A new town near me was billing itself as being sustainable. Was in the planning stages for years and looked cool. Was called "Babcock Ranch." Fast forward to now, and it's just another suburb, but it's ✨solar powered.✨ As if that offsets the horrible car-centric planning, golf courses, and bicycle gutter lanes at all.
@@Stevie-J Maybe future cities wouldn’t be car-less but less cars. Smaller vehicles that wouldn’t be used on a daily basis as you’d have access to all your amenities within a walking distance or biking distance. And if you wanted to go to another town or city, why not take the train that’s been made efficient like the Japanese ones that come every 5-10 minutes. Cars are not necessary for living, maybe in todays world yes, because we’ve literally built our country around cars. But recognizing that, we can begin to make changes in a different direction.
@@Stevie-J, yes, of course; free to buy petrol, tires, insurance, maintenance, parking fees, sit in traffic, look for a parking-space; so very, very ‘free’.
I have said this before for the reasons you mentioned. NYC is the most environmentally friendly city in the USA because it’s sustainable by design. Many other cities are trying to greenwash fundamentally environmentally unfriendly places.
New Yorker here. I agree with you, but it is crazy sometimes to look out at the skyline and remember that it was once a lush forest island, home to many indigenous people. I love NYC and it is a true testament to the definition of a city, but it is always important to remember the vastly different world that was forced to die.
Ironically, NYC is also obscenely corrupt and hostile to small businesses and they're doing very little to actually address homelessness and unsustainable real estate costs(both residential and commercial). Also, the NYC Subway is disgusting. They might fit the bill, but they have a lot of work to do, to actually make it a nice place to live.
Yeah some of the "techs" here are interesting enough but 1000x better than using innovative technology to improve performance is not needing to use them in the first place... dont need high performance pavement coverings if you just have far less pavement.
New Yorker here and New York was mostly swamp , brooks and streams . Also most buildings use steam to power A/C , heating and govt / private cars , buses etc are converting to hybrid or electric.
the state of nevada and las vegas in particular actually recycle almost all of their water. when we talk about colorado river water rights they are actually extremely sustainable. they still have a long way to go in other ways tho
Las Vegas is one of the best cities at conserving water in the US. As mentioned, they're all in on water recycling, but they also have an active _ban_ on non-functional grass. So yes, it might have golf courses, but it's phasing out residential lawns - which are a significantly greater source of water loss in most cities than a handful of golf courses.
One transportation metric I really like is vehicle miles traveled per capita. It takes into account carpooling, transit, walking, biking, all into one stat. I think it does a good job of rewarding the shorter trips and trip mode diversity that come from compact land use, which really gets to the heart of transportation sector emissions. The best (lowest) performers on that list include some cities that didn’t appear in this ranking, including San Juan, Puerto Rico and (my city!) Pittsburgh, PA
no way! 2 of my fav cities! But yeah PGH has great bike lanes and micromobility options and a fairly solid bus system for a city of it's size (300k, #40ish in the country)
Definitely keep the existing ones going, the current most likely replacement for a decommissioned nuclear plant is a new gas plant. Nuclear almost exclusively serves baseload power, and only coal, nuclear, gas, and hydro can serve baseload, and all of them have downsides. (Atleast as of now) Edit: typo
I disagree with keeping old ones running. I worked in nuclear power and there are a couple of things that happen called neutron and hydrogen embrittlement. Neutron embrittlement is a process where released high speed neutrons can directly dislodge atoms within a steel’s crystalline lattice with the accumulating damage leaving the steel in a state reminiscent of Swiss cheese over time. Hydrogen embrittlement is a process where released hydrogen radicals can infuse into and dislocate atoms within the steel’s crystalline lattice which also degrades the tensile strength of steel over time and it does so more quickly under high temperatures and pressures. Both of these modes embrittle steel and the nature of nuclear power ensures that the ideal environment to create embrittlement failures exists within every PWR reactor design which is why nuclear reactor core pressure vessels have a predetermined lifespan. Extending them by government decree simply because we want it is rolling some rather large dice.
Madison Wisconsin is built around its great bike infrastructure, with tons of dedicated bike paths that help bikers cross into normally inaccessible places. It's also remarkably cheap to live in, given its walkability.
What for 3 months a year? And what do you do when you have a family? Or want to go out for dinner and drinks at a new restaurant in town? Why do you both people constantly lie to yourself?
@@yourgooglemeister6745 Nope, you can stack layers and get boots (cheaper than a car, also comfy). New restaurants in town are exactly that, IN TOWN. Not a 15 minute drive out. I've already signed the lease, and can't wait to start finally living a life that rewards my lifestyle.
Great video as always! However, I have few suggestions. 1) Sustainability is not just environmental, it also includes social and economic aspects. Therefore, I think it's important to consider things such as, housing affordability etc. 2) Different cities define their urban boundary in different ways. For example, some cities do not include most of their suburbs within their boundaries while some do. So it not always an apples to apples comparison.
@@GreatGazoo8 Exactly. For home ownership, the purchase price per square foot in Manhattan is $1600. Los Angeles is $550 and Chicago is $240. I live in Chicago. If I moved to Manhattan and I wanted a condo for the same price, I would go from 800 sq feet to 120. My current bedroom is 130 sq feet (10x13). That's called living in a boarding house because I would have to share a bathroom and kitchen.
@Earth+ PEDANTIC POLICE ALERT! Neither of your arguments are valid. Please learn how to use dictionaries and encyclopedias. 1) This video is about environmental sustainability, not livability. 2) Absolutely NO city includes the suburbs in "their" boundaries. The phrase you are looking for is "metropolitan area". He never mentioned suburbs and repeatedly mentioned city laws/policies/infrastructure. He made valid comparisons.
@@Nyx773 1) The title says 'sustainable'. Sustainability includes environmental, social, and economic. Not just environmental. 2) Some cities does not have most of their residents living within the city boundary. While some cities do have most of their residents living within the city boundary. So when you compare two cities, you need to consider that as well. Otherwise, you give advantage to one city, where they exclude most of their population..
With regards to green spaces, I think the quality of the spaces matters a lot when determining their effectiveness. There are tons of parks in the US that are just large empty fields of water-hungry grass that provide little to no shade or cooling effect. Even when these parks include trees, they tend to be a monoculture, which harms biodiversity in the region. At the opposite extreme, there are places like Forest Park in Portland, OR which is literally a forest within the city limits that you can hike through.
@@karikling6751 agreed. Unfortunately around me they're cutting them down because the homeless like to congregate under them, which makes walking in the Phoenix sun even more brutal.
In Flagstaff, the FUTS (Flagstaff Urban Trail System) chains through most of the city to make it easy to walk somewhere that's not all pavement. The trail often intersects with pavement where it's easily accessed from the surrounding neighborhoods, but there are also a lot of trees and natural areas throughout. It would be difficult to find housing in town that isn't within two miles of a hiking trail. Of course that's not to suggest the city is ultra sustainable, but it's awesome to have access to those things and a community that cares
@@danieldaniels7571 Phoenix has got to be brutal without trees, especially in the summer. Here in Philly, they've decided middle and upper class neighborhoods get street trees, but lower income neighborhoods don't. I live in a safe but lower income neighborhood, and our streets are barren. However, the streets in center and south Philly, where most of the upper class people live, are lined with beautiful trees.
Glad to see Oakland in the top 10. We’re rapidly expanding our bike network (15 mile greenway and bike lanes in another major transit corridor) and building out transit oriented development.
@@cgmason7568 what a cool answer considering that's not what the video or commenter were talking about at all. Right wingers shut up about other people's problems and fix their own. Difficulty: impossible
@@cgmason7568 no Oakland definitely has problems with wealth distribution but it's very interesting that right wing Texans keep dogwhistling crime in Oakland under a video about top environmentally friendly cities in the country. I'm sure you really care about the people of Oakland mhm
@@cgmason7568 Yeah believe it or not people who live in the city care about having different transportation options, and people in California care about not being cooked alive due to climate change.
NYC, like most cities, has "exported" it's unsustainability across it''s rivers to other jurisdictions. Does it count if New Jersey is pumping out pollutants to sustain New York? Should it count if barges full of trash are dumped in the ocean? I don't think so...
And Salt lake City is one of the most environmentally destructive in the US ... the West will soon be seeing a major disaster with the Great Salt Lake being dried up to water green lawns in the desert. These lists need to look beyond the surface of what cities SAY they are doing.
but if it’s applicable to all cities, then it isn’t really relevant, is it? of course my point isn’t that it’s fine or we shouldn’t worry about it, but more that blaming a societal issue which everyone has to work on is a good general point about sustainability but kind of a bad one when it just comes to ranking cities that all do that against each ither
@@linusoppenheimer9248 Sustainable means so much more. Where's the food coming from, what about their water supply? You need to look at what comes in and out of the city and how it's delivered. I'd be interested in the per capita fossel fuel usage.
