Reviews
Green Metropolis: What the City Can Teach the Country About True Sustainability by David Owen
kbrsuperstar's review against another edition
4.0
I was not expecting a lot from this book. I expected it to be a bit like [b:The Big Green Apple: Your Guide to Eco-Friendly Living in New York City|927848|The Big Green Apple Your Guide to Eco-Friendly Living in New York City|Benjamin Jervey|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1179523433s/927848.jpg|912849] — a lot of stuff I knew already, told in a snobby, preachy tone — but Green Metropolis was an excellent examination of why cities are more environmentally sustainable than even the greenest suburbs, and how anti-city bias continues to persist among environmentalists. The chapter on the ridiculousness of LEED certifications is worth it alone.
Two things keep this from being a 5-star book.
First, its final chapter feels like the author wanted to throw in a bunch of issues people ask him about all the time, like he was finishing up the book and realized, "Damn, I haven't said anything about China/recycling/locavores/energy-efficient windows yet..."
Lastly, and more importantly, the book closes with the author's rather pathetic reasoning for why he continues to live in exactly the environmentally-damaging way he's just delineated for the past 300+ pages, leaving you with the feeling of well, if this guy can't be bothered, why should I?
So, do yourself (and the planet) a favor, read this book but stop around page 265 or so.
Two things keep this from being a 5-star book.
First, its final chapter feels like the author wanted to throw in a bunch of issues people ask him about all the time, like he was finishing up the book and realized, "Damn, I haven't said anything about China/recycling/locavores/energy-efficient windows yet..."
Lastly, and more importantly, the book closes with the author's rather pathetic reasoning for why he continues to live in exactly the environmentally-damaging way he's just delineated for the past 300+ pages, leaving you with the feeling of well, if this guy can't be bothered, why should I?
So, do yourself (and the planet) a favor, read this book but stop around page 265 or so.
mysta's review against another edition
[this review is for the audiobook. Stopped at 50% completion]
A lesson in how many different ways you can say the exact. same. thing.
There are some interesting points buried in here, but you have to listen to the same point repeated about 10 different ways before you can move on to the next one.
I get it. Making it cheaper/easier/more pleasant/etc. to drive means people drive more which is damaging to the environment. You really didn't need to dedicate 25% (so far) of the book to this particular topic.
(And was that whole chapter about the history of oil use really necessary?)
50% in and all I've really heard is several dozen repetitive examples of how high population density = less environmental damage per capita, and lots of railing against environmental initiatives that are less beneficial than they seem because they make driving cheaper/easier/more pleasant/etc. which, so far, has just come off as "don't do anything at all to make cars less environmentally damaging or actively discourage people from using them"
Which would be fine if some solutions (other than the maybe-unintentionally implied "do nothing") were actually offered. Maybe there are some solutions in the latter half of the book, but I don't particularly feel like listening to another 5 hours of repetition pointing out how much more damaging my have-to-drive-everywhere existence is than big-city life without telling me how we can make it better (aside from the implied "everybody move to an apartment in the middle of the city" which even the author himself isn't doing).
The non-fiction-book-that-really-should-have-been-an-essay is a very unfortunate trend that is really starting to turn me off of reading this type of non-fiction. Not every discussion needs to be turned into a 300-page book.
A lesson in how many different ways you can say the exact. same. thing.
There are some interesting points buried in here, but you have to listen to the same point repeated about 10 different ways before you can move on to the next one.
I get it. Making it cheaper/easier/more pleasant/etc. to drive means people drive more which is damaging to the environment. You really didn't need to dedicate 25% (so far) of the book to this particular topic.
(And was that whole chapter about the history of oil use really necessary?)
50% in and all I've really heard is several dozen repetitive examples of how high population density = less environmental damage per capita, and lots of railing against environmental initiatives that are less beneficial than they seem because they make driving cheaper/easier/more pleasant/etc. which, so far, has just come off as "don't do anything at all to make cars less environmentally damaging or actively discourage people from using them"
Which would be fine if some solutions (other than the maybe-unintentionally implied "do nothing") were actually offered. Maybe there are some solutions in the latter half of the book, but I don't particularly feel like listening to another 5 hours of repetition pointing out how much more damaging my have-to-drive-everywhere existence is than big-city life without telling me how we can make it better (aside from the implied "everybody move to an apartment in the middle of the city" which even the author himself isn't doing).
