I would to know your views, theories or opinions on how we can create cities that are sustainable, which consider social and economic factors such as the rising the population in relation to the decrease in food source or available housing.
Your opinion/theory would be much appreciated for my research.
That is a huge and to some extent a dangerous topic...but in order to have a sustainable city there is one think that I think we all should have:SENSIBILITY.
Our attitudes toward spending on unnecessary stuff needs to change...the dangerous side of it is the economy will not bloom but it takes guts to balance both and we're no where near that. I took 3 courses on sustainability in my undergrad and almost went insane by the complexity of the issue.
Just to give you a good summary read the Three Ecologies by Felix Guattari. The book goes in depth about economic, social,and environmental issues. Here is a summary:
Do you mean cities that are incrementally more sustainable than our current cities? Cities that are significantly more sustainable? Or, cities that are indefinitely sustainable?
There are thousands of concepts and strategies that can make our cities more sustainable than they are now. A few of these can be extended to make much larger long-term impacts. To be indefintely sustainable, a permaculture, I think the short answer is no.
Any concept of a permaculture has to consider at least a metropolitan area or region that includes a foodshed large enough for its residents. We seem to have bumped into a maximum population roughly around 1,000,000 over themillenia prior to the fossil fuel explosion. I would guess that something of that order of magnitude will hold true 100+ years from now.
Yes this is a HUGE topic and dangerous yet extremely interesting topic.....yes to some extent what i mean is, cities that are more significantly more sustainable.But what i want to know is how and what process or theory you guys think is important in creating a city that is vibrant, or it gives the people who louve and come to live these cities a sense of belonging amongst all the tall skyscapers, commerical districts etc..
In my opinion, the single most important thing that designers can do to create truly sustainable places is to make them lovable.
If people can't love the architecture, the streets, the places, they won't last. They will be demolished, and most of the embodied energy in them will be lost.
I'm not sure why, but I can't get Soylent Green out of my head after reading this post. It was sustainable, in a way!
Part of the problem, I think, is defining exactly what you mean by 'sustainable'. It shouldn't be a catchall phrase for 'good', but something measured that you are trying to achieve.
After this, your thesis will probably fall more naturally into place.
if you're in california, as your profile states, you're more of a burden to the environment than me, living in a brooklyn apartment, not having driven a car in the last six months.
sit and think about how much infrastructure has been devoted feed the energy habits of your residential block. how many miles of electrical lines, pipe, gas and sewer lines have been devoted to each inhabitant of the average suburb or sprawled city.
the question really shouldn't be how do we make cities more sustainable, the question should be how to get people to move away from stupidly unsustainable lifestyles outside the city and into the city.
I live in one of the worlds most furtile agricultural regions, California's central valley...I used to live in cities...Chicago, San Jose, Milwaukee...but prefer living in a small town....not a suburb, a town. Much like a city, everything can be accessed by walking, or on line. But unlike a city, the food we eat, mostly comes from within a 50 mile radius from the area farms, many are organic. Our house was designed by a friend of mine who apprenticed with Wright, and was designed to it's environment, and with inexpensive materials, many recycled. The central valley's weather very hot in the summer, yet we never have to use the AC, or heat it in the winter. You haven't driven a car in six months....so I can assume you have not taken a cab anywhere? Or a gas guzzling bus? It's unfortunate though, that the central valley's frequent poor air quality, is due in large part to the pollution of the big cities...LA and SF getting stuck in the valley. The city is far from being the solution, since it is still much of the problem.
-- what's the population of the town you speak of? how many houses per block? standard block size? let's look at the infrastructure required to serve the small population that resides around it.
-- organic farming is not something to brag about. organic farming consumes far more acreage than conventional kinds of farming, and has far more of larger ecological footprint on a per pound of production basis. arguing for organic farming is the equivalent of arguing for deforestation. it is not something to brag about. eating a quarter of a gram a year of diluted sevin dust is a small price to pay for the sake of limiting our incursion into naturally green spaces.
-- accessing goods online is not something to brag about either. UPS uses huge vans, not subway lines. you can argue that it's "less worse" than getting on a car and driving up to best buy, but i can assure it, it is far worse than walking over to best buy or taking the subway to best buy.
-- recycling outside of the range of a zone mostly supplied by nuclear plants, as a general rule, produces far more emissions and is far more wasteful than just producing the recycled good from virgin sources (aluminum being the exception to this rule). small towns are far more likely to draw fuel from coal-based electrical plants. most people recycle because it's trendy, not because it does anything for the environment.
-- cabs? actually, i haven't. i see very little use in taking cabs in the city. buses? yeah, definitely have. but let's be realistic, taking a bus in NYC is like carpooling with 45 other people. i don't think you can argue against that. also, most of NYC's buses aren't the "gas guzzling" kind you find out west.
-- finally, you live in a house. that is not sustainable. i don't care how much recycled material you've stuck into your walls, or even if your whole roof is covered in solar panels, the average apartment complex still utilizes only a fraction of the infrastructure used by your house.
