Treasure Island: A polluted military base is being transformed intoa dense green neighborhood.

View images from the plans for this city

10 Comments

1. 1. Eye144 11:40 AM 9/24/08

   Here is something you can do now, at no cost to save teh envireonment.
   www.SolarPanel-Rental.com to register to get a solar system without large upfront charges, or to buy.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. digitaljoe111001 01:19 PM 9/24/08

   What about San Francisco and Shanghai?
   
   Although they seem well intentioned, the "demonstrator" communities remind me of the greenwashing that's occurring in the automobile industry, i.e. BMW's Hydrogen 7 & and GM's large SUV hybrids. Ostensibly these are vehicles that will be driven by a very small percentage of drivers with the financial means available to bolster their own self-image of environmental stewardship. The auto companies benefit by producing vehicles that they would normally lose money on, but instead manufacture a high-end product for a profit while burnishing their green credentials with the consumer.
   
   The article's eco-cities are, to me, a similar fallacy. Although San Franciscos Treasure Island project claims it will provide an economic mix of housing, I doubt that citizens in need of affordable housing will view living in this ecotopia practical for the socioeconomic realities of their lives. Thus San Francisco benefits greatly from the press generated and bolsters it's green image while providing 21st century levels of sustainability to just a small portion of well-off home buyers.
   
   Shanghai represents a different situation in that a sustainability demonstrator could be used as a prototype for suburban development that will presumably arrive with the rise of Chinas nascent middle-class. Still, environmental problems of the core are not addressed in any of these projects.
   
   To sum up, these projects are great when working with a clean slate, but how about some solutions for the real world?
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. dunkman in reply to digitaljoe111001 02:45 PM 9/24/08

   That's right. We should just do nothing at all until everyone can have it. After all, the only solutions worth pursuing are the perfect ones.
   
   Who cares what the motivation is for San Francisco or BMW as long as some environmental benefit is realized? And who is to say that this won't generate interest in expanding eco-friendly design and building?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. e.Rocker 06:34 PM 9/24/08

   Gentlemen. Just like the pursuit of space travel... New technologies are VERY expensive to research and develop. Yes, space flight is limited to the wealthy. Yes, the first enterprises on Luna (i.e. our moon), Mars or anyplace else not 'Earth' will be pioneered by business with the funds to spare. No Government will have the money. Period. Do you think NASA will survive today's budget cuts? How 'bout the next round of cuts after that? No business will do it out of the kindness of thier heart and/or soul. Its all about money. Bullshit walks. Stop watching Disney movies and realize the facts of the real world.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. digitaljoe111001 in reply to dunkman 09:51 PM 9/24/08

   The solutions worth pursuing are often the difficult ones. These eco-cities are simply models of what can be done with current technology to design a "sustainable" community that coexists within an unsustainable urban ecosystem. They are eye candy that are nice to look at but are ultimately fantasies that are unassociated with the core city. The two later examples have some merit as models for suburbs within those respective developing countries if that is the direction those societies wish to pursue, i.e. imitating the American model of abandoning the central core and all its "old world" problems in favor of starting fresh on the less developed periphery.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Gieckboy 06:57 PM 9/26/08

   The Treasure Island plan looks great, but how do they plan to build tall buildings on dredged Bay mud?
   
   I imagine the first decent earthquake would liquify the foundation. This happened in SF's Marina district in the 1998 Loma Prieta earthquake, and the Marina was built on more substantial landfill than this.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. beyondgreen 02:37 PM 9/28/08

   We need to act as a nation to utilize every resource available to us to loosen the grip our dependence on foriegn oil has on us. Our economy is in a sorry state of affairs directly related to the high cost of fuel which affects everything from loss of jobs to a record loss of homes not to mention the rise in cost of all consumer goods. We have become so dependant on foreign oil that we have neglected to fully utilize such natural sources of energy such wind power & solar power. Along with modern technology such as plug in cars, hybrid cars, v2g technology ,and regenerative braking technology. We still seem to be floundering as a nation as to devising the best plan utilize all that is available to us and lift ourselves out of this mess we are in. We need to take our closest look at which candidates put our economy and energy crisis at the forefront of their agenda. The Manhattan Project of 2009 by Jeff Wilson pretty much says it all...
   
   www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. Cerebral*Origami 05:18 PM 9/30/08

   I wonder if they considered a city wide gray water system. We are headed toward a drinkable water crisis every bit as serious as our fuel crisis and most of the water a household uses is to flush their toilets. With a city wide gray water system you would have central filter point and then pump the water back to the toilets in the homes. (You would want to use a tank less toilet and a toilet seat with a soft seal to reduce the smell of any sterilizing agent.)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Tan Boon Tee 11:15 PM 9/30/08

   This is a piece of encouraging news. With the state-of-the-art technology, Dongtan in Shanghai could serve as a prototype for further building of new eco-cities, provided of course funding for such costly construction would be no object.
   
   The question is what about the old non-eco-cities, places where pollution has been getting worse and worse for years. As action always speaks louder than words, the world would want to know how and when these metropolitans can be made really greener and cleaner. And that appears to be the most immediate task for the governments concerned. Any taker?
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. doug l 10:06 AM 4/17/09

    Many, if not most, of the current plans being looked at to make modern cities ecologically responsible by limiting their impacts on natural systems, whether by reducing energy usage or by restraining the spread of city's waste products, are really just "small beers".
    For several decades now engineers have had at their disposal the technology for high strenght materials and systems with which a truly foreward looking planner could have employed to place a dome, and not necessarily the iconic geodesic domes with which we have become familiar, but rather spectacular structures such as the small but significant ones being designed for large public areas desinged and currently being build under the supervision of Sir Norman Foster: the Astana Kazahkstan dome under which will live and work a population of several thousands, within the capital city of Astana whose weather is considered some of the most inhospitable, but under the dome it will daily serve its city and its country with a moderate climate ideal for swimming, golfing, "outdoor" cultural events as well as commerce...all beneath a structure that is 500 feet tall and almost 1/4 mile across, on multiple levels.
    This idea has been examined before by visionary designers like R. Buckminster Fuller. Fuller in particular was very interested in seeing this concept come into reality as it synergistically supported his belief that we humans don't really need to suffer a shortage of anything if we simply reduced the shortage of imagination that has limited our ability to see clearly.
    A domed city can keep its air cleaner, can collect rainwater effectively before it becomes polluted, will reduce the amount of energy needed and could actually support energy collection devices like solar panels or windmills. As an example: the city of New York in 10 years spends more on clearing its streets and sidewalks of the brief snowfalls it gets in winter than it would cost to build a dome over the main part of Manhattan...and that is just one aspect of the economy of scale that becomes apparent when city sized domes are considered.
    So, why no domes now? Planners, codes, lack of vision, energy that is too cheap and pollution that is even cheaper to just dilute in the environment...but those days will be ending soon enough and more power to those who grasp the advantages of living in a landscape designed for our urban lifestyles and activities with an eye towards reaping big savings; savings that will be spent on human benefits that are so needed to bring about a future less afflicted.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this