Thinking Beyond the Pale: Re-imagining Waste as Resource

In my article on collaborative consumption, I discussed a new framework of thinking that involved making use of surplus capacity in our cities: ensuring that latent opportunity for collaboration and sharing of resources made individuals better off than when they were working alone. This concept, which is taking off in so many arenas including the sharing of parking spaces, is helping us to not "waste" opportunity by maximizing the use of what already exists, rather than producing more.

Another vital paradigm that must be applied in the planning and revitalization of cities is the "cradle to cradle" or "closed loop" system. Beyond the traditional concepts of recycle and reuse, cradle to cradle aims to redirect entire streams of waste from the landfill into the raw material of another purpose or product. Or, it challenges us to create products from the beginning that will, by virtue of their design and construction, be able to be used and then reused indefinitely.

The twin loops of 'biological metabolism' and 'technical metabolism' designed by MDBC.

The first step in creating a cradle to cradle loop is to examine every component of a product and ensure that what remains of the product once it is "used" can either be recycled into a material that re-enters the production stream or biodegrade completely into nature. An example of this is the U.S. Postal Service's shipping envelopes and boxes. Every dye, glue and paper pulp that makes up the boxes and envelopes were examined from the design stage, and ingredients were chosen that reduced water and energy use throughout production and would not leave any toxic remnants behind when recycled or left to biodegrade. And what about that second "cradle" in this two-part process? According to the US Postal Service, that recycled content comes right back into their office locations, for new postal customers to purchase and use:

"We purchase more than $200 million worth of products containing recycled content each year. Many of the containers in our mail system are made from recycled materials, and so are the stamped envelopes, post cards, stamp booklet covers, and packaging materials we provide."

A closed loop system can also generate revenue while preserving the environment when a business collects a "spent" product and turns it around, for a fee, to another company that needs this as a raw material for the creation of their product. In a recent TED talk, Michael Pawlyn discusses an innovative Cardboard to Caviar program which creates a wonderful closed loop for cardboard that ends up producing caviar:

"…in their area they had a lot of shops and restaurants that were producing lots of food, cardboard and plastic waste. It was ending up in landfills. Now the really clever bit is what they did with the cardboard waste.…So they were paid to collect it from the restaurants. They then shredded the cardboard and sold it to equestrian centers as horse bedding. When that was soiled, they were paid again to collect it. They put it into worm recomposting systems, which produced a lot of worms, which they fed to Siberian sturgeon, which produced caviar, which they sold back to the restaurants. So it transformed a linear process into a closed-loop model, and it created more value in the process. Graham Wiles has continued to add more and more elements to this, turning waste streams into schemes that create value. And just as natural systems tend to increase in diversity and resilience over time, there's a real sense with this project that the number of possibilities just continue increasing."

Michael Pawlyn's talk can be viewed here:



And if turning cardboard into caviar isn't creative enough, Starbucks recently announced it is exploring the possibility of taking used coffee grounds and making bioplastics. This example of a cradle to cradle system is twice as potent because used coffee grounds, an otherwise "finished" product, could replace crops like corn in the creation of bioplastics - thus encouraging food crops to actually feed people, rather than be made into plastics. If Starbucks is able to manufacture its own disposable cups from the spent coffee grounds of its cafes, the closed loop would be immensely instructive to other businesses who may be able to achieve something similar with their waste streams.

The tightest loop can be created when the same company can reuse its spent product over and over again to create a new version of the same product. Take a look at Shaw Floors, which has designed carpets, rugs and other flooring that can be recycled into...new carpets, rugs and flooring! The impact is tremendous:

"Did you know around 3.5 billion pounds of carpet ends up in landfills each year? We're committed to reducing that amount through the Green Edge Recycling Program. Since 2007, we've already reclaimed more than 460 million pounds of carpet for recycling and reuse – and that number is growing every day."

This is how it works: a consumer purchases wall-to-wall carpeting or a floor rug. After years of use, when the consumer decides the carpet has worn out, the consumer simply contacts Shaw Floors and they'll help you arrange for it to be recycled and regenerated into new flooring by their company.

