Dr.GreenGlobe's Environmental Center

Community Map

2006-04-21T13:21:00.000-04:00

In the Greater Northeast section of Philadelphia there is a middle class, family community, called Camelot. The residents of this community vary widely in age, culture, political views and personal agenda. This, however, does not usually prevent the community as a whole from cooperating and functioning smoothly. This place has a great deal of character as can be seen in its homes and gardens, community streets, anchoring institutions and green spaces. Though there is room for improvement, it is an all around great place to live.
Image by Harry M.
The streets have no real pattern as far as their orientation to each other or the outside world. It appears as though they were intended to control traffic flow within and around the community. For example, if you look at the streets within the neighborhood you’ll notice that many of them dead-end or only go one way. This discourages outside traffic from making shortcuts through the community. The streets that go around the outside of the community are straight and wide so that traffic will take this route instead.

Camelot has a particular area where residents can meet and share in community activities. This anchoring institution is the Jewish Community Center (JCC). Contrary to what the name implies, this is not just for Jews. It is where most community events are held, this includes dances, sporting events (Indoor and Outdoor), meetings, classes, recitals, concerts and much more. Also adjacent to the JCC is its large field with tennis and basketball courts, soccer and baseball fields, and a playground. This is the community’s “green space”.

Another of this community's main staples is the local shopping center. This neighborhood niche is a short walk from anywhere in Camelot and has almost anything that a family could want. It contains a Target Greatland, ShopRite, PetsMart, Gym and other smaller stores. The Target Greatland is another home for many of the community residents.

The houses in Camelot are built from three different, but spatially equal, models. These models all consists of three levels with 4-5 bedrooms and the small plot of land that surround them. These detached houses will typically have a garage entrance and drive way in front of the house and a patio/lounge area in the rear. This setup shows that the original plan for this community was intended for a specific kind of resident -- those who have family members to fill the 4-5 bedrooms, cars for the driveway/garage and a need for some personal outdoor recreation space. From this description one can deduce that a moderately sized family would fit one of these houses nicely. Image by Harry M.

When you take a look at how many people are actually living in these houses, juxtaposition presents itself. Many of these 4-5 bedroom houses are occupied by older couples or widows, who only occupy one of the rooms. Also many of the older people are not able to care for or utilize the outside of their properties as they would like. At one time these ‘empty nesters’ had families to fill the rooms and care for the outside, but they continue hold the properties for sentimental, financial, or personal reasons. The rooms that aren’t being used are wasted, but whose heart is cold enough to boot an old lady from the house she’s lived in for 35-40 years?
Background Image by GoogleEarth Top Layers by Harry M.

Horse 'n' Buggy

2006-04-20T13:28:00.000-04:00

On January 2nd, 2006 there was an accident involving two vehicles in New York City. Sounds pretty common, right? Well, if both of these vehicles were your average sedan or SUV it would have been common. The difference this time is that one of these vehicles was a traditional horse drawn carriage.

The apparent cause of the accident was a spooked carriage horse galloping out of control down a busy NYC street during rush hour. The specific reason why the horse was spooked is unclear, but one can just imagine what noises, smells, sights or mental troubles could have aggravated the horse in a city with over 10 million people. As the horse was running down the Manhattan Street it collided with a car. The impact seriously injured the carriage driver, who was hospitalized in critical condition. The horse, which was also injured, was euthanized soon after.

Cute carriage or deadly doom buggy?
Image by Manhattan Carriage Co.

The big question, now being asked of NYC lawmakers is 'Should horse drawn carriages be allowed in the city?'. My Temple University Urban Environment Class attempted to answer this question by splitting into groups. This is what they had to say:

Against the Carriage Ban
This group was comprised of roughly half the class and was open to whoever shared the view that horse drawn carriages should be allowed to remain within New York City. Their main argument was that the horse and carriage aren't to blame, but the crowded city's drivers and streets were. This argument worked toward a compromise which restricted carriage drivers from using city streets during certain periods of the day and provided use of Central Park for carriage rides during regular business hours.
Secondary arguments for keeping the carriages, included a need for retaining traditional cultural activities, the negative impact on other tourist reliant businesses in the area and the benefit of transportation that isn't powered by fossil fuels.

