Cities low on looking ahead
By Patrick McGee
Staff Writer
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Fort Worth and Arlington are among the worst of the 50 largest cities in the country when it comes to meeting needs without compromising the needs of future generations, according to a for-profit group that ranked the cities based on quality of life and disaster-preparedness factors.
Fort Worth was ranked 46th and Arlington 41st out of 50 in the sustainability rankings by SustainLane.com, a Web site with information on a wide range of quality-of-life issues such as organic food and renewable energy.
"We're not by any means saying Fort Worth or Arlington are wrong or bad," said Warren Karlenzig, chief strategy officer for the San Francisco-based company. "Compared to other cities, there's a difference, and we're just trying to point out the different ways that cities have dealt with these challenges."
Portland, Ore., with its city plan for sustainability, ranked first. Columbus, Ohio, ranked last.
Karlenzig said government data on air and water quality, transportation and many other factors were part of the study, along with interviews with city government officials.
He said Fort Worth officials did not respond to his company's attempts to contact them but Arlington's did. The results are scheduled to be posted on the company's Web site today, he said.
Arlington's acting chief planner Bridgett Hewitt said that she was not familiar with the study but that Arlington is committed to sustainability.
She said the city is developing building codes that promote resource conservation, mixed-used development and "neighborhood reinvigoration."
Officials from Fort Worth's planning department could not be reached for comment.
Michael Morris, director of transportation at the North Central Texas Council of Governments, said Arlington's ranking did not surprise him because the city does not have public transportation and is struggling with downtown development.
But he said Fort Worth deserved higher marks for its success with "integrated land use," which has spurred residential development and pedestrian traffic downtown and in the Cultural District.
Karlenzig said Austin did well for getting some of its energy from wind and solar power. Oakland, Calif., is trying to get 30 percent of its food from city or area resources, and Chicago has planted more than half a million trees in the last 15 years, he said.
IN THE KNOW
Sustainability rankings
SustainLane.com, a for-profit Web site that has a progressive focus on quality-of-life issues, ranked the 50 largest U.S. cities based on sustainability. Arlington and Fort Worth got low marks.
1. Portland, Ore.
2. San Francisco
3. Seattle
4. Philadelphia
5. Chicago
14. Austin
21. San Antonio
24. Dallas
31. El Paso
39. Houston
41. Arlington
46. Fort Worth
50. Columbus, Ohio
SOURCE: www.sustainlane.com