@@nelsondrueding6726 again, i agree, though i’d point out ny’s water supply is sourced from some reservoirs upstate and is very clean and sustainable. that said, the same is true of any city.
The loghter colored pavements in Phoenix is one of those things that makes you go "Wait why didn't we think of this before?". Such a simple and easy idea with real measured benefits
Do you remember when there was talk about using solar to light up the actual road (not specifically Phoenix)? I haven't seen or heard of any new developments on that technology.
Bill Clinton released a book in 2011 (Back to Work: Why We Need A Smart Government For a Strong Economy) where he advocated painting the black, flat-topped roofs, on so many of the commercial buildings, white or some other reflective color for exactly this reason. If you increase the albedo (the reflective qualities) of a surface, more of the light will be reflected back and less will be absorbed and turned into heat. He didn't originate the idea; he got it from someone else. But it was well-known over a decade ago. And it's a very simple, very cheap modification to make.
solar roadways was a scam the whole time - but painting buildings reflective colours has always been a thing in desert cultures. The issue with 20th and maybe early 21st century Americanization was the thinking that with enough cheap energy the exact same mode of living could be used everywhere and for every culture on the planet. My preference is for heat-sensitive paint that changes colour but is ultra reflective when its hot out to be put on houses, with a darker colour being the natural colour when its colder outside so more heat is absorbed. It's been shown that ultra-reflective paints can actually cool to below ambient temperatures as they beam infrared radiation back into space, which means they're effectively free air conditioning (plus the added benefit of beaming infrared into space means that we're actively subtracting heat from our planet)
@@Meower68 yeah paint is cheap and very effective, they couldn't do it for all buildings but they could just do it for federal buildings and show the savings in the long run on things like air conditioning and then private businesses will follow suit
I mean this is nothing new... Cultures in desert climates have been doing this for thousands of years. ALL answers lie with the past. All architecture and design today is a joke. A building can be certified LEED, etc., but guess what it's not built to last more than 60 years before looking like s*it. It's ALL about money, and very few are humble enough to acknowledge that the past is the future.
Ah, lovely surprise to see my current city of Burlington VT make a surprise appearance on the list! This is one of my favourite places I've ever lived, and its so walkable, with a great bus service and rail liks to New York City. Its also got some lovely green spaces and cycle infrastructure. Also the best Womens hockey team regardless of what the playoff results tell you (lets go Catamounts!!)
It's a tough list to make. I've lived in some of these cities and I studied and worked in sustainable policy for years, so here are some of my comments and suggestions: 1. For building energy use, you could have weather-normalized the consumption data to account for "heating degree days" which would put colder climate on par with warmer ones. Some cities' buildings have higher energy needs due to their climate, but those cities have done a lot to incentivize insulation and heat pumps (Boston, New York) 2. You mentioned that Burlington, VT (where I'm from) is powered by 100% renewable energy. While this is true, the majority of the energy comes from a scrap wood power plant that does NOT use CHP! So while the plant is renewable, there are still high carbon emissions and it's not nearly as efficient as it could be. The other major energy source is from a 100 year old dam on the Winooski River which Burlington simply bought the credits for to get to 100%. Not new energy, just newly credited to Burlington. All that being said, Burlington has a great building energy efficiency program! 3. I didn't see anything about water management - NY has a world-class system where New Yorkers pay a surcharge on their water bills which funds nutrient management on farms along the Hudson River! Other cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are pumping water out of the Colorado River at an unsustainable rate to feed their growth. 4. Glad to see that composting made the list, but what about agriculture in general? Some cities have great farmers markets, community gardens, and programs that bring in food from nearby towns. Overall, it's a real challenge to make a list like this, but I'm glad you provided your methodology and brought in some expert opinions. And ultimately, I think I agree with you anyway that New York is #1!
Call me overly proud of my new hometown but I think Chicago could actually be #1. A lot of care is being taken of our little river on both branches and our lakeshore. All the city's public buildings -- and these are some big buildings -- are powered (the city tells me anyway) by a solar farm in central Illinois. Gas is taxed at 42 cents / gallon by the state -- compare that to 31 cents by Wisconsin. We have many bikers and non-meat eaters (like yours truly). We have big community gardens. The CTA is great transit even if the elevators are urinated in sometimes (but New Yorkers must be used to that too). Granted, there's a lot of the city I haven't visited yet but I think it's fair to say we've made huge progress in the past 40 years.
Watching from Ames right now! CyRide (the bus system) is quite amazing for an American system, and is ultra-reliable. Free for students and centered on the campus. Top tier
I think a couple things were missed with Ames. One of the few places in the US to burn trash for energy and has a municipal electricity system with a community solar farm are the two I can think of right away.
@@TweezersUnlimited If one lives in Iowa and has MidAmerican as their energy provider, then they are getting over 85% of electricity from Wind turbines across the state. This is a reason we have a few data centers around. Some could have electric cars, but there still are many bike trails around to ride an Ebike instead. There is still work to be done in terms of agriculture production, but I think some green conscious individuals could have a good life in Ames, Iowa City, or Des Moines.
I’m sorry, Salt Lake City does have a composting program, it’s been in the city since 2013. It’s is ran by Salt Lake City in its 5 districts. (Taking out the suburbs in the southwest of the valley (which is already a different city))
nice to see the work behind the rating- it's definitely making me suspicious about the other 'most sustainable' awards I've seen out there. Thanks for a great vid :D
Yeah, no way Houston could be considered sustainable. Have you been there? It is the most sprawling, car dependent place I’ve ever been. And to get anywhere, you need to get on a highway, which is often 4, 6 or more lanes across. There is no zoning so when you buy a property, you can build almost anything you want. My first time driving in I thought I spied “downtown” three times. Turns out no, there’s just three different clusters of high rises.
Important point about brake dust… electric vehicles produce very little of it because they mostly use regenerative braking instead of using the brake pads. We have been using 100% electric vehicles for my business since 2009 and have done more than 400,000 miles between 4 vehicles and so far have only replaced one set of brake pads (fleet wide). Driving an EV and being gingerly about it can massively lower energy costs, reduce brake dust by more than 90% and I’d argue even reduce rubber wear due to a very low and balanced center of gravity. (We’re also getting about 30-40,000 miles per set of tires). All that aside, any opportunities to transition miles driven to micro mobility will be even more impactful.
NYC! I'm going to stan for Astoria Queens. High density but not via high rises, bike lanes, and easy access to the subway. NYC is also moving towards congestion pricing to reduce car usage even further
Really enjoyed this breakdown, and it was nice to see my hometown of Ithaca, NY on the list! However, we do have a composting program. It's a drop-site model instead of at-home pickup, but it's pretty well distributed throughout the community.
Great video concept! These sorts of rankings are so hard because there are so many confounding variables, and picking the statistics that accurately reflect the things we desire are often not measured, or are really hard to find.
It is NOT unfair to consider climate when you're looking at sustainable places to live. Just because it's natural instead of manmade does not mean it should be disqualified when looking at sustainability.
The idea that smaller but more dense housing is better for the climate than larger but fewer spread out homes is absurd. Also, the only reason hydro and nuclear technology is "controversial" is because they won't bring in a massive profit for private companies.
Truly such a great video that everyone could benefit from! Thanks for compiling the list and doing the work to create this. Ames Iowa was a shocker & Burlington already having 100% sustainable emissions is pretty incredible!
Love this! That said it’s sad Portland got immediately kicked out for gas in new construction - building code is preempted by the state! Obvs the state should follow suit, but holy moly dragging rural OR kicking and screaming into good policy is one of the hardest feats I can think of
You're right that preemption makes this whole thing much more complicated. Also rules out any cities like Austin, Texas, or other progressive cities in conservative states. Maybe I'll do a future video about it! Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
@@distilled-earth thanks for the thoughtful videos! This channel has been awesome so far. Preemptions are definitely a nuanced topic and one I think is worth exploring!