The concepts of cradle to cradle or closed loops are akin to to the recycling process, with a few important improvements. First, a priority is placed on examining the the design stage of a product - ensuring that its design and the selection of materials are such that it can be disassembled and separated for recycling or to biodegrade completely, rather than leaving bits and pieces of the product that are fated to land in a garbage heap. Think of the reduction in chemicals and hazardous materials littering the land and poisoning individuals if all products were designed from cradle to cradle. Second, these concepts focus on establishing the "plug-in," the designated after-use of the recycled product. Recycling in and of itself is good, but there needs to be demand for the recycled material. Encouraging such demand is what makes this process a loop, rather than a flat line. Finally, it is important to see these waste streams as potential revenue generators - where brokers can make capital by collecting and transporting waste, and producers can see their input costs decrease when they replace virgin material with recycled material. William McDonough and Dr. Michael Braungart, founders of Cradle to Cradle Certification and the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, view the creation of a regenerative product loop as a way to maximize "eco-effectiveness" (maximizing opportunities) rather than "eco-efficiency" (minimizing harm).

In the urban context, one begins to see how these closed loops could weave together waste streams with energy and food production, creating multiple benefits for the city and its residents. William McDonough illustrates how his group designed a city in China to embody such an approach:

"If you flush a toilet, your feces will go to the sewage treatment plants, which are sold as assets, not liabilities. Because who wants the fertilizer factory that makes natural gas? The waters are all taken in to construct the wetlands for habitat restorations. And then it makes natural gas, which then goes back into the city to power the fuel for the cooking for the city.... And then the compost is all taken back to the roofs of the city, where we've got farming, because what we've done is lifted up the city, the landscape, into the air to -- to restore the native landscape on the roofs of the buildings. The solar power of all the factory centers and all the industrial zones with their light roofs powers the city."

William McDonough's talk can be viewed here:



In some cities we are already beginning to see waste being diverted to secondary uses. The City of Colombo, Sri Lanka has established a program in partnership with CITYNET and HELP-O whereby food waste is being generated into gas that is used to fuel the kitchen stoves of homes in the Mt. Lavinia municipality. This replaces the use of firewood or LP Gas cylinders and diverts waste. We need to create incentives for more of such thinking (and implementation) in our cities in order to slow the enormous amounts of waste being collected in our landfills.

The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program creates some incentives by granting points for new construction that selects products produced with a minimum percentage of recycled materials (LEED New Construction Rating System, page 54). Examples that have earned projects LEED points in this area include installing reused/reusable carpeting like Shaw's or pouring concrete comprised in part of fly ash--a waste product of coal-fired energy--or other post-consumer material. "With nearly 9 billion square feet of building space participating in the suite of rating systems and 1.6 million feet certifying per day around the world..." LEED is one helpful arena in which to promote cradle to cradle implementation, but we need more incentives to really get people thinking outside the box or beyond the pale.

If the "cradle to cradle" or "closed loop" system concept catches on in the way that the collaborative consumption concept has begun to catch on, the world's cities could begin seeing some tremendously creative ways of dealing with what is currently landfill-clogging, end-of-life waste.

Beg, Borrow and Share: Leveraging Surplus Capacity

In an effort to create cities for the future - cities that will work for a new era of inhabitants - we can no longer employ the same prescription. A box store here, a school there, a library over there, all connected by automobile-centric roads just isn't going to cut it. These days, a growing number of people are learning to better utilize the surplus capacity present in machines, objects and even our fellow neighbors. Our cities should serve as an ideal training ground for this new wave of innovation that is bringing cost-sharing and lowered environmental impact to the needs of everyday life.

"Surplus capacity" is the difference between the maximum amount of time a machine can be used and the actual amount it is being used. Many machines or products in our lives are severely underutilized, and therefore possess a high amount of surplus capacity. We should be creative about how we can use more of this capacity, thereby reducing costs for individual households and lowering our environmental impact both at the source and at the landfill.

