Land Use and Biodiversity- February 28th

Seminar Leaders- Kate Soltys, Allister Johnson, Lukas 

Spontaneous Urban Vegetation: Reflections of Change in a Globalized World- This article discussed how due to the heat retention in cities, the disturbance to natural habitats and impervious paving much natural plants how learned to tolerate much disturbance to their habitats. These plants tend to overgrow and take over abandoned areas in the city and are known as weeds. These species of plants grow with little or no maintenance therefore the lack of human contact with these abandoned areas does not stop the vegetation reproduction. This type of vegetation that people refer to as weeds can actually achieve many of the traditional restoration goals with less financial investment and have a greater change of long-term success. The article also discusses how in depressed cities where construction and development is minimal, plant growth is able to occur without disturbance or interference from people for a long period of time. This process of reproduction is closer to achieving a stable layered structure than many developing cities are. Finally as new settlers migrated, they brought with them their crops causing depletion of native species by the new invasive ones."At the functional level, spontaneous urban vegetation can be considered sustainable in the sense that it is performing a wide range of quantifiable ecosystem services on marginal land with a minimal input of maintenance resources."(Del Tredici 2010, 308-309) People have specific views on what is a weed and what is a flower, causing them to view much of the natural vegetation in cities as weeds, which then makes people get rid of them.1

2) An example of spontaneous vegetation.

3) Spontaneous vegetation- Dandelions known as a weed.

Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners' Perspectives on What Works- This article discusses how habitat loss is a primary threat to biodiversity loss and municipal planning departments have a important role in conserving biodiversity. 17 planning directors from municipal jurisdictions were interviewed to get an idea of how well they protect the biodiversity within their parks and such. There were high performing jurisdictions and low performing ones, answers were monitored to see what the differences between the high and low jurisdictions were. The high jurisdictions answered many of the questions positively and results showed they received more funding from the government to protect the biodiversity therefore more was able to be done, the low jurisdictions received little funding therefore proper technology was a holdback as well. Both levels believe to help biodiversity loss cease, more funding is needed, also more education for the public to be aware of what is going on. It was discussed that in order to help cease biodiversity loss, there needs to be some sort of benefit to the public in order for them to participate. Flagship biodiversity elements carry legal mandates for protection with them and also bring funding in order to protect the species that is endangered. Also including a biodiversity specialist in conservation programs is a great benefit and helps steer programs in the right direction to actually protect what they are intended to protect.4

Seminar Discussion- Do you think it is better for native species to be left to fend for itself or should we intervene when it begins to take over?
- It was discussed that this space could potentially be used to build on instead of building further into non-utalized space. Also it was said that if the space does not look pretty people will avoid contact with it at all costs so why not make it look pretty by managing it when it begins taking over and turning it into an urban green space.

Why are our views towards certain plants negative and how can we change these views so that native species can grow where they are intended to?
- People have an image of what they believe parks should look like due to how they are advertised, therefore when they view these plants that are not super pretty or are not put in a nice flower bed as weeds. They do not have enough education to realize they are just another type of plant species that offers the same benefits as pretty plants do.
-Some of the plants that are simply overgrown look invasive because they are not tended to, therefore managing them is all they need to make people realize they are not bad.
-We are a visual culture and like to look at what is pretty, so somehow arranging and gardening the native species to make them appealing to look at may be all that is needed.
-When native species are next to a nice bed of colourful flowers they look ugly due to the comparison, however on their own or in a group of native flowers they look nice as well. There are so many advertisements for pretty flowers telling you they are beautiful, more of these advertisements need to go into advertising the natural beauty of native species too, therefore people will see them differently. Intergrading the two types of species together into parks can help blend them in so they no longer look invasive.

Should all vacant areas that vegetation has taken over be turned into parks or should they be left alone to let biodiversity take over? What are other ways we conserve biodiversity other than making a park?
-It was said that some areas should be left alone without human intervention. Nature does not need humans to bring in biodiversity it does it on its own. The ecosystem and its species take care of each other. We conserve it in gardens, back yards, trails, etc.

