By Teliha Draheim
California has a conflict of interests. California’s climate policy, with its unrealistic expectations about the benefits of electrification, appears to conflict with California’s unrealistic expectations about building affordable housing.
The concept that urbanism is “green” is an idea being advanced by real estate developers and affordable housing advocates without any scientific basis.
Building operations consume 40% of the nation’s energy according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Even with requirements like LEED certification, the materials which go into building construction do not justify the claim that high density, multi-family, transit-oriented development supports the environment.
High density developments, such as the one currently being proposed as part of the Fairfax Housing Element Plan for 6 School Street Plaza, will use tremendous amounts of concrete, steel, composite materials and other temperature variant materials in their construction. The proposed 175 units on 1.92 acres most likely equates to a 12-story building, without adequate parking, in the center of a residential district.
CO2 embedded in the building materials produce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and have a negative effect on energy consumption. When an urban environment gets hot, it produces a “heat island” effect, which requires more metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) to cool. When an urban environment gets cold it produces a “cold sink” effect, requiring more MTCO2e to heat. The effects of heating and cooling must be taken into consideration when evaluating environmental data.
In counties like Marin, Sonoma and Napa, denser populations demand more shipping, trucking and transportation to satisfy our consumption driven economy. The overall negative environmental impacts of construction methods, materials, supply chains and waste management will contribute to the depletion of Fairfax’s supply of open space, water and energy resources.
Though urbanism may provide social opportunities for certain demographic groups, when considering human health, it does not earn high marks. High density living provides more opportunity for fostering clusters of disease, heightened by increased air pollution and GHGs, which are much less present in suburban or rural environments with less dense populations.
California’s mandate of building affordable housing at any cost, continues to conflict with the environmentally destructive, resource depleting impact of the construction industry.
Unless these negative effects are accounted for in our planning for population growth, we will continue to harm our fragile ecosystems, our infrastructure and the socio-economic systems which support us. As wise investors, we must be careful not to dip into the principal and deplete our reserves.
Please share your opinions on planning for the future of Fairfax. The proposed Housing Element Plan is now on the Town of Fairfax website, available for public comments until Nov. 11.
(Teliha Draheim is a resident of Fairfax. To write a piece for Marin Forum contact Publisher Sherman R. Frederick at ShermFrederick@gmail.com.)
Teliha brings up many good and interesting points. Although I support the concept of higher density housing near transit and a pedestrian and bicycle friendly design ethos– the devil is in the details. How it is done would make all the difference between a polluting eyesore that only a developer could love, and a healthy place where people and the environment are respected. Fortunately, examples of the latter abound throughout the world and those ideas should be applied to what we do here.