Consider, for a moment, your power drill. How often do you use it? According to Alex Steffen, "The average home power drill is used somewhere between six and 20 minutes in its entire lifetime depending on who you ask. And so what we do is we buy these drills that have a potential capacity of thousands of hours of drill time, use them once or twice to put a hole in the wall and let them sit. Our cities, I would put to you, are stockpiles of these surplus capacities. And while we could try and figure out new ways to use those capacities -- such as cooking or making ice sculptures or even a mafia hit -- what we probably will find is that, in fact, turning those products into services that we have access to when we want them, is a far smarter way to go." View "The Shareable Future of Cities," Alex Steffen's TED talk, here.

The solution to lowering surplus capacity in products we don't use very often, as well as keep a little more of our money in the bank rather than on our shelves, is to engage in collaborative consumption. Collaborative consumption operates on the premise that individuals or households can rent or borrow machines when they need them, rather than purchasing them new. CollaborativeConsumption.com documents the many ways we can share, barter, lend, trade, rent, gift and swap.

Rachel Botsman, co-author of "What's Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption" gave an excellent TED talk about this movement. She talks us through the different arenas of redistribution markets, collaborative lifestyles and product service systems and gives many compelling examples of how collaborative consumption is occurring. View "The Case for Collaborative Consumption," Rachel Botsman's TED talk, here.

Personal vehicle ownership is one arena where collaborative consumption is making an impact. According to RelayRides (via a great infographic on futureofcarsharing.com) "the average car is used for only one hour a day," but "costs $715 a month." We are all familiar with Zipcar and other companies that have created extensive car-sharing programs. RelayRides is a new concept that allows individuals to put their cars up for rent just like zip car (but with 65% of the proceeds going to the car owner, not a corporation). Car-sharing benefits the environment: "In 2009, car sharing diminished global carbon dioxide emissions by 482,170 tons" (Frost & Sullivan).

Food also has surplus value when it is not consumed. Dumpster divers have long understood this, "harvesting" and consuming fresh and processed foods that were tossed by grocery stores for being just over their expiration date. This practice, or the practice of donating excess food to soup kitchens was often stigmatized or fraught with rules and regulations. This is beginning to change, with US Environmental Protection Agency now encouraging and giving tax incentives to businesses that donate surplus food. Other food-related sharing includes a "kitchen tool library" in Portland, Oregon that makes canning and other food preservation equipment available to local residents for week-long rental.

There's also a lighter side to "collaborative consumption." Used clothing has become a lot sexier as friends and neighbors get together for clothing swaps or "swishing parties." Lucy Shea, founder of Swishing.com and CEO of a sustainable communications firm describes swishing in this way: "Save money, save the planet, have a party: swishing effortlessly touches all of these buttons. Swishing parties are for all those women who want to combine glamour, environmental protection and frugality."

Personal skills and talents are surplus capacities as well. See an earlier article on "time banking," a practice in which people can log hours sharing their time or talents with a neighbor and redeem that earned time in a way that is most beneficial to them.

CollaborativeConsumption.com has an extensive list of initiatives that have been launched in cities and countries around the world. These collaborations are an exciting development that should be fostered and implemented on a wider scale.

###

This article was featured April 2, 2012 on the Sustainable Cities Collective site.

For more information:
How 'Collaborative Consumption' is Transforming Startups, Huffington Post

10 Websites for Collaborative Consumption, My Life Scoop
The Gen Y Guide to Collaborative Consumption, Shareable.net

New York by Gehry: deconstructing the tallest residential structure in the West

In February 2011, the New York by Gehry building finally opened its doors to occupants. This 76-story, 870-foot tall skyscraper in Manhattan is now the tallest residential building in the Western hemisphere. With 903 apartments, this new structure’s total occupancy is greater than some depopulated rustbelt towns.[1] A structure of such significant scale should be examined for the physical, social, economic and environmental impacts that it—and the governmental regulations that helped finance it—will have on its community.  While it will surely become an iconic addition to the skyline, New York by Gehry exhibits only the barest elements of environmental conservation and economic equality, and has therefore missed a great opportunity to become known for arguably more important contributions to New York City. This is an unfortunate consequence of both the developer’s priorities and the lack of appropriate governmental regulation.

