To the Editor,
The Floating Wetlands are such a cool idea! The synergy between art, environmental remediation, and environmental education is a wonderful combination that could/should be replicated in other locations. The concept has me wondering if a fourth element could be included. Food production. If these islands could also produce some varieties of food while maintaining their other attributes, it would elevate them to yet another level! This might not be possible, but it could provide food for thought…
John Muggeridge
Dear Editors,
The Providence Eye has been providing its readers with thoughtful coverage of environmental issues affecting our city, as well as coverage of the housing crisis. However, most of this writing has not addressed how closely linked the climate and housing crises are in Providence–and the country at large. Simply put, housing costs and carbon emissions are both too high thanks to a set of policy choices made after World War II that privileged suburban sprawl, car transportation, and low density, with taxpayer funding and zoning laws making older, walkable neighborhoods increasingly scarce.
The most effective way to address both the housing and climate crisis is to re-legalize the sort of walkable communities that were common throughout the state before 1950 and furthermore to permit greater urban density. The choice we face is to either build up (and densify with infill) or out, meaning sprawl. Suburban sprawl is the most carbon and service intensive form of development. Single family suburban developments result in far more vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. While sporting the feel of nature, suburban sprawl breaks up farmland and wild land, disrupting migration corridors and fragmenting habitats. Sprawling suburbs are also more resource-intensive (and costly) to connect to power grids, pipes, and sewage networks. In contrast, city residents have far lower VMTs and urban areas are more energy efficient to provide with services. Multifamily buildings use less energy per household than single family construction, above all because they require far less energy to heat.
The biggest drivers of carbon emissions in the United States are fossil-fuel burning cars and electricity generation. (Both demolition and construction of housing are tiny by comparison.) Electric Vehicles have the potential to reduce emissions, but we are still years away from EVs making up a significant percentage of total VMTs. Increasing the amount of housing in urban areas at a density sufficient to support non-car transportation at scale is the single most important step Providence can take to both meet housing demand and our carbon emission goals. Despite what opponents claim, that doesn’t have to mean turning every neighborhood into Manhattan. But it does mean encouraging the construction of denser and, yes, taller buildings near bus stops and train stations, allowing the virtuous cycle of density and non-car transportation to make our city less car dependent, more livable, and, with enough housing, more affordable too.
Opponents of density are of course free to make their case on the grounds of aesthetics, personal preferences, or the ever nebulous “neighborhood character.” But in terms of environmental impact, the evidence is clear: addressing the climate crisis means supporting greater density in Providence.
Christian Roselund and Ian Saxine
Steering Committee Members of the Providence Urbanist Network (PUN)
