of being a weekday vegetarianat the TED conference, and that's a good goal. If the majority of people simply returned to that level of meat and dairy consumption we'd be well on the way towards a more sensible and sustainable scale of animal husbandry.
viernes, 12 de febrero de 2010
miércoles, 10 de febrero de 2010
viernes, 5 de febrero de 2010
Quote
Articulo: Livability to Become Requirement in Federal Transportation Policy
Transit can have a broad impact on community livability, like this bus stop in Los Angeles, which catalyzed nearby development after simple improvements were made
For years, large-scale transit projects submitted for funding in the United States have been evaluated primarily on cost and the amount of time they save commuters. While these criteria may seem perfectly reasonable, the cheapest, quickest transit route is not necessarily the one that best serves communities along the way.
Two weeks ago, the Obama Administration made a dramatic policy shift on how to evaluate major transportation projects. In a statement on January 13th, U.S Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that, “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”
Wow! For many years, Project for Public Spaces has advocated for greater community involvement in the transportation planning process, beginning with our 1997 publication, “The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities.” Reflecting on this report, Senior Vice President Steve Davies noted, “We first had to define what livability was, because it means different things to different people. It was through this process that we first developed the place diagram, which has become one of PPS’ most influential tools.”
Twelve years later, a key theme of the report–transportation projects can positively affect the livability of communities–is poised to become a part of federal policy. PPS.org sat down with PPS Vice President Cynthia Nikitin to gauge her reaction to this exciting news and discuss the implications for the transportation planning process in the future.
miércoles, 3 de febrero de 2010
Articulo: Los venezolanos están entre los más obesos del mundo
Seremos el país latinoamericano con mayor índice de sobrepeso en 2020
SANTIAGO DE CHILE.- Los índices de obesidad en la población mayor de 15 años aumentaron en América Latina, especialmente en México, Venezuela y Guatemala, dijo a DPA la consultora de negocios Euromonitor International.
El caso mexicano es el más notorio. En 1980 tenía un índice de 17,1% de su población obesa y aumentó a 31,8% en 2009.
Los países latinoamericanos que le siguen son "Venezuela, con 29,6%; Guatemala, con 27,5%, y Bolivia, con 27,3%", manifestó la consultora. De hecho, estos países ingresaron al grupo de los diez más obesos a escala mundial, que está liderado por Kuwait con 42,2% de su población sobre 15 años calificada como obesa en 2009. Estos resultados reflejaron un aumento del acceso de los países latinoamericanos a comidas más calóricas gracias al desarrollo de las cadenas de comida rápida, que se convierte en una opción de alimentos de bajo costo para familias más pobres.
Además, Euromonitor reconoció que la mayor urbanización de las ciudades generó un cambio de hábitos en las personas y las aleja de dietas tradicionales más equilibradas y del ejercicio.
"La obesidad genera costos a los gobiernos, ya que debe ser tratada a través del sistema de salud estatal (...) Cuando los índices aumentan, el gobierno pierde los impuestos que recibe de quienes quedan imposibilitados de trabajar", sostuvo Euromonitor.
Aunque los niveles de obesidad en Latinoamérica crecieron más lentamente que en países desarrollados como Estados Unidos (que cuenta con un 38,7% de población mayor de 15 años obesa), las proyecciones no son auspiciosas.
"Para el año 2020 los seis países más obesos en América Latina serán: Venezuela, Guatemala, Uruguay, Costa Rica, República Dominicana y México", señaló la consultora.
Una persona es considerada obesa cuando su índice de masa corporal está sobre 30, ya que lo normal y sano fluctúa entre 18,5 y 24,9. La obesidad no es considerada como enfermedad en sí misma, pero tiene efectos considerables en la salud, derivando a problemas como diabetes, enfermedades de corazón, de riñones e hígado.
Seremos el país latinoamericano con mayor índice de sobrepeso en 2020
SANTIAGO DE CHILE.- Los índices de obesidad en la población mayor de 15 años aumentaron en América Latina, especialmente en México, Venezuela y Guatemala, dijo a DPA la consultora de negocios Euromonitor International.
El caso mexicano es el más notorio. En 1980 tenía un índice de 17,1% de su población obesa y aumentó a 31,8% en 2009.
Los países latinoamericanos que le siguen son "Venezuela, con 29,6%; Guatemala, con 27,5%, y Bolivia, con 27,3%", manifestó la consultora. De hecho, estos países ingresaron al grupo de los diez más obesos a escala mundial, que está liderado por Kuwait con 42,2% de su población sobre 15 años calificada como obesa en 2009. Estos resultados reflejaron un aumento del acceso de los países latinoamericanos a comidas más calóricas gracias al desarrollo de las cadenas de comida rápida, que se convierte en una opción de alimentos de bajo costo para familias más pobres.
Además, Euromonitor reconoció que la mayor urbanización de las ciudades generó un cambio de hábitos en las personas y las aleja de dietas tradicionales más equilibradas y del ejercicio.
"La obesidad genera costos a los gobiernos, ya que debe ser tratada a través del sistema de salud estatal (...) Cuando los índices aumentan, el gobierno pierde los impuestos que recibe de quienes quedan imposibilitados de trabajar", sostuvo Euromonitor.
Aunque los niveles de obesidad en Latinoamérica crecieron más lentamente que en países desarrollados como Estados Unidos (que cuenta con un 38,7% de población mayor de 15 años obesa), las proyecciones no son auspiciosas.
"Para el año 2020 los seis países más obesos en América Latina serán: Venezuela, Guatemala, Uruguay, Costa Rica, República Dominicana y México", señaló la consultora.
Una persona es considerada obesa cuando su índice de masa corporal está sobre 30, ya que lo normal y sano fluctúa entre 18,5 y 24,9. La obesidad no es considerada como enfermedad en sí misma, pero tiene efectos considerables en la salud, derivando a problemas como diabetes, enfermedades de corazón, de riñones e hígado.