Physical Merits: A Unique Addition to the Skyline

The New York by Gehry building (formerly called Beekman Tower and then 8 Spruce Street) is located in Manhattan’s Financial District. Designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry for developer Bruce Ratner, the structure features a façade of billowing, undulating stainless steel. Initial reviews of the building’s design have been largely favorable. Nicolai Ouroussoff, architectural critic for The New York Times calls it “the finest skyscraper to rise in New York since Eero Saarinen’s CBS building went up 46 years ago.”[2] The New Yorker’s Paul Goldberger has called it “the first big apartment house worth talking about in more than a generation.”[3]

In addition to praise, a few criticisms have also been leveled against the structural design. One is that the undulating folds, which catch the sun at different angles throughout the day, were only chosen for three sides of the building. The structure’s south side is flat, and looks to some as though the building “presents its backside” to Wall Street.[4] Others criticize the unique exterior design for not translating into the interior of the apartments.[5] Notwithstanding these minor criticisms, most agree that the building adds additional vitality and dramatic flair to lower Manhattan’s skyline.

Environmental Impact: Minimal Attention to Sustainability

Despite its forward-thinking architectural design, however, the building contains few innovative sustainable design features. Although it has implemented some environmentally sound practices such as energy-efficient windows, Energy Star appliances and a greywater filtration system, New York by Gehry is not LEED certified.[6] In fact, Frank Gehry made quite a stir last year when he stated that “a lot of LEED is given for bogus stuff” and that the costs of green building are “enormous” and “they don’t pay back in your lifetime.”[7] Gehry later clarified his views, explaining that he is, in fact, in favor of environmentally-sustainable building choices even if they are not included in LEED’s process.[8] Gehry contended, however, that the path to sustainable buildings and neighborhoods is ultimately a political one, citing his recent work in Switzerland:

They don’t use the LEED program over there, the government just says this is what you can and can’t do, and things have to be built in a sustainable way. So really it’s a political thing: People taking responsibility on an individual level combined with government programs that give mandates that say “this is how we’re going to require people to build.”[9]

If the designers of New York by Gehry had been inclined to reduce the building’s environmental impact, they could easily have taken a cue from recent residential additions in neighboring Battery Park City. Best practices in environmentally-friendly, low carbon residential high-rises are evident in buildings such as The Solaire (LEED Gold), The Visionaire (LEED Platinum) and Tribeca Green (LEED Gold).[10] The Solaire, for example, lowers energy demand by utilizing about 450 solar panels, built into the building’s façade.

These “green” buildings exist in part because the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA), charged in 1968 with redeveloping the dilapidated former Port of New York area into a mixed-use neighborhood with public space, adopted a policy in 2000 that requires developers to build environmentally sustainable apartments. Under the BPCA policy, structures in the area must address indoor air quality, water conservation and purification, energy efficiency, recycling of construction waste, the use of recycled building materials and building commissioning to enhance building performance.[11] BPCA even created a user-friendly best practices document that details the ways in which sustainable measures have been successfully integrated into neighborhood residential buildings.[12]

Economic Impacts: Public Dollars Financed Just Another Luxury High-Rise

All 903 dwellings in New York by Gehry are luxury apartments being rented at current market rates: studios start at $2,630-per-month, one-bedrooms are $3,580 and two-bedrooms $5,945.[13] Units are not for sale.