Los Angeles is the top solar energy producing metro in the country. Some studies have also shown LA metro as being one of the densest metros in the country despite its large geographic footprint. It's also built its public transportation network from practically non-existent 30 years ago, to now being the 3rd most extensive public rail network after NYC and Chicago (and surpassing Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, etc.). LA Metro subway and light rail lines, plus Metrolink commuter rail lines now serve a very large geographic area--5 LA conurbation counties: Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside. Due to LA being so geographically spread out its still not perfect, but much improved from 30 years ago. Post pandemic, both LA's extensive bus network and public rail passenger count also surpassed that of San Francisco's, by large measures. LA also banned gas stoves in new construction and nearly all homes use low flow showerheads, toilets, and faucets. And the metro has created miles and miles of new bike lanes, some dedicated like in Santa Monica and Pasadena or along rivers, some not. Still improving on that front. Also LA metro has for a long time had one of the highest EV, hybrid car use and trucks for business deliveries. Not perfect of course considering LA still has the busiest ports in the country and therefore diesel using trucks, but laws were passed to phase those out too recently. A lot if this has been achieved in the last 15 years and flies under the radar, so many people still have a concept of Los Angeles as it was in 1990 instead of 2023.
@LimitedWard I've visited both Boston and NYC. LA has had a lot going for it in numerous areas. Boston is nice, but it's also been a much smaller metro. What I am surprised on is NYC ranking so high. The public transportation and parks are about the only things going for it. NYC has actually outranked every other city, including LA, on having the worst traffic of any metro on and off for years, despite having the best public transport system. The narrow streets and density have also contributed to its poor sanitary practices where trash bags are piled on the sidewalks (rather than collected in bins), not only blocking pedestrians but contributing to that city having the worst rat/rodent issue in the U.S.
4:20 I disagree with this. I think that building a city in an ideal climate zone for humans is an important factor in determining its sustainability. Some of the grosses examples of unsustainable cities are the result of imposing humanity on a hostile environment (e.g., requiring the city to transport water, power, and food over long distances in order to support the population). If a city is located in an area that reduces its overall energy consumption and external dependencies, that by definition makes it a more sustainable city.
David Hsu's comment about EVs only eliminating half the emissions because of tires and brakes is inaccurate. BEVs use regenerative braking most of the time, which dramatically reduces the use of traditional friction brakes. Assuming brakes and tires are equal parts of the remaining 50%, then BEVs actually reduce more like 75% of vehicle pollution. By the way, you should look at Taos, NM.
Great job. Definitely very tough to make lists like this and it will never please everyone. My input: portion of waste diverted from landfill; % of renewable power generation; vegan population (at least vegetarian); availability & accessibility & affordability of public transport; portion of vehicles electric; building codes for energy efficiency; number of trees per capita (which can be counted against emissions); climate resiliency and DEI offices in place; etc. So many factors to consider!
I'm not surprised Philly didn't win, but I'm kind of surprised they didn't make it onto the list at all considering they have high transit ridership and a lot of green space. Plus, about 8% of Philadelphians walk to work.
The final result makes sense but how did LA finish so close while it's almost the exact opposite of NYC in terms of transportation? Denver also has a reputation of being a pretty car centric city.
Denver is definitely built for cars in almost all none historical areas. But the transportation is awesome, I lived there for several years with no vehicle at all and had no problem getting around on the buses and light rail. There's a bus route pretty much every other street, until you get pretty far into suburban sprawl. They also have many "Limited stops" busses on the more popular routes that only stop at the major intersections (instead of once a block like the regular line). I really wish Portland would adapt this concept. The limited busses were always super fast and 9/10 had the stop I wanted. However Boulder CO, is super walkable and is the only place I have seen that had "drive thrus" for bikes.
I have Chicago in the top 3 imo. It’s sustainable with tons of perks like NYC. Fossil fuels are needed in some areas due to crazy low temperatures around the lake. But walking, transportation, green environment, solar, etc not to mention wages are high, best food, tons of entertainment, amazing schools, etc I say Chicago top 3 imo
new orleans made the list for a minute! it has a way to go though! but, i currently live in brooklyn and bike/subway everywhere! nyc is progressively ahead of most places! it is also incredibly safe - i lived in new orleans, and nyc is much safer as crime goes!
New Orleans used to be even better with extensive streetcar networks, but alas car lobbyists ruined that in a lot of cities. Although, as much as I love New Orleans from how green it is to the beautiful French architecture, any city that might be under water in about 25 years can't really top a sustainability list...
I'm glad you're in a safer place. (I don't know Brooklyn well but my mom worked there for a while and I think it rubbed off on her) New Orleans is fascinating, there's some great literature inspired by it, but there's no goddamn way I'm going there these days. It never seems to be cooler than 80 degrees at any time of year and Drew Brees is not enough to make me feel safe from gun violence there.
@Winspur1982 lol I went to New Orleans this past January and had a ball ! Food , drinks , t shirts , street cars and ww2 museum plus Mardi gras world ( big warehouse) showing floats . Go in the winter 😉 b4 Mardi gras
@@djack915 You chose the coolest possible month, of course ... I'm glad you had a good time. I went to Albuquerque in January 2021 and loved that. I do like shrimp but New Mexico has amazing food too.
Nyc has been working on a compost program for about 4 years now. They actually placed a permanent compost bin on my block just recently and I do not live in a wealthy or centrally located neighborhood. They are also working on making some bus routes free as well as implementing very high tolls for cars to drive into the season. They are alO implementing more and more bike lanes and closing down roads to turn them into pedestrian walkways.
Existing nuclear and hydro is a good thing in NY and definitely should stay. (The primary costs/damages have already been occured and early removal will only do more harm than good) New construction of both is more complicated, as nuclear takes a long time to build do to the very necessary regulations on the technology, and most of the good hydro has already been built, and we are alot less willing to destroy a river with new large dams than we were in the 50s. Fortunately solar and wind are both great for NY. Solar is mainly dependent on total sunlight, and in the winter the solar panels are more efficient due to the cold. The great lakes and Atlantic are both ideal candidates for wind power due to being open water. (I also hope that we eventually reach a point where we can use our existing hydro as batteries for new solar & wind, its already built and doesn't have any of the downsides of lithium battery storage)
Something huge that you didn't go over is water. Water use vs rainfall. Water sources, ect. Fresh water is actually a hugely limited resource that we are using like crazy.
The irony is that there are old towns/cities with mixed use buildings, walkable sidewalks, room for biking that are already very efficient. They knew how to do this years ago. All we have to do is enhance /tweak what works.
capitalism demands perpetually-increased consumption. American cities have been designed to feed this need for profits (via car-centric design) rather than what works for people's health and happiness.
Ppl too often want bigger, more. Resulting in sprawl so they can drive their giant Tahoe to their large single family home. Also there was “white flight” that saw ppl leaving urban/dense cities and a boom in suburban life. Basically everything is built around cars, older cities weren’t.
I grew up in Houston, so when the intro mentioned Houston, I snorted. I have since moved to San Francisco. I have wandered around San Francisco more than I did in Houston. I, now, realize that Houston is harder for me to explore because how lost can one get in a car?
I’m proud to say that as a Brooklynite that NYC is pretty sustainable, but living here is extremely expensive and while it’s gotten better it is still the dirtiest city I’ve ever seen. The fact that Philly is cleaner says something
Tacoma, Washington has a composting program, AND the second largest city park in the country: Point Defiance. We have many green spaces disbursed throughout the city, Many parts of the city are fairly walkable, and we are working on our public transportation system...
Your videos are well produced, edited, scripted, and logical. The lighting, levels, audio stingers, and jokes are on point. I love watching them with the repetitive exception of your robotic hand emphases! I can't unsee them! I think it would be more natural if you just let yourself be a little more still, and save them for the important parts, or do more varied gestures. Just a thought and keep on putting out these great videos.
So much can be done and it's great to see what is already being implemented. We bought a piece of land to build an example of how people can live and work very sustainably in a village near Berlin, but we don't receive enough funding and we absolutely need money to repair the roof of the main building so that we can, among other things can put a solar system on it.
A sustainable city is measured by how well it colloborates with the environment it's in. A sustainable desert city will look different from a sustainable temperate city.
Your ultimate winner may seem obvious and boring, especially to those of us in the urbanism space, but I definitely it was the correct one. Kudos for being so thorough on this though!
By far and away the two largest avenues of energy consumption, and therefore emissions, are transportation and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, but the bulk of this is really just heating). NYC wins hands down primarily because of these two factors. NYC residents drive the least of all Americans and are the most likely to live in large multiunit structures which are vastly more efficient to heat and cool, even though NYC is in a climate zone where heating and cooling are necessary.
Another point for NYC is they're planning to make residential composting mandatory next year. Most neighborhoods already have the compost bins now, but its only voluntarily used. It'll be interesting learning curve though, I still have neighbors who regularly stick styrofoam in the plastic recycling bin.
