Human Negawatts
That transportation ethics interview sure has got me thinking of bigger pictures. Pictures of webs, pictures of currents, pictures of cycles and linear paths. I even made a flow chart on Tuesday, of things I think I’d like to think and write and speak and teach and fight about.
Let’s all take a ride on my train of though, shall we?
First off, one of the key points made by Mark Gorton was that the biggest problem is that of the city you can’t see. What I think he was getting at is the idea that there is such a capacity for improvement in the quality of life in the city, in the happiness of it denizens, in the promotion of meaningful human interaction, that it is tragic to be in a state of affairs where such important measures are not being maximized, and where the failure to do so is so hidden from view. He describes a winter in which the snow was too thick for cars, and yet people walked the streets in a new way; he recalls neighborhood parties and outdoor gatherings the night of the latest blackout when it became unsafe to drive. The idea that there is an untapped potential for the really good things that we don’t see because of a current pernicious status quo.
This reminded me of the concept of Negawatt Power, as coined by Amory Lovins. In terms of electrical energy production, negawatts are “generated” by increasing the efficiency of energy production, transmission, or consumption. Used as a measurement of reduced energy demand, negawatts could increase the market supply of energy to combat growing demand, without the need for increased conventional energy generation capacity.
So for example, turning off my laptop and unplugging its power adapter (which continues to draw power even if the laptop is off or unplugged!) when I’m not using it. If I hadn’t done this, let’s say it would have consumed 5 watt-hours of energy. By saving 5Wh I have effectively generated 5 negawatt hours. That energy is available instead to anyone else on the grid who might need it and the supply/demand ratio of the system has been improved. There is also now 5Wh less of a reason to build a new power-plant. A simple example, but a very important concept. Now what if we could apply the idea of negawatts, or “improved efficacy units” to other systems?
The auto-centric city discussed by Gorton and Cohen, I believe, is insufficiently efficient at serving it’s primary purpose, which is to provide for meaningful human relationships. Granted, cities are hotbeds of cultural and communally vital activities, but there is obviously much room for improvement. Now here’s the application: instead of attempting to engender happiness through the accumulation of more stuff, via provisions for unrestrained consumerism, car-culture, and corporatist croneyism, those who design cities (the denizens, politicians, civic planners, architects, city officials, community leaders, parents, teachers, etc.) would do well to consider ways to improve the efficiency of the current paradigm.
An example of this the intelligent application of bike lanes, pedestrian paths, and public transportation, along with judiciously locating residential and commercial areas. If few destinations are within easy walking range, and as a result private transportation is a must, something is wrong. By increasing the “walkability” of a living space you can improve the efficiency of daily life and reduce costs to the environment, community, and quality of life. You can “generate” negawatts of human happiness. Does this follow? Bear with me anyway.
In the 1970’s Cristopher Alexander published three books about building. The Timeless Way of Building is Alexander’s account of an architectural methodology in which the occupants of a space draw the design from within their own beings to form a democratic and decidedly human-built environment. In A Pattern Language Alexander defines the terms or “patterns” that constitute the building blocks and guiding principles of his method. The Oregon Experiment takes the previous two books and document the application of their ideas upon the expansion of the campus at University of Oregon.
I believe that the design philosophy presented by Alexander is one that greatly enhances the ability of our environments to nourish and sustain meaningful human interactions. Designs like these don’t reduce the demand for happiness, they don’t themselves produce happiness, they instead more effectively allow for happiness. They “generate” human negawatts.