Despite being marketed only to the affluent, a substantial portion of the financing for the project came from public bonds and government tax breaks. The building was built, in part, with $203.9 million in tax-free financing from the New York Liberty Bond Program, a pool of funding administered jointly by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) and the New York City Housing and Urban Development Council (HDC) that was made available after September 11, 2001 to help rebuild lower Manhattan.[14]

Under the Liberty Bond Program, developers need only pay a three percent affordable housing fee (approximately $6 million in the case of New York by Gehry) rather than setting aside affordable units within the building itself.[15] This is a departure from the HFA’s traditional program which requires 20% of units within buildings financed with tax exempt bonds to be set aside for affordable housing.[16] 

Although the goal of rebuilding lower Manhattan is a noble one, if one were really concerned with maximizing affordable housing, the 3% fee option achieves significantly less desirable results than the traditional 20% affordable housing rule imposed by the HFA. According to HDC, it “constructed 467 affordable housing units using approximately $31.4 million in fees derived from previous Liberty Bond transactions.”[17] This equates to a cost of $67,237 per unit of affordable housing. Using these figures, the $6 million fee paid by Ratner for New York by Gehry bankrolls 89 affordable housing units outside of the building. By contrast, twenty percent of 903 units would have made 180 affordable housing units available within the building.

Additionally, although no affordable housing units were included within the building, all apartments in New York by Gehry will ironically be rent stabilized for the next 20 years.[18] Because the building was financed in part by government dollars, it was also eligible for a 421-a 20-year tax exemption (which Ratner applied for just before amended requirements came into effect in June 2008 that included compulsory on-site affordable housing requirements).[19] A requirement of properties included within the 421-a tax exemption is that the building’s units are reviewed by the Rent Guidelines Board, and generally subject only to periodic rent increases of 2-3 percent. Thus, while tenants of New York by Gehry are clearly willing and able to pay top dollar for their luxury apartments, they will enjoy modest incremental rent increases—a policy intended to keep middle and working class citizens from being priced out of their neighborhoods. Rent stabilization applied in this way seems a far cry from what the program was initially intended to accomplish. 

Spatial and Social Considerations: A Town-in-a-Building

New York by Gehry isn’t entirely residential: its lowest six floors house public facilities, including a five floor K-8 public school financed with public dollars, and one floor for the New York Downtown Hospital. [20] This type of mixed-use allocation is generally positive, as it allows for community interaction and connection. However, the New York by Gehry design seems to have deliberately minimized the opportunities for such social connections: the entrance to Public School 397 “is on the east side of the building, separated from the residents’ entrance on the west, so the streams of children arriving and lawyers and bankers leaving for work do not have to cross.”[21] Perhaps this lack of contact is the reason why the school recently had trouble with residents from the above floors carelessly dropping bottles onto the school’s playground.[22]

In addition to being segregated from the public access facilities on floors below, the building is also effectively cut off from the street.  The building was designed to exude an air of exclusivity that extends to the ground level where “residents will enter through a covered drive that cuts through the block along the building’s western side” and that is designed to “accommodate taxis and limousines ferrying people in and out of the building, making it feel more like a luxury hotel than a classic Manhattan apartment building.”[23]

This social isolation is further reinforced by the fact that the plethora of luxury amenities within the building mean that residents will seldom have to venture outside their building—or tax bracket—for socialization and recreation. Although residents likely enjoy the building’s 50-foot swimming pool, fitness center and spa, grilling terrace, game room, drawing room with grand piano, chef’s kitchen, library, “tweens den,” children’s playroom, screening room, and “comprehensive concierge and lifestyle services”—the unfortunate result may be that the need for interaction with a diverse greater community will be minimized.[24] Jane Jacobs, longtime critic of New York urban planning, would decry the lack of social interaction on street level and among those of differing backgrounds.[25]

Final Marks

In sum, New York by Gehry achieves success in some areas but misses meaningful opportunities in others. Its architectural contribution to the New York City skyline is undoubtedly significant. And it helped to bring renewed interest to previously devastated lower Manhattan. On the other hand, it reinforces the need for stricter governmental regulations regarding environmentally sustainable and economically equitable building practices. New York by Gehry’s developers took advantage of a public bond program that stipulated weak affordable housing requirements in the name of rebuilding of lower Manhattan, and rushed to finalize plans before more stringent affordable housing rules for 421-a tax abatements were implemented. They eschewed LEED and other environmental design best practices evident in nearby Battery Park. And they ultimately designed yet another socially-isolated luxury apartment. In short, rather than innovate, those involved with New York by Gehry did what many other private developers regrettably do: create the most profitable, rather than most socially beneficial structure.

