The 10 Greatest Cities? Time For New Standards of Sustainability
The third highest ranking website on the internet today is a blog post called 10 Great Cities for Raising Families. The cities were ranked on job growth, local culture, healthy economies, schools, crime rates and open park spaces. The results of these “GREAT CITIES” ranged from Texas, to Alabama, to Washington, to Wisconsin, to Idahao, to Michigan, and yes . . . . West Hartford, Connecticut.
Are these bland real estate statistics really the best measure of the best city to raise a family?
What if we ranked our cities on Sustainability Measures instead?
Cities that are the BEST to raise a family should be ranked on the following measures:
- Different agricultural systems such as the preservation of farms, urban farming, rooftop gardening, green roofs, local food centers, and more.
- Energy reduction measures and the participation in renewable energy resources, tools, offerings, or devices.
- Strength of the city’s composting, recycling, trash removal measures, the amount that constituents actually do compost and recycle, and the trash disposal solutions used by the city.
- Reduction of the need for air conditioning by creating natural ventilation systems, reduction in tarmac and asphalt, creating new eco-designed buildings that remain cooler. This includes future city planning to optimize building density to make public transportation viable while avoiding the creation of urban heat islands.
- Reusing existing buildings and space with urban renewal and reducing urban sprawl. This includes beautifying incentives that allow people to live in a clean and beautiful and safe environment that is closer to where they work.
- Improved public transportation, safe and efficient bike paths, increasing pedestrinization on whole city blocks, and more.
- Sustainable urban draining systems to prevent polluted water run-off and increased support for sewage and other industrial waste capture systems. This also includes xeriscaping – garden and landscape design for water conservation.
- A chemical-free environment where pesticides, agrochemicals, road chemicals are not used or sprayed anywhere within city limits.
I chuckled a bit when I read this article telling me that it is in my best interest to move to one of these cities to raise my family. I currently live near West Hartford. Fun city – great shopping! Only one farm: Rosedales – and they don’t farm in the city. Ann Arbor, Michigan? Been there and it’s proximity to the Detroit Wasteland of Hell is not terribly reassuring (although Detroit is really blooming in the local food movement). I grew up around Kennewick, WA. The tri-cities are the butt-joke of all of Washington and are the playgrounds of chemical companies and agribusiness companies with fields of wheat and apples and other tasty goods that are dumped with millions of pounds of pesticides every year. Stop in if you're thirsty! Madison, Wisconsin is fun to visit for sure! The best farm market I've ever been to. And they're really quite progressive considering the rest of the state. The city is expensive to live in and they have a terrible problem with urban sprawl. Most who work there, live in bedroom communities scattered over former agricultural land that surrounded the city. You can live in Madison if you’d like to freeze to death and commute more than an hour to get home from this "little city." No thanks. That’s why I moved.
Anyhoo, I could go on. I’ve lived in/around or been to most of the cities on this “GREASTEST CITIES” list. I’d never live in these places. And too, even my own current city is not what I’d consider the most sustainable place to live. Having said, articles like these are a bit ridiculous anyway. I wonder why it is receiving millions of hits? Are people actually moving because they read the article?
It’s time to rank our cities on sustainability. THAT should be the measure of a great place to live and raise our families.