I'm surprised that DC didn't score higher on some of these metrics. Proud to see it on the public transportation list and the green spaces. I know that 10 years ago DC had one of the highest trees per person ratio.
Hmm… one note. With regenerative braking on electric cars, you have one pedal driving, which virtually eliminates brake pad dust/ pollution. That with no gas engine is very significant.
One sustainability benefit denser cities have is less utilities runs such as piping, conduit, etc. Maintenance of suburban sprawl is so costly simply from single family - spread out housing
As much as I love SLC, it's infamously had some serious air quality problems, especially around the winter as a consequence of the lake effect. It's also pretty spread out, if you're considering the metropolitan area and not just the city limits.
Great video. Thank you for taking a systematic approach to ranking these cities. For future videos some simple graphics would add a lot to compare the green space square ft for ex.
Phoenix and any other city under 40 degrees latitude need to put white roof requirements into place. Not just roads but houses and commercial buildings need white roofing at those warm latitudes.
There is absolutely nothing unexpected about this result. David Owen's book, "Green Metropolis" was published in 2009, and it was actually an expansion of his original article "Green Manhattan", published in The New Yorker magazine in October 2004, on this very topic. As Owen notes in "Green Metropolis", the average Vermonter uses 3.5x as much gasoline as the average NYC resident-545 gallons/year compared to 146 for all NYC residents, and only 90 gallons/year for Manhattan residents. Vermont ranks 11th is per-capita gasoline consumption, while New York State ranks dead last, entirely due to the low level of consumption by NYC residents. I am a native of NYC who now resides in Vermont, but I live in the center of town, and do not own a motor vehicle. My primary transportation is an electric bicycle, I have no air conditioning in my home, and keep my furnace set to 64°F in Winter.
If you'd like to learn more about NYC being sustainable, read "Green Metropolis" by David Owen. It's a love letter to the city and stands in defense of it
Remember that demographics matter too. Tiny apartments are great unless you have kids. You don't want to inadvertently encourage cities to discourage a growing or at least sustainable population.
Real estate developers are straight up doing that here in NYC most of the new buildings are basically only made for 1-2 people & not families. Its really infuriating while they price the working class out.All they are focused on is Rent Seeking & using housing as a commodity & not a necessity
I've lived in New York City for 24 years, so my main reaction to this video is yay! right on! So I almost hate to mention my secondary reaction, which is, Do we really still get such a high proportion of our energy from nuclear power after the Indian Point nuclear plant was decommissioned two years ago?
No housing available, especially apartments for those who want/need a smaller space. No jobs unless you live on a farm or work in the oil industry. Miles and miles from anywhere with no public transportation of any kind to get there so any gains achieved are wiped out by travel of both the people there and goods shipped there.
The population size of nyc alone disqualifies it for me. The sheer amount of material goods consumed by that city is not okay, not to mention it requires a whole state to keep running. That hydro power is diverted from niagara falls, the water is siphoned from the catskills, and the resources needed to build it in the first place scarred the entire state. I worked in environmental in ny state, and trust me that city is sustained at major cost.
curios, with places like nevada that are in a desert climate and where i'll assume grass doesn't grow very easy, would lots of green spaces even be realistic ? Especially with the water crisis going on in those states(nevada, socal, y arizona)
We Americans need smaller refrigerators with all that food waste Edit:. If you look all lost waking around in New York, a helpful New Yorker will offer you directions. That's a sustainable practice.
You list has college towns for commuting, if you look you probably can not have a car on campus until a certain criteria is met, and in college most kids walk to class.
NYC may be sustainable but it is also one of the fastest warming places on the planet (outside of the poles) and will likely reach 5° warmer before the whole globe reaches 3°. While I live here and agree it is one of the best places to live green, there is a lot to be addressed and people shouldn’t just pick up and more here for some American green renaissance. All cities in our country and the world can do so much more and if every city starts implementing policies for green infrastructure than we will be much more prepared to slow down the rate of heating of our planet. I am also not telling people not to move here just that there is so much to do and every city needs dedicated people who want to make a change!
I wonder if this list will change given how a recent court decision found that local ordinances banning natural gas installations in new buildings was just overturned as unconstitutional…
@4:18 Judge cities based on their climate zone, it is absolutely fair. The whole point of this is to do research of what city is most sustainable, not which city is trying the hardest to be sustainable.
I can't buy into the cities strictly because of their density. A family of four squished into a tiny apartment is crazy. First I have never lived in a city neither have my ancestors. Glad some people like cities and leave more open space for wildlife, farming etc.
You've never lived in a city, so you really have no idea how a family of four living in an apartment lives. My family has lived in NYC for 101 years. First of all, not every family in NYC lives in an apartment, and not every apartment is "tiny". One of my high school friends had a two floor penthouse apartment in Greenwich Village. There are large apartments and small apartments.
I think adding sustainable water sources as a criteria especially as water quality becomes a prevalent issue in a deteriorating infrastructure. You might find that Colorado when cross referenced with population, knocks it off your list. It would also put a red flag on Phoenix I believe, it’s in a desert after all. Great content, always good to continue the conversation around climate ❤
Breaking up Los Angeles and Santa Monica is a weird thing to do, since it's basically connected in every feasible way, and no one here really doesn't just say "I live in LA". But I guess it's LA's fault for being broken up into a ton of strangely incorporated cities
For every floor added to the height of a building is that much more space to be left to farm or for forestation. I've always known NYC was saving the land elsewhere by using air instead of land to achieve its purposes.
I was waiting for a Burlington mention!!! Yeah i work with the city on their sustainability. For the past 3 years Burlington has had free public transit and a lot of green space!!! Plus UVM is introducing geothermal on campus!
A new town near me was billing itself as being sustainable. Was in the planning stages for years and looked cool. Was called "Babcock Ranch." Fast forward to now, and it's just another suburb, but it's ✨solar powered.✨ As if that offsets the horrible car-centric planning, golf courses, and bicycle gutter lanes at all.
Nothing like a solar-powered suburb!
@@sdorn Yeah, cause it's more inland and built to modern standards regarding single family housing. Doesn't change the issue of it being car-centric.
@@Stevie-J Maybe future cities wouldn’t be car-less but less cars. Smaller vehicles that wouldn’t be used on a daily basis as you’d have access to all your amenities within a walking distance or biking distance. And if you wanted to go to another town or city, why not take the train that’s been made efficient like the Japanese ones that come every 5-10 minutes. Cars are not necessary for living, maybe in todays world yes, because we’ve literally built our country around cars. But recognizing that, we can begin to make changes in a different direction.
@@Stevie-J, yes, of course; free to buy petrol, tires, insurance, maintenance, parking fees, sit in traffic, look for a parking-space; so very, very ‘free’.
@@distilled-earth can you Made video about Soviet microdistrict vs USA Suburbia
You missed an important component of sustainability: where is the water coming from and how is it being reused
I have said this before for the reasons you mentioned. NYC is the most environmentally friendly city in the USA because it’s sustainable by design. Many other cities are trying to greenwash fundamentally environmentally unfriendly places.
New Yorker here. I agree with you, but it is crazy sometimes to look out at the skyline and remember that it was once a lush forest island, home to many indigenous people. I love NYC and it is a true testament to the definition of a city, but it is always important to remember the vastly different world that was forced to die.
Ironically, NYC is also obscenely corrupt and hostile to small businesses and they're doing very little to actually address homelessness and unsustainable real estate costs(both residential and commercial). Also, the NYC Subway is disgusting.
They might fit the bill, but they have a lot of work to do, to actually make it a nice place to live.
Really? I've been to fewer cities dirtier than NYC. Figure in the waste they generate and have to export to land fills..
Yeah some of the "techs" here are interesting enough but 1000x better than using innovative technology to improve performance is not needing to use them in the first place... dont need high performance pavement coverings if you just have far less pavement.
New Yorker here and New York was mostly swamp , brooks and streams . Also most buildings use steam to power A/C , heating and govt / private cars , buses etc are converting to hybrid or electric.
isn't Las Vegas only "green" because of it's golf courses? which is a terrible water loss
Nah it’s green because the city limits area of the city is ridiculously large and includes many mountain parks
We surprisingly have a lot of parks in Vegas. One good thing about this city.
the state of nevada and las vegas in particular actually recycle almost all of their water. when we talk about colorado river water rights they are actually extremely sustainable. they still have a long way to go in other ways tho
Las Vegas is one of the best cities at conserving water in the US. As mentioned, they're all in on water recycling, but they also have an active _ban_ on non-functional grass. So yes, it might have golf courses, but it's phasing out residential lawns - which are a significantly greater source of water loss in most cities than a handful of golf courses.