For the Carriage Ban
This group was comprised of the other half of the class and was open to whoever shared the view that horse drawn carriages should not be allowed to remain within New York City. They argued that having horse carriages in this hectic setting is unsafe for the general public, vehicles and the horses. They based this on P.E.T.A.'s Horse Drawn Carriage Factsheet, articles from The Associated Press, articles from USA Today and personal knowledge and experiences. They also brought up the fact that other major cities around the world - including London, Paris and Toronto - have already banned the use of carriage horses.
The two groups came to the agreement, however, that the best solution for the problem was to limit carriage rides to Central Park.

I sided with the group for the carriage ban. New York City streets were not built to accommodate large animals or non-motorized vehicles, just as large animals and non-motorized vehicles are not best suited to ride on New York City streets. Car drivers aren’t patient enough to safely wait behind a carriage with the opposing lane seemingly wide open to illegally pass. Horses aren’t going to forget their instinct to jump and run when frightened or upset by a city occurrence. The pollution won't go away for the sake of the horses’ health. The City and horse drawn carriages don’t belong together.
I do, however, accept that horse and carriage rides are traditionally and culturally linked to New York and that carriage rides provide money for the horse/carriage industries. This is why I agree with the class that carriage rides should be restricted to Central Park. It’s the nearest thing to a pasture that NYC has to offer :)

Urban Juxtaposition

2006-04-19T21:34:00.000-04:00

Many US cities are in the midst of a debate between the smoking and anti-smoking communities. Both sides are armed to the teeth with propaganda and “statistics” that endlessly contradict each other. It’s hard to distinguish the facts from the hype. I tend to disregard most statements on both sides of the debate, just because I feel lied to. As a citizen (smoker, anti-smoker, or non-smoker) you should also be concerned with the truth of the issue. As a citizen of Philadelphia, I have tried to collect as much reliable information as possible to form an opinion on who has the legal rights, the smoking or anti-smoking communities?

Philadelphia has had a Bill to ban smoking in the works for the last five years, but has yet to get it past city council. The latest revision of BILL NO. 060050 was introduced to city council on February 2nd 2006 for a hearing on March 27th 2006. It goes without saying that the areas smokers have their fingers crossed in hopes of the Bills rejection. Anti-smokers seem to be the ones in the public’s eye, however, with ad campaigns and political speakers on their side.
The real juxtaposition here is the conflict rights between the rights of the smokers verses the rights and health of the general public. On behalf of the general public are the anti-smokers and BILL NO. 060050. They claim in section 1 of the bill that:

a) Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 known chemical compounds that are released into the air as particles and gases.
b) There are sixty-nine known or probable carcinogens in tobacco smoke.
c) Secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers.
d) Exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers, and that secondhand smoke has a statistically significant effect on the respiratory health of non-smoking adults.
e) For children, exposure to secondhand smoke is causally associated with increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia; increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear; and, increased symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation
f) Three-fourths of white collar workers are covered by smoke-free workplace policies. While fewer than 13% of bartenders and 28% of wait staff have the benefit of a smoke-free workplace.

This list is vital in showing how the general publics’ health is harmed by second hand smoke. Because this smoke is a health risk it is also projected as an infringement on rights. Under The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must take steps to provide access to jobs and public places. So basically, anyone who can't tolerate secondhand smoke has a claim that their workplace must adopt a smoke free policy so that they have access to their job. Anti-smokers also use The Rehabilitation act, which has similar arguments to the ADA, which “prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that receives Federal funding”. I’d call this a strong legal backing for the anti-smokers.

The smokers in Philadelphia also have arguments as to why smoking shouldn’t be banned in all public places. The 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee all people equal protection under the law. So, in theory, BILL NO. 060050 discriminate against either smokers or businesses because it does not treat everybody the same. The Fifth Amendment prohibits also "private property [from being] taken for public use without just compensation." Business owners living in smoke free areas now file claims stating that the government has deprived them of the ability to make a profit.

Overall both sides have a strong argument but the not smokers’ case is much stronger. Smokers can and have dealt with using their cigarettes only at home or outside, people with chronic respiratory diseases don’t have the option of using their lungs only outside or at home. The smokers’ rights to smoke aren’t being taken, just readjusted to better fit to everyone else’s rights.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)

Urban Ethical Dilemma: Pollution and the Economy

2006-04-19T16:49:00.000-04:00

In the economic world, pollution is known as a negative externality, or a cost for an activity that falls on people other than those who pursue the activity (Political economic terms). This definition gives us some insight in understanding what businesses consider when they decide whether to pollute and how much to pollute. From an economic standpoint, it may not always be in the best interest of a firm to run in the most environmentally friendly way.
In every case, the cost to a firm for reducing pollution is greater then the cost for that firm to continue polluting. Otherwise the firm would have already reduced pollution in the interest of raising profit. For this reason the economic and environmental worlds are in the middle of an environmental ethical dilemma about what the best compromise is.
In general there are four ways that firms and governments will control or remediate business’ pollution levels. These are charge systems; tradable permits; market friction reductions; and government subsidy reductions. (Market-Based Environmental
Policy Instruments) Each of these four has their individual pros and cons for businesses and the environment.