How can planners think of biodiversity as a primary concern instead of an after thought and care for it before it becomes and issue?
-Planners can plan for it by using the native vegetation that is already found on site, therefore not disturbing anything. This does not damage the habitats living around.
-Planners should also be concerned not only about if are they damaging the biodiversity  found on the site, but also where their materials come from and does natural habitats get destroyed else where to provide the resources they need. ex) do not buy from clear cutter forests.
- It is not necessarily the planners choice if the habit it destroyed on the site because they build what the client wants and if the client wants not life on their site then that it what the planner creates, therefore by making mandatory laws in place for what is required on a site it will force people to embrace it, not destroy it. Possibly making a law that says to add in a wetland or some sort of productive green space every yard of urbanization. Gets integrated right into the landscape.

Do you think every person has a responsibility to protect biodiversity or is it solely the planners responsibility to initiate the protection of biodiversity?
-It goes both ways, clients should be somewhat aware of this if they are building on land.
-Could put a law in place that in order to remove a tree from your yard you need to go to the government and make sure it is ok to do so, and if it is done there must be at least two trees planted in its place.
-People like to break laws, so could give a tax break instead? However people do not respond well to takes so could make it first few people that create green space or something in their yard they get a tax break, then it will start a trend and everyone will want it.

Personal Reflection- Personally biodiversity it not a local issue it is a global one therefore in order for all these small projects to make a difference they need to be done at a global scale. Otherwise if one country is adding all these benefits, all their work they have done may be counteracted by another country who all of a sudden decided to chop down all the trees in the city. To make a difference everyone needs to be committed. Because not everyone likes to get involved in saving the world, making laws such as for every yard of urbanization there needs to be a wetland may be the best option. This does not put pressure on homeowners to try and get as much biodiversity into their yards but it would still be done by the city. It was brought up that a lot of animals in cities may not be a good thing but I grew up in the country with coyotes and deer in my yard, not seeing animals was uncommon, and I turned out perfectly fine. Why is biodiversity in cities a bad thing? It allows people to engage with nature more. Education on the animals can help people be less afraid therefore more accepting of their presence. Biodiversity also helps to regulate the ecosystems they inhabit, therefore with there loss the ecosystems may also collapse and we could be left with nothing. No vegetation, no animals. People seem to act when it is too late, this should not be one of those times.

1) Del Tredici, Peter . "Spontaneous Urban Vegetation: Reflections of Change in a Globalized World."Nature and Culture . 5. no. 3 (2010): 299-315. 10.3167/nc.2010.050305 (accessed February 28, 2013).
2) Rupprecht, Christoph. Focx Photography, "Spontane Vegetation II." Last modified 2010. Accessed February 28, 2013. http://www.focx.de/2011/09/20/spontaneous-vegetation-ii/?lang=de.
3) Jule, . Spontaneous Vegetation, "Posts Tagged ‘spontaneous vegetation’." Last modified Unknown . Accessed February 28, 2013. http://spontaneousvegetation.wordpress.com/tag/spontaneous-vegetation/.
4) Stokes, David L., Marian F. Hanson, Deborah D. Oaks, Jamie E. Straub, and Aileen V. Ponio. "Local Land-Use Planning to Conserve Biodiversity: Planners’ Perspectives on What Works."Conservation Biology . 24. no. 2 (2009): 450-460. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01356.x (accessed February 28, 2013).

Agricultural Urbanism- February 14th

Seminar Leaders- Caleb McGinn, Darylanne Hammlin, Brydget Lewicki, Anita Robels, Lindsay Ledohowski, Amanda Reis, Samantha Brodick, Ellen Enns, Mitch
McIntosh

The integration of Urban Agriculture into urban planning- An analysis of the current status and constraints- This paper discusses the benefits of implementing urban agricultural into cities. The author discusses how the cost to bring them into cities may be pricy however not doing it can cost much more. Some of the benefits of urban agriculture that were discussed are providing food security to the urban poor, improvement of soil quality, less pollutions in the air due to not transporting food. The public is slowly becoming more aware of farming activities but urban agriculture is still seen as, "economically unimportant," (Drescher, 1). Most of the best soils are being built on, which causes them to loose all nutrients which never allows them to be able to sustain agriculture. It was discussed that people who live too far will not get involved with the land, therefore it will not be a success. Placing these gardens strategically around the city to all dense areas is key. There is also a great educational role involved with urban agriculture.1 

