clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Fun with Democracy, Earth Day Edition: In LA vs. SF Face Off, Whose Green Plan Will Actually Work?

New, 3 comments

Which city rules the green kingdom, LA or San Francisco? Green, shmeen— At the end of the day, who really cares which city carries more "cred"? A better question remains: which city's environmental plan will actually A) materialize as promised and B) work? In other words, who's gonna walk the walk after talking the talk? Let's cut to the chase and head straight to the polls. First, a re-cap:

LA's Plan:
· Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says: slash greenhouse gas rates to 35% below the 1990 level by 2030, and make L.A. the "cleanest and greenest city in the country."
· LEED requirements in place for public structures— if they're over 7,500k square feet in size. The city notes its sheer scale of building activity as a plus.
· LEED compliance required for private construction over 50k square feet. Residential buildings with over 50 units must also comply with LEED standards.

SF's Plan:
· Gavity-Gav says: cut greenhouse gases to 20% below the 1990 level by 2012, creating "the greenest large city in the United States of America."
· More stringent regulations in regards to LEED-certified buildings— all must be certified if over 5k square feet; fast-tracking of permits for such projects.
· SF planning 6,500 units of affordable, LEED-certified housing on Treasure Island.
· LEED gold compliance required for privately constructed commercial buildings over 25k square feet in size; silver LEED compliance required for all residential high-rises. All residential and low-rise units must comply with LEED standards.


· Greener Than Thou: San Franciso vs. LA in Green Face Off