Park Your Greenery by the Curb

Folks today were "parking" themselves—and plants and flowers, wheel barrows and benches—in parking spaces throughout San Francisco, a dozen other U.S. cities, and a dozen more cities worldwide as part of PARK(ing) Day.

Some guys from a San Francisco architecture firm that had taken over a parking space near Mother Jones' offices told me that the whole idea is get people to think about the concrete jungle they inhabit and to consider new, greener urban planning ideas. So I pulled up a bench surrounded by temporarily-placed indigenous plants and shrubs—and carbon monoxide-spewing cars and trucks whizzing by— and chatted them up.

Didn't this concept conflict with the basic nature of architecture (you know, building things, which usually requires steel and concrete and fuel-burning machines)? They were quick to say no. Buildings in urban areas, they explained, can and should always include more green park space and, in some instances, roofs from which grass and plants can grow.

Of course, in a small, compact little city like San Francisco, it's pretty easy to live a car-less life where parking spaces can be used to make a political statement; in huge urban sprawls like Los Angeles where public transportation is lousy and everything is at least 20 minutes away (by car), not so much.

PARK(ing) Day folks say more than 70% of most cities' outdoor space is dedicated to the private vehicle while only a fraction of that land is allocated to open space for people. For citizens who want to take back the pavement, they offer advice on creating temporary street intervention tool kits and slightly less plausible ideas like the Parkcycle.

For another reporter's take on Park(ing) Day, see Josh Harkinson's post below.

Comments

THat is totally brilliant!

However, Gary, I think you'r confusing Architects with Developers. Although architects sometimes take on shlocky projects to pay the bills, most are trying to make the world better, and more green. Buliding things the right was is every bit as critical as devising better modes of transportation. Developers, on the other hand, are rarely so enlightened.

Posted by: Dale S on 09/23/07 at 12:59 PM Respond

Thanks for the clarification. But "brilliant" seems a little excessive to me. Wouldn't it be more productive to lobby your local city councils about including more mandatory "green" elements to every building contract that goes out to bid?

Posted by: Gary M on 09/24/07 at 7:48 AM Respond

Well, I think brilliant is an understatement. If you can't make people aware of things, then what's the point of lobbying? I'm sure it helps, but if people are inspired, you're going to raise the base-level for all, and then your lobbying is going to be far more successful.

The government can only do so much. Imagine if people actually demanded better? Imagine if Developers could be inspired a bit?

Without projects like this, all people see is pavement, and most won't move much beyond that.

Posted by: Dale S on 09/24/07 at 10:45 AM Respond

Well put. I agree with your point about raising the base level, but how to inspire developers? For city and school projects, the lowest bid gets the job; so how do you promote inspiration among development when price is the deciding factor/bottom line?

Posted by: Gary M on 09/24/07 at 3:59 PM Respond

Good question...

Check out Village Homes in Davis for some inspiration.

www.villagehomesdavis.org

The great thing about Village Homes is that all the traditional payback for the developer was increased too - ie going green actually made them more money.

The other good news is that it's not always as cut-and-dry as giving it to the lowest bidder. Sometimes building green is more expensive up front but it almost always has a better payback long term.

Posted by: Dale S on 09/25/07 at 9:54 AM Respond