The non-fiction-book-that-really-should-have-been-an-essay is a very unfortunate trend that is really starting to turn me off of reading this type of non-fiction. Not every discussion needs to be turned into a 300-page book.
anitaw16's review against another edition
2.0
Some of the author's arguments are persuasive. It is somewhat ridiculous to label over-sized McMansions with solar panels and loads of "green" gadgets as environmentally conscious; I agree that this type of green living is just another form of excess consumption. I also agree that one of the most pressing environmental problems facing the world is overpopulation. The author hints at this throughout the book and mentions it explicitly near the end. However, he never discusses it in any detail.
The main goal of the book seems to be to denigrate environmentalists. The author implies that no environmentalists recognize the benefits of high density urban living, an assertion that simply is not true. However, I don't know any environmentalist, even ones in urban areas, who share the author's seeming contempt for nature and lack of recognition of its benefits.
However, the most annoying aspect of the book and one mentioned by many other reviewers is the author's hypocrisy. He refuses to live the lifestyle that he feels should basically be mandated for others. The self-justification near the end of the book where he claims that moving back to Manhattan would make no difference in his case because someone else would just move into his house in small-town Connecticut is almost sickening. Who needs "environmentalists" like this?
The main goal of the book seems to be to denigrate environmentalists. The author implies that no environmentalists recognize the benefits of high density urban living, an assertion that simply is not true. However, I don't know any environmentalist, even ones in urban areas, who share the author's seeming contempt for nature and lack of recognition of its benefits.
However, the most annoying aspect of the book and one mentioned by many other reviewers is the author's hypocrisy. He refuses to live the lifestyle that he feels should basically be mandated for others. The self-justification near the end of the book where he claims that moving back to Manhattan would make no difference in his case because someone else would just move into his house in small-town Connecticut is almost sickening. Who needs "environmentalists" like this?
sf424's review against another edition
3.0
There were some good points in here. However, the author repeats himself over and over. This book could have been half the length and had the same effect. He also has a very poor excuse for his lifestyle, which goes against everything he argues for in the book
delaneyswann's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
fast-paced
4.0
Super readable explanation of urban density as a driver of sustainability. Fun and informative. A primer on the issues related to sprawl and environmentalism.
nfossick's review against another edition
3.0
Overall, a good book. Not many surprises for those familiar with the topic of cities and their role in the environment and climate change. Although, I read this book over a decade after it’s published so some of the knowledge it posits is more mainstream (likely thanks to this book itself). Some general thoughts and critiques I had are:
* Needs to consider the industry in cities and their contribution (people-focused).
* Focused on social motivators for suburban growth and sprawl (anti-city movements and their legacy on the US ethos).
* Overall, simplistic and reads like a story, not like it’s teaching much.
* I just don’t agree with the critiques of congestion pricing. It does not increase traffic and would force more to use public transit, which is empirically backed. It’s odd that Owens critiques London’s scheme where other’s cherish it.
* I also disagree with the premise that making transit free would sour it’s public image.
* Owens critiques Central Park and large urban parks. This is founded in its disruption to foot traffic and impact on perception of a connected city street network for pedestrians. That’s a valid point, but ignores the benefits of Central Park. Beyond simply recreation, Central Park is an economic boom in terms of tourism, property values (and in turn, taxes), etc. This value is reinvested in New York.
* When talking about specific parts of NYC, Owens should have included maps!
* Critiques plazas but ignores they provide destinations for walkers and bikers. The ordinance to promote plazas was well-founded but simply did not ensure they were well constructed!
* Some critiques of LEED are outdated. For example, they now have a neighborhood design portion to address more than singular structures.
* Critiques Michael Pollan and his “locavorism” but is he misconceiving the point? Pollan would prefer neighborhood and home gardens, not necessarily a local farm outside your city (although that is good too). There is a strong assumption that all local produce will be brought in using gas-powered vehicles and won’t be grown in cities (in urban farms)
* Owens alludes to the dangerous cultural habits we have, namely consumption, but doesn’t acknowledge our need to reshape them. This is at the heart of a lot of organizations like the Sierra Club.
