The New City of Norfolk

The plan has four approaches in how to improve the City of Norfolk. They are the building of a monorail, creating infills, using tidal power for energy, and converting public transportation into electric vehicles. These ideas are meant to not only bring revenue into Norfolk but also created better living standards.http://prezi.com/irbbzxt9tyfn/the-new-city-of-norfolk/

Advertisements

The Shareable Future of Cities

  • How many people does Steffen estimate we will have living in or near cities by mid-century? About 8 million, and perhaps maybe even more.
  • Explain how you agree or disagree with Steffen’s point that our energy use is “predestined” rather than “behavioral”. I agree that energy use is “predestined” rather than “behavioral”. It is predestined because it depends on the type of city someone was raised in. If they were raised in New York City than they are more likely to conserve energy and use public transportation. Everything is close together so they don’t have to use a lot of energy. If someone lives in a city that does not provide the necessity than they are more likely to drive and waste energy.
  •  What correlation does Steffen make between a city’s density and its climate emissions? He found that denser cities have fewer emissions. The reason being is that denser cities have necessitys within walking or biking distance.
  • What are the “eco districts” that Steffen mentions? How you see these as feasible or unfeasible in a city like Norfolk? They are whole communities that are sustainable to themselves. Some that are mentioned are infills, urban retrofitting, and tentpole density. I believe these districts would be very feasible in a city like Norfolk. Norfolk has a lot of old buildings that can be converted into spaces that are more eco-friendly. Norfolk could also take advantage of all the water that it is surrounded by.
  • Explain how you agree or disagree with the “threshold effect” that Steffen discusses related to transportation. I agree with the threshold effect because I have personally experienced it. When I was living in VA Beach I had to drive everywhere to get everyday materials. When I moved to Norfolk I found that I could pretty much walk anywhere to get what I needed. It makes perfect sense to walk when rather than drive if you don’t have to.
  • What does Steffen mean by the idea that, “…even space itself is turning into a service…”? Can you provide any examples that you see here in Norfolk or elsewhere? What he means is that buildings are starting to use natural resources to help heat or cool themselves. Spaces are becoming self efficient. I belive that mount trashmore in VA Beach could be an example of this. They turned a pile of trash into a park where people can gather together and enjoy themselves.
  • Describe your understanding of Steffen’s argument that, “…it’s not about the leaves above, but the systems below…”. My understanding of Steffen’s argument is if adding a lot of greenery to a city really going to make it more eco-friendly. The system of itself is more important than if trees and flowers are planted in cities. These gardens most be energy conservative or it will be pointless to have them.
  • Finally, overall in what way(s) do you see Steffen’s ideas working / not working here in Norfolk? I do see ideas such as the “eco districts” and “threshold effect” working here in Norfolk. Norfolk is an old city that needs to be renovated either way. If Norfolk takes advantage of these ideas it could save a lot of money and attract more people to the city. The city has shown that its willing to move in this direction with the building of the light rail. I believe that if Norfolk taps into the water somehow for energy than it could save a lot of money.

Abstract 1: Technology Overview and Impact

                 Protecting America The Top 10 Priorities

Begley, S. (2001). PROTECTING AMERICA The Top 10 Priorities. (cover story). Newsweek, 138(19), 26.

Abstract

 The article explores the dangers of terrorism in the United States and provides steps in how to combat it effectively. After 9/11 terrorists were sending anthrax through the mail as a sort of bio weapon. The government assured people that anthrax could not leak out of the mail, and the dosage was not enough to kill someone. After a few people died, the government was forced to revise its statement. The article had found that the confidence of the American people in the government was low when it came to combating terrorism. Only 48 percent of Americans believed that the government had an effective plan for combating bio terrorism, while 43 percent believed that the government was providing reliable information when it came to anthrax attacks. The author suggests to ways to effectively combat terrorism at all levels of the government. Some ways will only take will and determination, while other ways will take technologies that are not yet mastered. The government cannot protect the people from all scenarios, but they can set up procedures that can reduce harmful events from happening.

I found that the article never really goes in-depth about what the solution to terrorism is. The author never gives great detail about how to combat terrorism and is vague about what technologies to use. What technologies did the author mean when she stated “technologies that are not yet mastered”? The author could have explained that technologies such as x-ray machines have effectively reduced terrorist attacks from occurring in airports. The author should have done a better job of explaining the solutions of combating terrorism.

 Keywords: Anthrax, Bio-Terrorism, Technology

Hello world!

Happy to be starting my very first blog.