editor Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/1461810...green05.articleFrom the article:Los AngelesSan FranciscoHouston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanith27 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 LA is #1? Gosh, with the constant funk that hangs over that city, I'd sure hate to see what it would look like if it didn't have any green buildings..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 well thats encouraging to see. nothing wrong with a bronze medal lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Duplicate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I find that list hard to believe. I think someone at the EPA was smoking something green when they came up with that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooch Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I thought this thread was going to be about weed... In that case L.A. probably is #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I thought this thread was about trees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I guess traffic/smog levels and "green" ratings are a direct proportion.Which I never would've guessed, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insidehouston Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I could not get the link to work.I found this listhttp://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/envir...buildings_N.htmWhere Houston was also 3. In this one it was just about green commercial buildings. I guess I could see that more than straight up greenest cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PermapaveNW Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Not according to this study; Houston is 36. The rankings explain how people's quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future.These indicators gauge, for instance, which cities' public transit, renewable energy, local food, and development approaches are most likely to either limit or intensify the negative economic and environmental impacts of fossil fuel dependence.1. Portland, OR (1)2. San Francisco, CA (2)3. Seattle, WA (3)4. Chicago, IL (4)5. New York, NY (6)6. Boston, MA (7)7. Minneapolis, MN (10)8. Philadelphia, PA (8)9. Oakland, CA (5)10. Baltimore, MD (11)11. Denver, CO (9)12. Milwaukee, WI (16)13. Austin, TX (14)14. Sacramento, CA (13)15. Washington, DC (12)16. Cleveland, OH (28)17. Honolulu, HI (15)18. Albuquerque, NM (19)19. Atlanta, GA (38)20. Kansas City, MO (18)21. San Jose, CA (23)22. Tucson, AZ (20)23. Jacksonville, FL (36)24. Dallas, TX (24)25. Omaha, NE (37)26. San Diego, CA (17)27. New Orleans, LA (32)28. Los Angeles, CA (25)29. Louisville, KY (35)30. Columbus, OH (50)31. Detroit, MI (43)32. Phoenix, AZ (22)33. San Antonio, TX (21)34. Miami, FL (29)35. Charlotte, NC (34)36. Houston, TX (39)www.permapavenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammer Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Not according to this study; Houston is 36. The rankings explain how people's quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future.These indicators gauge, for instance, which cities' public transit, renewable energy, local food, and development approaches are most likely to either limit or intensify the negative economic and environmental impacts of fossil fuel dependence. 1. Portland, OR (1) 2. San Francisco, CA (2) 3. Seattle, WA (3) 4. Chicago, IL (4) 5. New York, NY (6) 6. Boston, MA (7) 7. Minneapolis, MN (10) 8. Philadelphia, PA (8) 9. Oakland, CA (5) 10. Baltimore, MD (11) 11. Denver, CO (9) 12. Milwaukee, WI (16) 13. Austin, TX (14) 14. Sacramento, CA (13) 15. Washington, DC (12) 16. Cleveland, OH (28) 17. Honolulu, HI (15) 18. Albuquerque, NM (19) 19. Atlanta, GA (38) 20. Kansas City, MO (18) 21. San Jose, CA (23) 22. Tucson, AZ (20) 23. Jacksonville, FL (36) 24. Dallas, TX (24) 25. Omaha, NE (37) 26. San Diego, CA (17) 27. New Orleans, LA (32) 28. Los Angeles, CA (25) 29. Louisville, KY (35) 30. Columbus, OH (50) 31. Detroit, MI (43) 32. Phoenix, AZ (22) 33. San Antonio, TX (21) 34. Miami, FL (29) 35. Charlotte, NC (34) 36. Houston, TX (39) www.permapavenw.com The word 'study' is used very loosely with these various publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 The USA Today article said something positive about Houston (energy efficiency buildings are apparently better than in most other cities) but some of the user comments really negative about Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudemeister Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Although I am glad Houston is geting positive publicity, I dont see why Houston should be ranked among the top three greenest cities in the U.S. given that almost everything in H-Town is geared to automotive transport. I mean, sure having a large amount of LEED certified buildings is good but there needs to be more consideration to transit. Come to think of it why isn't New York, or Chicago ranked up there since they have higher public transit use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.