I'm concerned that "Design Education" has such a misinformed opinion about Las Vegas.
One transportation metric I really like is vehicle miles traveled per capita. It takes into account carpooling, transit, walking, biking, all into one stat. I think it does a good job of rewarding the shorter trips and trip mode diversity that come from compact land use, which really gets to the heart of transportation sector emissions. The best (lowest) performers on that list include some cities that didn’t appear in this ranking, including San Juan, Puerto Rico and (my city!) Pittsburgh, PA
Didn't realize Pittsburgh had such low VMTs. Thanks for sharing!
no way! 2 of my fav cities! But yeah PGH has great bike lanes and micromobility options and a fairly solid bus system for a city of it's size (300k, #40ish in the country)
I was surprised neither Pittsburgh nor Philly were on this list, but maybe I'm just biased lol
Do you have a link to that list? I'd love to see where other cities rank!
I also want to see were Portland OR hits on the list. I haven't had a car here for years.
New nuclear plants take decades and expensive but governments should keep running existing nuclear plants.
I agree
Definitely keep the existing ones going, the current most likely replacement for a decommissioned nuclear plant is a new gas plant. Nuclear almost exclusively serves baseload power, and only coal, nuclear, gas, and hydro can serve baseload, and all of them have downsides. (Atleast as of now)
Edit: typo
We should also be fast tracking development of small modular reactors
@@evanbarnes9984 They don't exist.
I disagree with keeping old ones running. I worked in nuclear power and there are a couple of things that happen called neutron and hydrogen embrittlement. Neutron embrittlement is a process where released high speed neutrons can directly dislodge atoms within a steel’s crystalline lattice with the accumulating damage leaving the steel in a state reminiscent of Swiss cheese over time. Hydrogen embrittlement is a process where released hydrogen radicals can infuse into and dislocate atoms within the steel’s crystalline lattice which also degrades the tensile strength of steel over time and it does so more quickly under high temperatures and pressures. Both of these modes embrittle steel and the nature of nuclear power ensures that the ideal environment to create embrittlement failures exists within every PWR reactor design which is why nuclear reactor core pressure vessels have a predetermined lifespan. Extending them by government decree simply because we want it is rolling some rather large dice.
Madison Wisconsin is built around its great bike infrastructure, with tons of dedicated bike paths that help bikers cross into normally inaccessible places. It's also remarkably cheap to live in, given its walkability.
What for 3 months a year? And what do you do when you have a family? Or want to go out for dinner and drinks at a new restaurant in town? Why do you both people constantly lie to yourself?
@@yourgooglemeister6745 Nope, you can stack layers and get boots (cheaper than a car, also comfy). New restaurants in town are exactly that, IN TOWN. Not a 15 minute drive out. I've already signed the lease, and can't wait to start finally living a life that rewards my lifestyle.
@@yourgooglemeister6745 Actually all year. Winter mean winter sports and activities which is great for the 6 mo of winter.😀
@@isaacsteen4828 Sounds like a shitty like to me
@@yourgooglemeister6745 different people in different climates do different things. shocker, i know. 💀
Great video as always! However, I have few suggestions.
1) Sustainability is not just environmental, it also includes social and economic aspects. Therefore, I think it's important to consider things such as, housing affordability etc.
2) Different cities define their urban boundary in different ways. For example, some cities do not include most of their suburbs within their boundaries while some do. So it not always an apples to apples comparison.
Your first point is more of an environmental justice concept rather than sustainability per se
Ironically if you are paying $3k a month to live in a shoebox you can at least pat yourself on the back and say your being environmentally friendly.
@@GreatGazoo8 Exactly. For home ownership, the purchase price per square foot in Manhattan is $1600. Los Angeles is $550 and Chicago is $240.
I live in Chicago. If I moved to Manhattan and I wanted a condo for the same price, I would go from 800 sq feet to 120. My current bedroom is 130 sq feet (10x13). That's called living in a boarding house because I would have to share a bathroom and kitchen.
@Earth+ PEDANTIC POLICE ALERT! Neither of your arguments are valid. Please learn how to use dictionaries and encyclopedias.
1) This video is about environmental sustainability, not livability.
2) Absolutely NO city includes the suburbs in "their" boundaries. The phrase you are looking for is "metropolitan area". He never mentioned suburbs and repeatedly mentioned city laws/policies/infrastructure. He made valid comparisons.
@@Nyx773 1) The title says 'sustainable'. Sustainability includes environmental, social, and economic. Not just environmental.
2) Some cities does not have most of their residents living within the city boundary. While some cities do have most of their residents living within the city boundary. So when you compare two cities, you need to consider that as well. Otherwise, you give advantage to one city, where they exclude most of their population..
With regards to green spaces, I think the quality of the spaces matters a lot when determining their effectiveness. There are tons of parks in the US that are just large empty fields of water-hungry grass that provide little to no shade or cooling effect. Even when these parks include trees, they tend to be a monoculture, which harms biodiversity in the region. At the opposite extreme, there are places like Forest Park in Portland, OR which is literally a forest within the city limits that you can hike through.
Forest Park is awesome
Street trees are also important, even if they're not typically considered "green space".
@@karikling6751 agreed. Unfortunately around me they're cutting them down because the homeless like to congregate under them, which makes walking in the Phoenix sun even more brutal.
In Flagstaff, the FUTS (Flagstaff Urban Trail System) chains through most of the city to make it easy to walk somewhere that's not all pavement. The trail often intersects with pavement where it's easily accessed from the surrounding neighborhoods, but there are also a lot of trees and natural areas throughout. It would be difficult to find housing in town that isn't within two miles of a hiking trail.
Of course that's not to suggest the city is ultra sustainable, but it's awesome to have access to those things and a community that cares
@@danieldaniels7571 Phoenix has got to be brutal without trees, especially in the summer. Here in Philly, they've decided middle and upper class neighborhoods get street trees, but lower income neighborhoods don't. I live in a safe but lower income neighborhood, and our streets are barren. However, the streets in center and south Philly, where most of the upper class people live, are lined with beautiful trees.
Literally choked on my drink when you said cooler pavements lowered the climate temperature by 10° until I realised it was °F
Glad to see Oakland in the top 10. We’re rapidly expanding our bike network (15 mile greenway and bike lanes in another major transit corridor) and building out transit oriented development.
Just ignore the crime and homelessness
@@cgmason7568 what a cool answer considering that's not what the video or commenter were talking about at all.
Right wingers shut up about other people's problems and fix their own. Difficulty: impossible
@@eragonship4929 so just pretend that bikes are the pressing problem for Oakland and it's residents. Makes sense
@@cgmason7568 no Oakland definitely has problems with wealth distribution but it's very interesting that right wing Texans keep dogwhistling crime in Oakland under a video about top environmentally friendly cities in the country. I'm sure you really care about the people of Oakland mhm
@@cgmason7568 Yeah believe it or not people who live in the city care about having different transportation options, and people in California care about not being cooked alive due to climate change.
NYC, like most cities, has "exported" it's unsustainability across it''s rivers to other jurisdictions. Does it count if New Jersey is pumping out pollutants to sustain New York? Should it count if barges full of trash are dumped in the ocean? I don't think so...
And Salt lake City is one of the most environmentally destructive in the US ... the West will soon be seeing a major disaster with the Great Salt Lake being dried up to water green lawns in the desert. These lists need to look beyond the surface of what cities SAY they are doing.
but if it’s applicable to all cities, then it isn’t really relevant, is it? of course my point isn’t that it’s fine or we shouldn’t worry about it, but more that blaming a societal issue which everyone has to work on is a good general point about sustainability but kind of a bad one when it just comes to ranking cities that all do that against each ither
@@linusoppenheimer9248 Sustainable means so much more. Where's the food coming from, what about their water supply? You need to look at what comes in and out of the city and how it's delivered. I'd be interested in the per capita fossel fuel usage.
@@nelsondrueding6726 again, i agree, though i’d point out ny’s water supply is sourced from some reservoirs upstate and is very clean and sustainable. that said, the same is true of any city.
You'd have a point if New Jersey was a large polluter, but per capita they rank relatively low.
The loghter colored pavements in Phoenix is one of those things that makes you go "Wait why didn't we think of this before?". Such a simple and easy idea with real measured benefits
Do you remember when there was talk about using solar to light up the actual road (not specifically Phoenix)? I haven't seen or heard of any new developments on that technology.
Bill Clinton released a book in 2011 (Back to Work: Why We Need A Smart Government For a Strong Economy) where he advocated painting the black, flat-topped roofs, on so many of the commercial buildings, white or some other reflective color for exactly this reason. If you increase the albedo (the reflective qualities) of a surface, more of the light will be reflected back and less will be absorbed and turned into heat.
