features is a decrease in energy burden, conditions are worsening in some of the highest burdened neighborhoods. According to the report, ”while the average burden has been improving across the city, some of the most burdened areas are not sharing in these benefits.” The report summary explains that spending a high percentage of household income on energy costs is connected squarely to equity issues like healthcare and race, an historic continuation of systemic bundling and discarding groups of people based on race, class, and income.
Affordable housing
These maps show the impact of redlining on New York Boroughs. MAPPING INEQUALITY PROJECT IMAGE
Centering Equity in Green Buildings Marginalized Benefits Are Not Sustainable Benefits BY VALERIE J. AMOR he word benefits, for most people, is usually defined by their personal association to the word, for example through Social Security benefits or medical benefits. By merely inserting the word benefits in any sentence, it immediately seems to imply something good and positive. When the word co-benefits is used, it is usually invoked in the context of providing synergistic benefits, an important concept in sustainability and resiliency in responding to a climate-change challenged world. A common example of co-benefits can be seen
T
72 |
in green roofs’ ability to provide stormwater management, reduce the heat-island effect, increase a roof’s life, reduce energy use in the building, and offer a potential green space to enjoy. These are all positives and should be part of a healthy, regenerative environment. But what if some or all these benefits are not shared equally or equitably, or access is limited? Are the benefits still as beneficial and for whom? Recent research on tree canopies has shown that there was a calculated unequal investment in where trees were planted within American cities, following the patterns of redlining, disinvestment,
and racial segregation over the past century. The research shows that not only did lower-income areas have less tree canopy but the trees that were planted were smaller than those planted in wealthier neighborhoods. One could say that a benefit of increasing the tree canopy was provided to all the residents of a given city. However, the benefit was unequally and unfairly provided. Take another example of a report released in February 2021 by the City of Orlando in the Orlando Energy Burden Report as part of the American Cities Climate Challenge. Even though citywide there
By selecting sites with less than ideal conditions, developers can drive down their land-acquisition costs while maximizing their return on investment, and in turn, are then rewarded by collecting valuable tax credits. The result is a repetition of the cycle of placing frontline communities back on the front line, in unhealthy environments for low-income communities. Consider my family’s quest to obtain an apartment through the affordable housing lottery in New York City. Too many times, when we visit the project, it is in a marginalized area in proximity to major transportation arteries, in flood zones or near heavy industrial areas. Within the project itself, affordable units are selected based on market rentability, designating the least desirable units as affordable. This usually equates to compromised views, coughing proximity to subways and highways, and smaller floor plans; closets seem to be considered a luxury. One could argue that the building is new, providing up-to-date appliances with perhaps some shared amenities. But there is a missing requirement in exchange for developer tax credits awarded for including affordable housing units in the project: a criterion that needs to be met for quality of life. Too often, the very conditions that the tenant is trying to move away from comes back full circle. The tenant is looking for a healthier, safe environment in which to live. It could be argued that being offered a bright and shiny brandnew building with new appliances is all that is required and isn’t that
www.GREENBUILT.org