We must do better. Perhaps Frank Gehry had it right: the most effective way to achieve sustainability is to mandate it. Stronger sustainable building and design standards can contribute meaningfully to the re-development of urban neighborhoods—especially in areas targeted to receive governmental assistance. If sustainable building design remains voluntary or subject to weak government regulations, opportunities for truly innovative approaches to the built environment will be missed, as they were in the case of New York by Gehry.

---

⃰ This essay is a modified version of an article I originally published on April 11, 2011 on renewcities.org.

[1] See Braddock, Pennsylvania, population 2,159 in the 2010 census; see also Klaw, Waverly de Bruijn. (March 6, 2011). Levi’s Jeans and Braddock, PA: another marketing tool puts the abandoned city into view. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from the Renew Cities website: http://www.renewcities.org/2011/03/levis-jeans-and-braddock-pa-another.html

[2] Ouroussoff, Nicolai. (February 9, 2011). Downtown Skyscraper for the Digital Age. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/arts/design/10beekman.html

[3] Goldberger, Paul. (March 7, 2011). Gracious Living: Frank Gehry’s swirling apartment tower. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New Yorker website: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/skyline/2011/03/07/110307crsk_skyline_goldberger

[4] See Ouroussoff, supra, n.2.

[5] Gardner, James. (December 1, 2010). Gehry undone: Spruce Street building billows to nowhere. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Real Deal website: http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/james-gardner-gehry-undone/

[6] Kamin, Blair. (February 8, 2011). Gehry's 8 Spruce Street not pursuing LEED certification; Gang's Aqua is. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Chicago Tribune website: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2011/02/im-looking-forward-to-reviewing-frank-gehrys-new-8spruce-street-tower-in-new-york-which-is-drawing-raves-from-new-york-criti.html

[7] Kamin, Blair. (April 10, 2012). Frank Gehry holds forth on Millennium Park, the Modern Wing and why he's not into green architecture. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Chicago Tribune website: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2010/04/looking-down-on-the-stunning-view-of-the-frank-gehry-designed-pritzker-pavilion-from-the-art-institute-of-chicagos-renzo-pian.html

[8] Leonard, Abby. (June 14, 2010). Architect Frank Gehry talks LEED and the future of green building. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the PBS  website: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/architect-frank-gehry-talks-leed-and-the-future-of-green-building/1458/

[9] Ibid.

[10] The Solaire: 20 River Terrace, New York, NY 10282; The Visionaire: 70 Little West Street, Battery Park, NY 10004; Tribeca Green: 325 North End Avenue, New York, NY 10282.

[11] Proenza, Crystal. (September, 2007). Battery Park City: An Urban Experiment. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The Cooperator: Co-op and Condo Monthly website: http://cooperator.com/articles/1500/1/Battery-Park-City/Page1.html

[12] Battery Park City Authority. (May, 2005). Hugh L. Carey Battery Park City Authority Residential Environmental Guidelines.  Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the BPCA website: http://www.batteryparkcity.org/pdf_n/BPCA_GreenGuidelines.pdf

[13] Chaban, Matt. (February 14, 2011). You Can Finally Rent a Piece of New York… by Gehry, That Is. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New York Observer website: http://observer.com/2011/02/you-can-finally-rent-a-piece-of-new-york-by-gehry-that-is/

[14] New York City Housing and Urban Development Corporation. (February 27, 2008). HDC Board Approves Financing for Two Major Projects. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the HDC website: http://www.nychdc.com/pages/pr_02%252d27%252d20081.html