Urban Agriculture: Environment, Ecology and the Urban Poor- This paper discusses how all the benefits that claim to come from Urban Agriculture are not necessarily true due to the lack of evidence. In urban agriculture someone has to be constantly taking care of the gardens, watering them, ploughing them, etc. and the experts say that self alliance will occur and people will naturally want to take care of the land. However this is not true, the gardens are created for the poor in order to help with food supply, but general poor families work multiple jobs and take care of children, when is there time left to go and take care of a garden. "It is simply assumed that the new 'urban agricultural' sites, and the labour-intensive, resource-saving, food-cropping system that are envisaged, will be exploited by the poor," (Webb, 97). Urban agriculture does provide some benefits with getting healthier food, however people tend to buy what is cheap. The cheaper option may be the imported goods or simply canned food. "The irony behind this type of reasoning is that while the rest of the city population pursues its livelihood in an ecologically wasteful fashion, it is the poor who are required to search for and to adopt an ecologically sound means of making a living," (Webb, 98).2

  

Seminar Discussion- Do you think inner- city people are going to implement Urban Agriculture?
It was discussed that the only thing inner city people could be seen actually doing is having really small scale gardens. There is simply no room in cities to have anything large enough to really sustain the entire city or even a small community. There may be some room but it is not necessarily the open space that is needed for gardens. It also depends on the cities nature, it was brought up that there is no way anyone could see gardens popping up in the middle of a city like Los Angels.
It was suggested to do large scale gardening on the roof tops, however Winnipeg's harsh climates do not necessarily allow for this. Maybe creating some sort of green house on top of a building?
It was also mentioned that now since gardens are being brought into cities there are other things that need to be taken into consideration such as animals and using pesticides.
We need to consider the weather, cultures, sizes of cities, the mentality of the people, etc. to be able to consider if a city garden would be appropriate in a certain location and if people would even bother to look after it.
It was mentioned that someones neighbour utilized their front lawn for a garden. We have some sort of weird notion that front lawns need grass or a lawn or flowers, but why not use this space for a purpose?

3) Urban Agriculture in a front lawn.

What are some of the benefits of including designers in the implementation of urban agriculture strategies?
Designers can implement the aesthetic aspect of the gardens. Instead of including designers who will probably turn the space into some non useful piece of land again there should be tax breaks for having a garden or some sort of green space.
There should be specified parts of cities that have a garden, such as school zones or hospitals.
There was a discussion on if urban agriculture really supports it environment or not, and it does not necessarily show the true environment either.

Should the urban poor be the only ones to participate in the urban agriculture, or should all classes be concerned?
People need to realize that there are other advantages to urban agriculture then just a cheaper economy, there are health benefits from the better and healthier food it produces. It should not have anything to do with the classes, anyone who would like to participate should be aloud to without judgement. People should concern themselves more with the well being aspect of the gardens.

What are some of the myths about the benefits of urban agriculture?
-Self Alliance: people are naturally going to want to take care of the garden, however there are many problems with this theory. What if the space is super far from you and it is completely unrealistic to drive all the way across town to water a garden.
-What these gardens promise are not necessarily measurable, there is no evidence.
-Where there is a garden there is recycling.

Why do you think there is a disconnect between what the experts say and the data that is being collected in relation to urban agricultural practice?
Because people just do not care for these gardens. There was also a suggestion on doing tax returns for maintaing gardens and such however there is no way the government would know if you did it properly 100% of the time. People are amazing liars.

If there is local food then there is no need to drive to get it, saving you money and this saves the environment from CO2 emissions. Local food also helps improve soil quality and H20 in soil.