Charge Systems
In this system the polluting firm has to pay the government for every unit of pollution that is produced or they have to pay the government if they exceed their set pollution limit (Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments)

Market Friction Reduction
This system relies on non monetary methods to reduce pollution. One market friction reducer involves liability laws that seek to curb pollution by holding firms accountable for cleaning any pollution they produce. Another friction reducer involves informing the consumer about the pollution produced from using a product, such as energy star labels (Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments). Businesses like this system because it doesn’t involve fines or other costs. Environmentalists argue that these don’t show results because the firms don’t care enough to comply if they get no incentive and they aren’t facing fines.

Government Subsidy Reductions
This method involves the government reducing the amount of money it gives to polluting industries (Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments). An example of this would be if a government had been subsidizing energy prices in the energy market, for whatever reason, as the subsidies fall the energy prices rise and people use energy more efficiently in order to save money. This method requires that a subsidy be in place before the subsidy reduction. Firms and consumers inevitably bear the cost that the subsidy once paid.

My Standpoint
Because pollution is a negative externality, there is some cost to society of it being produced. When businesses pollute and the government makes pollution laws, they often fail to calculate the full cost of the pollution. Eventually someone will have to pay for all the short and long term effects of pollution, like remediation, community health, and repercussions on other industries. When the full cost of pollution is taken into account, pollution reduction is in the best interest of everybody collectively.

Community Description

2006-04-09T13:42:00.000-04:00

Image from Naval Historical Center website

If you’re from Philadelphia, you’re probably familiar with the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. In the past 20 years it went from a functional navy base to a site for small commercial and industrial businesses. Thought the Navy still controls access to the shipyard, the eastern half is controlled by the city of Philadelphia. That portion was given to the city by the Navy when the base closed in 1995 (GlobalSecurity.org). The city then turned over control to the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) which is a nonprofit corporation created by the city, state and Delaware River Port Authority to manage redevelopment of the yard.

The Navy Yard is located at the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, on the southern tip of Philadelphia. The shipyard occupies 904 acres, with the industrial area comprising 360 acres. These are 390 permanent, semi-permanent, and temporary buildings, accounting for more than seven million square feet of shop space. The shipyard has five graving dry docks (for cleaning ship bottoms), and 29,044 lineal feet of docking space for ships.

Even though the Navy no longer builds or services its ships there, the shipyard still has some of the giant World War II battleships that it once mothered. These ships, as well as many of the buildings and structures in the shipyard, are considered to be of historic importance by many Philadelphians. That is why the area was registered as a national historic place in 1999.

Another reason that the shipyard is significant is that it is currently considered a brownfield. The majority of buildings at the complex were constructed for industrial use, either for research and development or shipbuilding activities. Some of the past uses of the buildings in the shipyard include power plant, foundry, paint shop and electroplating plant. Today, these industries are known to have stored and used various hazardous organic and inorganic chemicals in their operations. According to an E.P.A. document, environmental assessment and cleanup began in 1991 to prepare the property for transfer or lease. The work focused on asbestos abatement in buildings, PCB transformer site remediation, removal of underground storage tanks and resulting contaminated soil, and removal and off-site disposal of construction debris and blasting grit. A groundwater monitoring program was also implemented but no groundwater remediation is planned because the site will not be used for residential development. Groundwater use restrictions were put in place and all drinkable water at the complex is supplied by the City of Philadelphia.

The base is currently considered safe to use by the E.P.A. but in the event that contamination is found in the future, the Navy is responsible for all treatment and/or removal. This important agreement was made between the Navy and the EPA in 1999. The reason that this agreement is so significant is because the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation will need to find companies to buy, lease or sublease the area in the future. This task would be nearly impossible if the prospective buyer were not assured that they are not responsible for any contamination found in the future.