He didn't originate the idea; he got it from someone else. But it was well-known over a decade ago. And it's a very simple, very cheap modification to make.
solar roadways was a scam the whole time - but painting buildings reflective colours has always been a thing in desert cultures. The issue with 20th and maybe early 21st century Americanization was the thinking that with enough cheap energy the exact same mode of living could be used everywhere and for every culture on the planet.
My preference is for heat-sensitive paint that changes colour but is ultra reflective when its hot out to be put on houses, with a darker colour being the natural colour when its colder outside so more heat is absorbed. It's been shown that ultra-reflective paints can actually cool to below ambient temperatures as they beam infrared radiation back into space, which means they're effectively free air conditioning (plus the added benefit of beaming infrared into space means that we're actively subtracting heat from our planet)
@@Meower68 yeah paint is cheap and very effective, they couldn't do it for all buildings but they could just do it for federal buildings and show the savings in the long run on things like air conditioning and then private businesses will follow suit
I mean this is nothing new... Cultures in desert climates have been doing this for thousands of years. ALL answers lie with the past. All architecture and design today is a joke. A building can be certified LEED, etc., but guess what it's not built to last more than 60 years before looking like s*it. It's ALL about money, and very few are humble enough to acknowledge that the past is the future.
Ah, lovely surprise to see my current city of Burlington VT make a surprise appearance on the list! This is one of my favourite places I've ever lived, and its so walkable, with a great bus service and rail liks to New York City. Its also got some lovely green spaces and cycle infrastructure. Also the best Womens hockey team regardless of what the playoff results tell you (lets go Catamounts!!)
Hell yeah, bro. I love it in Burlington.
Seems quite a bit more sustainable than NYC tbh
It's a tough list to make. I've lived in some of these cities and I studied and worked in sustainable policy for years, so here are some of my comments and suggestions:
1. For building energy use, you could have weather-normalized the consumption data to account for "heating degree days" which would put colder climate on par with warmer ones. Some cities' buildings have higher energy needs due to their climate, but those cities have done a lot to incentivize insulation and heat pumps (Boston, New York)
2. You mentioned that Burlington, VT (where I'm from) is powered by 100% renewable energy. While this is true, the majority of the energy comes from a scrap wood power plant that does NOT use CHP! So while the plant is renewable, there are still high carbon emissions and it's not nearly as efficient as it could be. The other major energy source is from a 100 year old dam on the Winooski River which Burlington simply bought the credits for to get to 100%. Not new energy, just newly credited to Burlington. All that being said, Burlington has a great building energy efficiency program!
3. I didn't see anything about water management - NY has a world-class system where New Yorkers pay a surcharge on their water bills which funds nutrient management on farms along the Hudson River! Other cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are pumping water out of the Colorado River at an unsustainable rate to feed their growth.
4. Glad to see that composting made the list, but what about agriculture in general? Some cities have great farmers markets, community gardens, and programs that bring in food from nearby towns.
Overall, it's a real challenge to make a list like this, but I'm glad you provided your methodology and brought in some expert opinions. And ultimately, I think I agree with you anyway that New York is #1!
Call me overly proud of my new hometown but I think Chicago could actually be #1. A lot of care is being taken of our little river on both branches and our lakeshore. All the city's public buildings -- and these are some big buildings -- are powered (the city tells me anyway) by a solar farm in central Illinois. Gas is taxed at 42 cents / gallon by the state -- compare that to 31 cents by Wisconsin. We have many bikers and non-meat eaters (like yours truly). We have big community gardens. The CTA is great transit even if the elevators are urinated in sometimes (but New Yorkers must be used to that too). Granted, there's a lot of the city I haven't visited yet but I think it's fair to say we've made huge progress in the past 40 years.
Watching from Ames right now! CyRide (the bus system) is quite amazing for an American system, and is ultra-reliable. Free for students and centered on the campus. Top tier
Iowa, Kansas & Nebraska feel like states with huge sustainability potential.
I think a couple things were missed with Ames. One of the few places in the US to burn trash for energy and has a municipal electricity system with a community solar farm are the two I can think of right away.
@@TweezersUnlimited If one lives in Iowa and has MidAmerican as their energy provider, then they are getting over 85% of electricity from Wind turbines across the state. This is a reason we have a few data centers around. Some could have electric cars, but there still are many bike trails around to ride an Ebike instead. There is still work to be done in terms of agriculture production, but I think some green conscious individuals could have a good life in Ames, Iowa City, or Des Moines.
I’m sorry, Salt Lake City does have a composting program, it’s been in the city since 2013. It’s is ran by Salt Lake City in its 5 districts. (Taking out the suburbs in the southwest of the valley (which is already a different city))
This doesn't surprise me, NYC is in a league of its own when it comes to American public transportation.
nice to see the work behind the rating- it's definitely making me suspicious about the other 'most sustainable' awards I've seen out there. Thanks for a great vid :D
Thanks for watching!!
Yeah, no way Houston could be considered sustainable. Have you been there? It is the most sprawling, car dependent place I’ve ever been. And to get anywhere, you need to get on a highway, which is often 4, 6 or more lanes across. There is no zoning so when you buy a property, you can build almost anything you want. My first time driving in I thought I spied “downtown” three times. Turns out no, there’s just three different clusters of high rises.
Important point about brake dust… electric vehicles produce very little of it because they mostly use regenerative braking instead of using the brake pads. We have been using 100% electric vehicles for my business since 2009 and have done more than 400,000 miles between 4 vehicles and so far have only replaced one set of brake pads (fleet wide). Driving an EV and being gingerly about it can massively lower energy costs, reduce brake dust by more than 90% and I’d argue even reduce rubber wear due to a very low and balanced center of gravity. (We’re also getting about 30-40,000 miles per set of tires). All that aside, any opportunities to transition miles driven to micro mobility will be even more impactful.
NYC! I'm going to stan for Astoria Queens. High density but not via high rises, bike lanes, and easy access to the subway.
NYC is also moving towards congestion pricing to reduce car usage even further
Really enjoyed this breakdown, and it was nice to see my hometown of Ithaca, NY on the list! However, we do have a composting program. It's a drop-site model instead of at-home pickup, but it's pretty well distributed throughout the community.
Great video concept! These sorts of rankings are so hard because there are so many confounding variables, and picking the statistics that accurately reflect the things we desire are often not measured, or are really hard to find.
So glad that you added Burlington, VT!! My favorite small city
Edit: And at #6? Amazing
You can thank my wife!
It is NOT unfair to consider climate when you're looking at sustainable places to live. Just because it's natural instead of manmade does not mean it should be disqualified when looking at sustainability.
The idea that smaller but more dense housing is better for the climate than larger but fewer spread out homes is absurd.
Also, the only reason hydro and nuclear technology is "controversial" is because they won't bring in a massive profit for private companies.
Truly such a great video that everyone could benefit from! Thanks for compiling the list and doing the work to create this. Ames Iowa was a shocker & Burlington already having 100% sustainable emissions is pretty incredible!
Love this! That said it’s sad Portland got immediately kicked out for gas in new construction - building code is preempted by the state!
Obvs the state should follow suit, but holy moly dragging rural OR kicking and screaming into good policy is one of the hardest feats I can think of
You're right that preemption makes this whole thing much more complicated. Also rules out any cities like Austin, Texas, or other progressive cities in conservative states. Maybe I'll do a future video about it!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
@@distilled-earth thanks for the thoughtful videos! This channel has been awesome so far.
Preemptions are definitely a nuanced topic and one I think is worth exploring!
I always liked how Portland zoning minimized sprawl. Is that overridden now?
Commiserates in Illinois
Policies of the big city is harmful to the rural agriculture communities. It is not one size fits all. -Klamath County resident
New York was my guess. Good to see it backed up with .. well, some kind of numbers :P
Good guess!
Really shocked to see Los Angeles tied with Boston! Would be curious as to a closer breakdown of that
Los Angeles is the top solar energy producing metro in the country. Some studies have also shown LA metro as being one of the densest metros in the country despite its large geographic footprint.
It's also built its public transportation network from practically non-existent 30 years ago, to now being the 3rd most extensive public rail network after NYC and Chicago (and surpassing Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, etc.).
LA Metro subway and light rail lines, plus Metrolink commuter rail lines now serve a very large geographic area--5 LA conurbation counties: Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside. Due to LA being so geographically spread out its still not perfect, but much improved from 30 years ago.
Post pandemic, both LA's extensive bus network and public rail passenger count also surpassed that of San Francisco's, by large measures.
