Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
editor

Austin, Dallas named greenest cities

Recommended Posts

That's odd because we got accolades from another publication recently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Austin (natch) and Dallas have made the National Resources Defense Council's list of America's greenest cities. Houston... did not.

Here's the report: http://smartercities.nrdc.org/rankings/large

Here's the chart: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Wnm0kDRGdc0/Sl-J7U4eV5I/AAAAAAAACFA/4b0b-Vx4BRI/s1600-h/citygrid.jpg

Actually, Houston is at #18, compared to Dallas' #14 and Austin's #6. You have to go to page 2 of the report.

I look forward to reading it more in-depth to see the sources and methodology of their rankings. Seems very odd that Dallas got a "high" ranking for water quality and conservation while Houston got a "low ranking in that category, when just last week I read an article about how Dallas lags seriously behind Austin and Houston on water conservation and is having trouble finding enough sources of water to supply itself for the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their analysis of standard of living is highly suspect. They say it's based on affordability, and yet both Dallas and Houston ranked "low". Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're number 4 in amount of green space.

...yet we don't rank for the Standard of Living category. They explained their motivation for using this category: "The affordability of a city is critical to its sustainability—without livable wages, the advantages of green space and other environmental benefits may be priced out of reach for many." Yet, the top two cities were San Jose and San Francisco! Houston ranks #45.

The way they constructed the index, it actually seems to rate cities based on the relative wealth of its population. No attempt is made to account for middle- or lower-income households that don't live in these places and thus aren't included in the data because they couldn't afford to in the first place.

Another important thing to realize is that these are comparing municipalities, not metropolitan areas. Houston is ridiculously large, encompassing a disproportionately large number of the metro area's poorest residents. Seattle has Tacoma to keep it looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, its kind of funny that having low-income people hurts you in this study. Houston has a lot of immigrants and etc. making lesser wages. Have they considered that other cities are pricing all these people out of the market?? Its really dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...