What do you think are some of the obstacles preventing the widespread implementation of urban agriculture in poor neighbourhoods?
Cost is a major one, also time. People may care to take care of these things and may want to however they just do not have the time to do it. Most poor families parents work multiple jobs and raise children, where do they have the time for taking care of gardens. People also buy whats cheap, organic products even local ones may not be the cheapest so people tend to linger to the unhealthier foods because they are cheap. Also people do not have the education required, it was suggested to teach children how to garden in school so they carry through when they grow up and follow up with it.

Personal Reflection- Urban Agriculture sounds like a good idea and like it would work, however the lack of evidence to back up these 'assumptions' really takes away from the argument. Utilizing spaces within the city for locally growing is a great idea, such as green roof tops. Winnipeg's harsh climates may limit the amount of growing, however building greenhouses on top of roofs can help. The idea that it is up to the poor to take care of the gardens is a big shock to me, because it will not only be the poor that use these gardens so why should they be the ones required to manage them for the rest of the city. Creating some sort of tax break is a great way to help get people motivated to garden locally as much as possible. Even gardening at home is a great way to grow locally and live healthier. A big issue that seems to arise with the gardening is they just do not have time, but if their gardens reduce the amount of trips needed to go to the grocery store and save you a considerable amount of money on food, then it may be worth spending a few extra hours outside instead of watching TV.

4) Urban Farming in Brooklyn

1) Drescher, Axel. "The integration of Urban Agriculture into urban planning – An analysis of the current status and constraints." Urban Agriculture. : 1-12.
2) Webb, Nigel L. "Environment, Ecology and the Urban Poor." Urban Agriculture- Urban Forum. 9. no. 1 (1998): 95-107.
3) Andrew, Vowels. University of Guelph, "Conference Focuses on Farming in the City Urban farmers learn how to get growing ." Last modified 2013. Accessed February 16, 2013. http://atguelph.uoguelph.ca/2012/07/conference-focuses-on-farming-in-the-city/.
4) Unknown, . Big Ten Science, "Could large scale Urban Farming actually work?." Last modified 2011. Accessed February 16, 2013. http://bigkingken.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/could-large-scale-urban-farming-actually-work/.

Sustainable Site Planning- February 7th

Seminar Leaders Claire Davis, Erns Wall, Jody Miller, Elyssa Woods, Tong Jiao, Madeline Sweetland.

Sustainable Infrastructure: The Guide to Green Engineering and Design- It was discussed that to design sustainably there are many different factors that need to be evaluated on a site before any structure can be built. Each site is different; they all have different properties such as soil, landscape, plants, animals, wind, water table, etc. Because each site is so unique you must do a lot of research on a site before anything can be built to make sure you are not disrupting the systems that already exist. Each system on a site is connected so to change one, you change them all. Since you are designing specific to a site, each site will have its own sustainable structure which in turn means that no building should ever repeat and be created again.1

Key Arguments- Any suggestions/ Ideas of how Winnipeg can design in a sustainable way and where? It was discussed that because we have to much snow here in winter, why not utilize it and find a way to capture the energy from snow. A point was brought up that there are many random open areas with no buildings/ designs (e.g. Bishop Grandin), why not somehow turn them into agriculture areas. It was argued that the rich people who own this land want to gain money from it and wont gain any if it is agriculture but will if there is some sort of building there. It was suggested that if there are going to be buildings, make Green Roofs like Toronto. In Toronto when a roof reaches a certain size it must be turned into a green roof, which helps to give back to earth from the space we take with a building. Reasons why Winnipeg does not have this law could possibly be because of our harsh climates and plants would simply not survive. 
Is it right to expand the city more? Obviously it is not right to take over agriculture land when there are still many undeveloped areas in the city but people are greedy and do not want to give up the big open yard. Living in the city and country are two completely different feels and the small towns will always be there because that's a way of life. The spaces between the city and country will always be there as well. The closer cities come the further small towns tend to go. 
What are some ways to study a site? Understanding the site down to each system involved is crucial to keep the environment found there thriving. 