LA also banned gas stoves in new construction and nearly all homes use low flow showerheads, toilets, and faucets. And the metro has created miles and miles of new bike lanes, some dedicated like in Santa Monica and Pasadena or along rivers, some not. Still improving on that front.
Also LA metro has for a long time had one of the highest EV, hybrid car use and trucks for business deliveries. Not perfect of course considering LA still has the busiest ports in the country and therefore diesel using trucks, but laws were passed to phase those out too recently.
A lot if this has been achieved in the last 15 years and flies under the radar, so many people still have a concept of Los Angeles as it was in 1990 instead of 2023.
Yeah idk how LA made it so high up. They fail on almost every metric apart from sustainable energy. Having lived in both cities, it's not even close.
@LimitedWard I've visited both Boston and NYC. LA has had a lot going for it in numerous areas. Boston is nice, but it's also been a much smaller metro.
What I am surprised on is NYC ranking so high. The public transportation and parks are about the only things going for it. NYC has actually outranked every other city, including LA, on having the worst traffic of any metro on and off for years, despite having the best public transport system.
The narrow streets and density have also contributed to its poor sanitary practices where trash bags are piled on the sidewalks (rather than collected in bins), not only blocking pedestrians but contributing to that city having the worst rat/rodent issue in the U.S.
4:20 I disagree with this. I think that building a city in an ideal climate zone for humans is an important factor in determining its sustainability. Some of the grosses examples of unsustainable cities are the result of imposing humanity on a hostile environment (e.g., requiring the city to transport water, power, and food over long distances in order to support the population). If a city is located in an area that reduces its overall energy consumption and external dependencies, that by definition makes it a more sustainable city.
David Hsu's comment about EVs only eliminating half the emissions because of tires and brakes is inaccurate. BEVs use regenerative braking most of the time, which dramatically reduces the use of traditional friction brakes. Assuming brakes and tires are equal parts of the remaining 50%, then BEVs actually reduce more like 75% of vehicle pollution.
By the way, you should look at Taos, NM.
Correction: Ithaca NY and the county in which it lies (Tompkins) does indeed have a good food waste composting program.
Ithaca does have a compost program! They don’t pick it up on your curb, but it is free to drop off at one of the many locations around the city!
Great job. Definitely very tough to make lists like this and it will never please everyone. My input: portion of waste diverted from landfill; % of renewable power generation; vegan population (at least vegetarian); availability & accessibility & affordability of public transport; portion of vehicles electric; building codes for energy efficiency; number of trees per capita (which can be counted against emissions); climate resiliency and DEI offices in place; etc. So many factors to consider!
I'm not surprised Philly didn't win, but I'm kind of surprised they didn't make it onto the list at all considering they have high transit ridership and a lot of green space. Plus, about 8% of Philadelphians walk to work.
Us need more bikepaths because BAM put a sidewalk next to it and your city automaticaly also becomes more walkable
The final result makes sense but how did LA finish so close while it's almost the exact opposite of NYC in terms of transportation? Denver also has a reputation of being a pretty car centric city.
Denver is definitely built for cars in almost all none historical areas. But the transportation is awesome, I lived there for several years with no vehicle at all and had no problem getting around on the buses and light rail. There's a bus route pretty much every other street, until you get pretty far into suburban sprawl. They also have many "Limited stops" busses on the more popular routes that only stop at the major intersections (instead of once a block like the regular line). I really wish Portland would adapt this concept. The limited busses were always super fast and 9/10 had the stop I wanted. However Boulder CO, is super walkable and is the only place I have seen that had "drive thrus" for bikes.
Easy. Los Angeles residents don't need to heat their homes. Heating is the second largest form of energy consumption after transportation.
I don’t know how Chicago didn’t AKD the green space list. It literally has miles and miles of parks along the lake.
I have Chicago in the top 3 imo. It’s sustainable with tons of perks like NYC. Fossil fuels are needed in some areas due to crazy low temperatures around the lake. But walking, transportation, green environment, solar, etc not to mention wages are high, best food, tons of entertainment, amazing schools, etc
I say Chicago top 3 imo
Maybe emissions are lower in NY per capita, but what about the total emissions?
new orleans made the list for a minute! it has a way to go though! but, i currently live in brooklyn and bike/subway everywhere! nyc is progressively ahead of most places! it is also incredibly safe - i lived in new orleans, and nyc is much safer as crime goes!
New Orleans used to be even better with extensive streetcar networks, but alas car lobbyists ruined that in a lot of cities. Although, as much as I love New Orleans from how green it is to the beautiful French architecture, any city that might be under water in about 25 years can't really top a sustainability list...
I'm glad you're in a safer place. (I don't know Brooklyn well but my mom worked there for a while and I think it rubbed off on her) New Orleans is fascinating, there's some great literature inspired by it, but there's no goddamn way I'm going there these days. It never seems to be cooler than 80 degrees at any time of year and Drew Brees is not enough to make me feel safe from gun violence there.
@Winspur1982 lol I went to New Orleans this past January and had a ball ! Food , drinks , t shirts , street cars and ww2 museum plus Mardi gras world ( big warehouse) showing floats . Go in the winter 😉 b4 Mardi gras
@@djack915 You chose the coolest possible month, of course ... I'm glad you had a good time. I went to Albuquerque in January 2021 and loved that. I do like shrimp but New Mexico has amazing food too.
@@Winspur1982 ok I might go to both places next winter
I would like your thoughts on whether piezoelectric power, especially sidewalks, would be sustainable in cities like Boston, DC, or Chicago.
It's definitely a good idea for some sidewalks in Chicago (I'm thinking about Randolph Street in the West Loop, it's our Champs - Elysées).
Nyc has been working on a compost program for about 4 years now. They actually placed a permanent compost bin on my block just recently and I do not live in a wealthy or centrally located neighborhood. They are also working on making some bus routes free as well as implementing very high tolls for cars to drive into the season. They are alO implementing more and more bike lanes and closing down roads to turn them into pedestrian walkways.
Existing nuclear and hydro is a good thing in NY and definitely should stay. (The primary costs/damages have already been occured and early removal will only do more harm than good)
New construction of both is more complicated, as nuclear takes a long time to build do to the very necessary regulations on the technology, and most of the good hydro has already been built, and we are alot less willing to destroy a river with new large dams than we were in the 50s.
Fortunately solar and wind are both great for NY. Solar is mainly dependent on total sunlight, and in the winter the solar panels are more efficient due to the cold. The great lakes and Atlantic are both ideal candidates for wind power due to being open water. (I also hope that we eventually reach a point where we can use our existing hydro as batteries for new solar & wind, its already built and doesn't have any of the downsides of lithium battery storage)
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
I’m Houstonian. The smell of car exhaust picks up in the summer. This is a car-centric Hell scape.
Something huge that you didn't go over is water. Water use vs rainfall. Water sources, ect. Fresh water is actually a hugely limited resource that we are using like crazy.
The irony is that there are old towns/cities with mixed use buildings, walkable sidewalks, room for biking that are already very efficient. They knew how to do this years ago. All we have to do is enhance /tweak what works.
capitalism demands perpetually-increased consumption. American cities have been designed to feed this need for profits (via car-centric design) rather than what works for people's health and happiness.
Ppl too often want bigger, more. Resulting in sprawl so they can drive their giant Tahoe to their large single family home. Also there was “white flight” that saw ppl leaving urban/dense cities and a boom in suburban life. Basically everything is built around cars, older cities weren’t.
I had just lost hope that Burlington would show up when you added it to the list. Thank goodness it made it! I love Burlington.
I grew up in Houston, so when the intro mentioned Houston, I snorted.
I have since moved to San Francisco. I have wandered around San Francisco more than I did in Houston. I, now, realize that Houston is harder for me to explore because how lost can one get in a car?
At 7:05, notice that only one city is without a state designation-New Orleans, cause everyone knows where it is.
I love Burlington, but until we do something about zoning, we'll always be behind in sustainability and social equity.
Cost of living and affordability should be considered too. To be "green" is not feasible for those with financial and economic disparities
I’m proud to say that as a Brooklynite that NYC is pretty sustainable, but living here is extremely expensive and while it’s gotten better it is still the dirtiest city I’ve ever seen. The fact that Philly is cleaner says something
Tacoma, Washington has a composting program, AND the second largest city park in the country: Point Defiance. We have many green spaces disbursed throughout the city, Many parts of the city are fairly walkable, and we are working on our public transportation system...
I live in Ames Iowa and the bus system here is incredible
it's too bad that the number 1 city is so expensive to live in, most people can't afford to move there.