[15] New York City Housing and Urban Development Corporation. (June 7, 2010). HDC Board of Directors Approves $45 Million in Tax-Exempt Bonds For the Financing of Beekman Tower.  Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the HDC website: http://www.nychdc.com/pages/pr_6%252d7%252d20103.html; see also FC Beekman Associates, LLC. (November 22, 2010). Letter Re: Petition to submeter electricity at a building located at 8 Spruce Street, New York, NY 10038. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the New York State Public Service Commission website: http://bit.ly/WREz2V

[16] Good Jobs New York. Liberty Bond Housing Coalition Statement. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the Good Jobs New York website: http://goodjobsny.org/economic-development/liberty-bond-housing-coalition-statement

[17] New York City Housing and Urban Development Corporation. (April 1, 2008). HDC Closes on a 904-Unit Frank Gehry Designed Tower in Lower Manhattan. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the Real Estate Rama: Government and Public Relations News website: http://newyork.realestaterama.com/2008/04/01/hdc-closes-on-a-904-unit-frank-gehry-designed-tower-in-lower-manhattan-ID0259.html

[18] Shapiro, Julie. (February 22, 2011). Frank Gehry's Skyscraper Has Rent-Stabilized Apartments. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the DNA Info website: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110222/downtown/frank-gehrys-skyscraper-has-rentstabilized-apartments

[19] Shapiro, Julie. (June 27-July 3, 2008). C.B. 1 approves Ratner’s tax break just by saying no. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the Downtown Express website: http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_269/cb1approvesratners.html; See also Wambua, Matthew. (May 21, 2012). 421-a Legislation Overview and FAQ. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/421a-FAQ.pdf

[20] Ibid.

[21] Taylor, Kate. (November 28, 2011). Living in a 76-Story Work of Art, and a Symbol of Rebirth. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/nyregion/living-inside-new-york-by-gehry.html

[22] Ibid.

[23] See Ouroussoff, supra, n.2.

[24] See New York by Gehry official website, supra, n.6.

[25] Drier, Peter. (Summer 2006). Jane Jacobs’ Radical Legacy. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from the National Housing Institute’s Shelterforce Magazine website: http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/146/janejacobslegacy.html

_________________________________________________________________

Photos by flickr contributors Structures:NYC, emmett.hume, Alex Terzich, Atomische • Tom Giebel, jikatu and onesevenone.

Talking Trash...Bags

Most households in South Korea can't simply buy a roll of 100 standard white "kitchen garbage bags" at the supermarket. Why? On January 1, 1995 the Ministry of Environment introduced a “volume-based waste fee” system (VBWF), where all households and commercial building owners are required to purchase specially designed plastic bags for waste collection. Called Sseulaegi Bongtu (쓰 레 기 봉 투), these garbage bags cost upwards of 1,050 won (almost $1) for a single 50 liter (kitchen garbage can sized) bag.

Specialized bags are also available for wet food waste. For disposal of large objects, a sticker must be purchased from the county or city district offices. The price of the sticker varies by municipality based on the type and size of the item being thrown out.

The cost of purchasing these bags is intended to pay for the garbage disposal, but in fact it aids environmental efforts to reduce the overall level of garbage being thrown out. Because each household has to pay a premium for each garbage bag, they are less inclined to throw otherwise recyclable or compostable objects into the trash, lest they fill up the bag more quickly. Violators of the system face a fine of 500,000 won.

Concerns can be raised about the environmental effects of the production of these bags, as opposed to using a system of bins for trash collection or allowing the re-use of bags used to carry grocery store items home. According to the 2003 Korea Environmental Policy Bulletin, the composition of VBWF bags are PE (polyethylene), PE with more than 30 percent of biodegradable resin (bags used for food waste compost) or PE with more than 30 percent of calcium carbonate (for trash that is incinerated). In 2002, reusable VBWF bags were instituted, and can be purchased at grocery stores to carry purchased goods and later be used as regular VBWF bags when disposing garbage. The use of vinyl bag to carry purchased goods can thus be reduced.

Has it worked?