* Transit causing sprawl makes me think of hyper loop tech and how that could cause sprawl or stop it.
* Needs to consider the industry in cities and their contribution (people-focused).
* Focused on social motivators for suburban growth and sprawl (anti-city movements and their legacy on the US ethos).
* Overall, simplistic and reads like a story, not like it’s teaching much.
* I just don’t agree with the critiques of congestion pricing. It does not increase traffic and would force more to use public transit, which is empirically backed. It’s odd that Owens critiques London’s scheme where other’s cherish it.
* I also disagree with the premise that making transit free would sour it’s public image.
* Owens critiques Central Park and large urban parks. This is founded in its disruption to foot traffic and impact on perception of a connected city street network for pedestrians. That’s a valid point, but ignores the benefits of Central Park. Beyond simply recreation, Central Park is an economic boom in terms of tourism, property values (and in turn, taxes), etc. This value is reinvested in New York.
* When talking about specific parts of NYC, Owens should have included maps!
* Critiques plazas but ignores they provide destinations for walkers and bikers. The ordinance to promote plazas was well-founded but simply did not ensure they were well constructed!
* Some critiques of LEED are outdated. For example, they now have a neighborhood design portion to address more than singular structures.
* Critiques Michael Pollan and his “locavorism” but is he misconceiving the point? Pollan would prefer neighborhood and home gardens, not necessarily a local farm outside your city (although that is good too). There is a strong assumption that all local produce will be brought in using gas-powered vehicles and won’t be grown in cities (in urban farms)
* Owens alludes to the dangerous cultural habits we have, namely consumption, but doesn’t acknowledge our need to reshape them. This is at the heart of a lot of organizations like the Sierra Club.
* Transit causing sprawl makes me think of hyper loop tech and how that could cause sprawl or stop it.
squirrelfish's review
4.0
Good overview, with interesting demonstrations. I had some objections ready, but he addressed some/many of them in the final chapter. Definitely had a feeling of cementing my previous feelings in some ways, and some things that were just not very locally applicable (California climate proofing concerns are not New England concerns), but lots of great illustration of sustainability of cities, and the ways that people can think they're being green when they really aren't.
davidr's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed this book very much. It surely turned my thinking about our living environment upside down. The book has thoroughly convinced me that dense cities with good infrastructure are the best solution to our long-term environmental problems. Densely packed buildings for living and working do save on most of our resources; fuel, heat, electricity, water
So, why doesn't the author move from his rural home back to the city? Owen addresses this question at the end of the book. He writes that if he were to move back to the city, someone else would buy your house and your material possessions, and that person would simply continue the environmentally unfriendly habits that you abandoned--there would be no net gain.
This does not sound logical to me, and I addressed an e-mail to him on this issue. I promptly received a detailed answer from Owen--what a happy surprise! He agreed with me, that his argument for not moving from the suburbs back to the city was flawed. He also wrote--and I tend to agree with him--that it will be very difficult to persuade people to move back from the suburbs into the city. Instead, we should not be investing public money in "dead-end" approaches that encourage sprawl and are fundamentally bad for the environment. Owen's book is filled with what I would call "unintended consequences"--that is, public policies that sound good superficially, but instead just help to increase sprawl and the degradation of our environment.
So, why doesn't the author move from his rural home back to the city? Owen addresses this question at the end of the book. He writes that if he were to move back to the city, someone else would buy your house and your material possessions, and that person would simply continue the environmentally unfriendly habits that you abandoned--there would be no net gain.
This does not sound logical to me, and I addressed an e-mail to him on this issue. I promptly received a detailed answer from Owen--what a happy surprise! He agreed with me, that his argument for not moving from the suburbs back to the city was flawed. He also wrote--and I tend to agree with him--that it will be very difficult to persuade people to move back from the suburbs into the city. Instead, we should not be investing public money in "dead-end" approaches that encourage sprawl and are fundamentally bad for the environment. Owen's book is filled with what I would call "unintended consequences"--that is, public policies that sound good superficially, but instead just help to increase sprawl and the degradation of our environment.