Your videos are well produced, edited, scripted, and logical. The lighting, levels, audio stingers, and jokes are on point. I love watching them with the repetitive exception of your robotic hand emphases! I can't unsee them! I think it would be more natural if you just let yourself be a little more still, and save them for the important parts, or do more varied gestures. Just a thought and keep on putting out these great videos.
So much can be done and it's great to see what is already being implemented. We bought a piece of land to build an example of how people can live and work very sustainably in a village near Berlin, but we don't receive enough funding and we absolutely need money to repair the roof of the main building so that we can, among other things can put a solar system on it.
A sustainable city is measured by how well it colloborates with the environment it's in. A sustainable desert city will look different from a sustainable temperate city.
Your ultimate winner may seem obvious and boring, especially to those of us in the urbanism space, but I definitely it was the correct one. Kudos for being so thorough on this though!
you said it: cities with fairer climate consume less energy. it might not be fair, but is true. and it affects greatly the carbon footprint
Being from the Bay, I’m super glad to see San Francisco made the list! 🎉🎉🎉
By far and away the two largest avenues of energy consumption, and therefore emissions, are transportation and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, but the bulk of this is really just heating). NYC wins hands down primarily because of these two factors. NYC residents drive the least of all Americans and are the most likely to live in large multiunit structures which are vastly more efficient to heat and cool, even though NYC is in a climate zone where heating and cooling are necessary.
Another point for NYC is they're planning to make residential composting mandatory next year. Most neighborhoods already have the compost bins now, but its only voluntarily used. It'll be interesting learning curve though, I still have neighbors who regularly stick styrofoam in the plastic recycling bin.
I'm surprised that DC didn't score higher on some of these metrics. Proud to see it on the public transportation list and the green spaces. I know that 10 years ago DC had one of the highest trees per person ratio.
Just left NYC. I completely agree with this conclusion. If I didn't want to live in my small town in Missouri, I'd move to NYC in a heartbeat.
Hmm… one note. With regenerative braking on electric cars, you have one pedal driving, which virtually eliminates brake pad dust/ pollution. That with no gas engine is very significant.
I’m very excited about the new micro or modular nuclear reactors. They seem like a solution to the initial investment of reactor power
They are corporate PR campaigns. As long as media gives them the attention they need, businesses will keep doing this.
One thing you left out that would be useful to consider are water usage. Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely fail on that.
Just came back from Boston and I it was so nice with many bike paths.
One sustainability benefit denser cities have is less utilities runs such as piping, conduit, etc. Maintenance of suburban sprawl is so costly simply from single family - spread out housing
As much as I love SLC, it's infamously had some serious air quality problems, especially around the winter as a consequence of the lake effect. It's also pretty spread out, if you're considering the metropolitan area and not just the city limits.
Great video. Thank you for taking a systematic approach to ranking these cities. For future videos some simple graphics would add a lot to compare the green space square ft for ex.
Phoenix and any other city under 40 degrees latitude need to put white roof requirements into place. Not just roads but houses and commercial buildings need white roofing at those warm latitudes.
There is absolutely nothing unexpected about this result. David Owen's book, "Green Metropolis" was published in 2009, and it was actually an expansion of his original article "Green Manhattan", published in The New Yorker magazine in October 2004, on this very topic. As Owen notes in "Green Metropolis", the average Vermonter uses 3.5x as much gasoline as the average NYC resident-545 gallons/year compared to 146 for all NYC residents, and only 90 gallons/year for Manhattan residents. Vermont ranks 11th is per-capita gasoline consumption, while New York State ranks dead last, entirely due to the low level of consumption by NYC residents. I am a native of NYC who now resides in Vermont, but I live in the center of town, and do not own a motor vehicle. My primary transportation is an electric bicycle, I have no air conditioning in my home, and keep my furnace set to 64°F in Winter.
Why is Portland not on any of these lists???
If you'd like to learn more about NYC being sustainable, read "Green Metropolis" by David Owen. It's a love letter to the city and stands in defense of it
Remember that demographics matter too. Tiny apartments are great unless you have kids. You don't want to inadvertently encourage cities to discourage a growing or at least sustainable population.
Real estate developers are straight up doing that here in NYC most of the new buildings are basically only made for 1-2 people & not families. Its really infuriating while they price the working class out.All they are focused on is Rent Seeking & using housing as a commodity & not a necessity
People have raised children in NYC apartments for centuries. Try again.
That "bing" noise was painfully loud for some reason. Wonderful video though.
Houston sustainable? Lmao. The transport related energy use per capita is in Houston 7-8x higher than in European or Asian cities !
I've lived in New York City for 24 years, so my main reaction to this video is yay! right on! So I almost hate to mention my secondary reaction, which is, Do we really still get such a high proportion of our energy from nuclear power after the Indian Point nuclear plant was decommissioned two years ago?
Greensburg, Kansas. Town was destroyed by and E5 tornado in May 2007, and built back green.
No housing available, especially apartments for those who want/need a smaller space. No jobs unless you live on a farm or work in the oil industry. Miles and miles from anywhere with no public transportation of any kind to get there so any gains achieved are wiped out by travel of both the people there and goods shipped there.
Fantastic video, thank you! So interesting and great takes
The population size of nyc alone disqualifies it for me. The sheer amount of material goods consumed by that city is not okay, not to mention it requires a whole state to keep running. That hydro power is diverted from niagara falls, the water is siphoned from the catskills, and the resources needed to build it in the first place scarred the entire state.
I worked in environmental in ny state, and trust me that city is sustained at major cost.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Per capita, NYC residents use less of every resource you can name than any other Americans.
curios, with places like nevada that are in a desert climate and where i'll assume grass doesn't grow very easy, would lots of green spaces even be realistic ? Especially with the water crisis going on in those states(nevada, socal, y arizona)
We Americans need smaller refrigerators with all that food waste
Edit:. If you look all lost waking around in New York, a helpful New Yorker will offer you directions. That's a sustainable practice.
You list has college towns for commuting, if you look you probably can not have a car on campus until a certain criteria is met, and in college most kids walk to class.
As a Texan, I am deeply saddened that our state lacks so much of these criteria
NYC may be sustainable but it is also one of the fastest warming places on the planet (outside of the poles) and will likely reach 5° warmer before the whole globe reaches 3°. While I live here and agree it is one of the best places to live green, there is a lot to be addressed and people shouldn’t just pick up and more here for some American green renaissance. All cities in our country and the world can do so much more and if every city starts implementing policies for green infrastructure than we will be much more prepared to slow down the rate of heating of our planet. I am also not telling people not to move here just that there is so much to do and every city needs dedicated people who want to make a change!
Recommended to watch at 1.5x-1.75x speed
I wonder if this list will change given how a recent court decision found that local ordinances banning natural gas installations in new buildings was just overturned as unconstitutional…
@4:18 Judge cities based on their climate zone, it is absolutely fair. The whole point of this is to do research of what city is most sustainable, not which city is trying the hardest to be sustainable.
I can't buy into the cities strictly because of their density. A family of four squished into a tiny apartment is crazy. First I have never lived in a city neither have my ancestors. Glad some people like cities and leave more open space for wildlife, farming etc.
You've never lived in a city, so you really have no idea how a family of four living in an apartment lives. My family has lived in NYC for 101 years. First of all, not every family in NYC lives in an apartment, and not every apartment is "tiny". One of my high school friends had a two floor penthouse apartment in Greenwich Village. There are large apartments and small apartments.
Thank you for your impeccably executed video. What a colossal pleasure to watch! 'A+'
I think adding sustainable water sources as a criteria especially as water quality becomes a prevalent issue in a deteriorating infrastructure. You might find that Colorado when cross referenced with population, knocks it off your list. It would also put a red flag on Phoenix I believe, it’s in a desert after all. Great content, always good to continue the conversation around climate ❤
Breaking up Los Angeles and Santa Monica is a weird thing to do, since it's basically connected in every feasible way, and no one here really doesn't just say "I live in LA". But I guess it's LA's fault for being broken up into a ton of strangely incorporated cities
I’d love some Boulder-Specific/Inspired content! I’ve loved all of your videos I’ve seen so far and look forward to more content!
For every floor added to the height of a building is that much more space to be left to farm or for forestation. I've always known NYC was saving the land elsewhere by using air instead of land to achieve its purposes.
there is a study that shows that buildings over 10 stories are increasingly bad in a lot of metrics due to the extreme costs and materials used.
I was waiting for a Burlington mention!!! Yeah i work with the city on their sustainability. For the past 3 years Burlington has had free public transit and a lot of green space!!! Plus UVM is introducing geothermal on campus!