Field Trip: Gentrification

2006-04-07T17:32:00.000-04:00

This is the second of three field trips that were taken with my Geography and Urban Studies 150 class.

My group and I searched 13th St. and Broad St. between Temple University and Girard Ave. to find signs of gentrification in this North Philadelphia neighborhood. As we left campus, at 10:00 AM, I realized how quiet the neighborhood was. The course we set out on had us walking south on 13th St. and as soon as we crossed Oxford St. (Temple main campus’ southern border) there was a drastic change in atmosphere. The street was void of people but there were a few 4-door, family style, sedans parked intermittently along the street. Because there was so little activity and no ‘For Rent’ signs on the block, gentrification appeared to be kept to a minimum.
The residents, I’m sure, are content to preserve the family atmosphere of the area. As the Temple News puts it “As a campus, Temple University may seem like a self-contained entity, but its tentacles can be far-reaching and burdensome”. University students often see the reaction to their gentrifying advances in the form of angry residents telling them to park their cars and rowdy behinds elsewhere.
The next few blocks of 13th St. were similar in their family oriented atmosphere until we arrived at Girard Ave. A good portion of the asphalt on Girard, between 13th and Broad, had been ripped up for trolley track and road repairs. This was a rare sight on Girard up until the hipsters, scenesters and young professionals began to collect property on many nearby blocks. The tracks that were being repaired hadn’t even been in use since 1992.
As we walked west on Girard Ave. toward Broad St. I noticed a Rockstar Energy Drink truck parked along the side of the road. Their advertisements seem to be aimed at people who enjoy snowboarding, motocross, custom cars and custom motorcycles. These ads are clearly aimed at young people with money, so this is definitly a good indication of some gentrification.
The final leg of our trip began as we turned the corner from Girard Ave. on to Broad St. North. The sidewalk on and around the corner was recently paved and in conjunction with the street repairs, one can see that a large amount of capital is being invested in the area by the city. Some less obvious examples of the cities capital investment could also be seen along Broad St. in the form of “Avenue of the Arts North” lighting and recently painted murals.
There were also signs of private investment along Broad St. On the corner of Broad and Master there was the recently renovated Blue Horizon boxing event center. Also, the corner of Broad St. and Oxford St. had a huge amount of private investment going on. On the southeast corner the shopping center was being mostly renovated, and on the northwest corner the entire block was being built into a shopping, dining, entertainment and apartment complex.

Mural on the side of the Blue Horizon

Image from Blue Horizon website

Field Trip: Industry and Commerce in North Philadelphia

2006-04-07T17:13:00.000-04:00

The Housing Industry

On March 16, 2006 some classmates and I took a walk around the neighborhood directly east of Temple University. We went out in search of elements of industrial and commercial urban landscapes and returned with a better understanding of the environment in which North Philadelphians live.
No matter what urban setting you may find yourself in, there is no doubt that it has been shaped by the businesses and industries, or lack thereof, that surround it. For example, in 1886 John Stetson’s hat factory brought 4000 workers and their families to the surrounding North Philadelphia area (Entrepreneur John Batterson Stetson), permanently altering the demographics of the area.
On the flip side of the coin, a neighborhood’s wants and needs will influence the types of businesses that start up and succeed in an area. This is important because, through a neighborhood’s buying habits, one can get a glimpse into community culture and lifestyle.
Along our walk, the leading industry our group noticed was the housing industry. On the corners of 8th and Norris st., 6th and Oxford st. and 7th and Cecil B. Moore ave. there were PHA (Philadelphia Housing Authority) developments. Though the developments are intended for residents of lower income brackets, the PHA brings millions of dollars into the community. This is done through the employment of construction contractors, upkeep contractors, landlords, and various other development and management personnel. In total PHA employs 2000 people directly and 4763 landlords (not including private contractors) amounting to a total budget and budget allotments of over $1 billon. (PHA PDF Doing Business)
Another housing initiative, on Germantown and Cecil B. Moore ave, is the Lamp Factory Lofts. These lofts apartments were crafted from the remains of an old lamp factory and symbolize the direction that this neighborhood is headed. The way that this factory moved from a run down structure to a hip, modern place to live, parallels the leisurely movement of the neighborhood’s blighted row houses and corner shop businesses to lofts, twin houses with porches and strip malls.

According to the National Association of Home Builders the average economic impact of a 100 unit housing project funded by the AHTC program (Affordable Housing Tax Credits program) is quite substantial.

From NAHB impact sheet