Personal Reflections- I definitely believe that knowing each site down to the last rock and view point is critical to building good design. For example, the Guest Speaker Kelly Beaverford discussed how building in developing countries you need to follow each tradition, if you don't and go against it then the building you design simply will not be used and is a waste of resources, space, and time. So if we keep designing buildings the way we have been for the last however many years then nothing is going to change, we will continue to destroy our world and continue to create pointless designs and buildings that no one uses and for what? Knowing each thing about the site can help save our planet and animal diversity plus incorporate the environment into the buildings itself. The form should also be based on the site and dictated to what the building specifications are according to the systems found there, it will then be purposeful not just for aesthetics which our society relies on.

Sustainable Urban Development and the Multi-level Transition Perspective- The article discusses how the world needs to begin to use existing buildings that no longer have a function or purpose and make them useful. It discusses how we need to transition into a more sustainable city and world. The main reason that we are heading in the wrong direction today is because there are so many CO2 emissions and no one wants to stop it because we all love our cars and technology. There needs to be a balance of what we need and what we want to help lessen green house gas emission. We need to transition cities into less harmful places for people to live.2

Key Arguments- Who lives in the suburbs would you give up your home and move into a compact home in the city? Everyone is different and has different preferences according to what they grew up with and what they were raised to believe. Some people could never live in the country others could never live in the city. It was discussed that the main reasons some people do not want to live in the city is because of all the noise and traffic. A solution to this could be to design cities more strategically and create areas for only homes with little traffic. 

If there was more green space in cities would you want to live there? Many people brought up that they never really actually played in their yards they played in the drive way or at the park. This meant that people don't necessarily need their entire yards as long as they have somewhere close by to utilise when they want to do recreational activities. If all these people lived in apartments however they said that being cautious to everyone else in the building is hard and especially when people do not respect you there. Everyone has a different preference of where they would live. 

Why are we still expanding when there is so much un utilized space in the city? It was said that as long as the space is there people will use it. Once they use it all and realize that oh hey we cannot keep building it will be too late. Because it is easier to build out people do it but this takes over prime agriculture lands which also are not smart uses of the land. There are also certain stigmas with the city of Winnipeg, we tend to avoid The Exchange because of the stories we here, its appearance and we just feel unsafe there. But if it were redeveloped in a new livable way then we can actually use all the empty buildings there, reuse and avoid sprawling out of the city. 

Reasons why people keep building are specifically tied to money. Everyone wants that fancy car and nice house so they do whatever it takes to get it even if it is creating things that we do not need. Once we realize we don't need it is when change will happen. 

3) Suburbs- much wasted space that could be used for other purposes.

Personal Reflections- I greatly believe that the mindset of people is what causes them to do the things they do, whether if its for a reason or not. When people finally realize that oh I do not actually need this 10 bedroom house for just me is when our society will realize all the excess we have created. Personally I would prefer to live in the wide open country like I once did but I would also like to live my entire life and not get burnt to death by Global Warming. I now live in the city and I will admit living with train tracks in your backyard isn't the funnest thing in the world but did I really need this huge lot in the country, No. If the city were more appealing and had a good design to it then it would make more people want to live here as well. However cities are expanding because more and more people are moving to them and our population is growing, we just need to utilize the space we have and learn to build up not out. 

4) Graph showing growth of suburbs compared to urban growth.

If

1) Sarté, Bry S. Sustainable Infrastructure: The Guide to Green Engineering and Design . John Wiley & Sons, INC, 1-16. 
2)Naess, Peter, and Nina Vogel. "Sustainable urban development and the multi-level transition perspective." Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. : 36-50. www.elsevier.com/locate/eist (accessed February 7, 2013).
3) Unknown. 100 Red Flags, “Red Flag #73: She lives in the Suburbs.” Last modified 2012. Accessed February 8, 2013. http://100redflags.com/red-flag-73-she-lives-in-the-suburbs/
4)Kolko, Jed. Trulia Trends, "Even After the Housing Bust, Americans still love the Suburbs." Last modified 2013. Accessed February 8, 2013. http://trends.truliablog.com/2012/10/even-after-the-housing-bust-americans-still-love-the-suburbs/.