Let's look at one other point....a miserable life stacked on top of each other in Brooklyn....yeah, you avoided the pollution of major cities...actually our buses in SF are electric. The fruits and veggies you and your friends walk around the corner to eat in the winter, were most likely grown here, and trucked to your part of the country, not grown in your major city.....I'll take my back yard, perfect house, and wonderful life, and work towards making my community the best it can be. Cities are giant public urinals. High density is a hell I have no desire to return to, not everyone is entitled to the pollution, crime, and often horrible living conditions of a shit box apartment in a major city. High density creates as many problems as it appears to solve. I admire your passion, though.
Again, this seems to result from different definitions of 'sustainability' - here, resources (e.g., how 'Soylent Green' is sustainable) vs. 'healthful environments' (e.g., how suburbs are sustainable).
Cities have a strong network effect that allows for specialization. I seem to recall reading about studies how increased centralization requires fewer gas stations, etc. per capita. The more 'linked' this city is and the stronger this network/centralization, the more effective and efficient the city can be. They require more resources overall, but there is a greater variety of things that they produce, and the network effect of having so many people centralized in one place helps them become exchange centers. Plus, the sum total of resources required goes down per capita due to this network effect.
Countryside living can be quite sustainable if managed properly, but it has to be treated differently - more isolated, in a way. There is a certain back-to-the-land ethos that is idealized in Victorian literature (air, light, connection to nature). The problem is when people treat country living like city living, and expect the same level of network effect - and so they build gigantic highways to make everyone move really fast across diffused landscapes of low-density resources to achieve the same level of network effect / access to resources.
The nice thing about our society - as an American, and pointed out to me by Europeans I've known - is that we have a gradient between all these different kinds of lifestyles. I think our challenge is to figure out how to get them to integrate better, and how to have each one reach maximum 'sustainability' (so, lifestyle improvements for dense areas, and efficiency / attitude improvements for non-dense areas).
I don't think that neurosurgery and universities could be possible in 5000 inhabitants towns or villages.
So the love for the small towns is very sweet, but it is not sustainable at all. What would be a sustainable society with no computers, hospitals and industrial and commercial research?
Your description fits to a medieval town, not to a postmodern place to live. Basically you can grow tomatoes on the roofs of NY, but you can't teach brain surgery in villages.
Sustainability is more a marketing trick. I understand a discussion related to the use of limited resources, but don't tell me that the village is the future, because it is not.
Mar 2, 12 10:00 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Creating sustainble cities
I would to know your views, theories or opinions on how we can create cities that are sustainable, which consider social and economic factors such as the rising the population in relation to the decrease in food source or available housing.
Your opinion/theory would be much appreciated for my research.
Ken.
Whaooo!!!
That is a huge and to some extent a dangerous topic...but in order to have a sustainable city there is one think that I think we all should have:SENSIBILITY.
Our attitudes toward spending on unnecessary stuff needs to change...the dangerous side of it is the economy will not bloom but it takes guts to balance both and we're no where near that. I took 3 courses on sustainability in my undergrad and almost went insane by the complexity of the issue.
Just to give you a good summary read the Three Ecologies by Felix Guattari. The book goes in depth about economic, social,and environmental issues. Here is a summary:
http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/newformations/08_131.pdf
good luck,
Nagi
Do you mean cities that are incrementally more sustainable than our current cities? Cities that are significantly more sustainable? Or, cities that are indefinitely sustainable?
There are thousands of concepts and strategies that can make our cities more sustainable than they are now. A few of these can be extended to make much larger long-term impacts. To be indefintely sustainable, a permaculture, I think the short answer is no.
Any concept of a permaculture has to consider at least a metropolitan area or region that includes a foodshed large enough for its residents. We seem to have bumped into a maximum population roughly around 1,000,000 over themillenia prior to the fossil fuel explosion. I would guess that something of that order of magnitude will hold true 100+ years from now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history
^ what Sam said. There are tons of books and articles about sustainable cities, and resilient cities. BTW, what sort of research are you doing?
Yes this is a HUGE topic and dangerous yet extremely interesting topic.....yes to some extent what i mean is, cities that are more significantly more sustainable.But what i want to know is how and what process or theory you guys think is important in creating a city that is vibrant, or it gives the people who louve and come to live these cities a sense of belonging amongst all the tall skyscapers, commerical districts etc..
In my opinion, the single most important thing that designers can do to create truly sustainable places is to make them lovable. If people can't love the architecture, the streets, the places, they won't last. They will be demolished, and most of the embodied energy in them will be lost.
I'm not sure why, but I can't get Soylent Green out of my head after reading this post. It was sustainable, in a way!
Part of the problem, I think, is defining exactly what you mean by 'sustainable'. It shouldn't be a catchall phrase for 'good', but something measured that you are trying to achieve.
After this, your thesis will probably fall more naturally into place.
How about this for a definition of sustainability:
"Sustainability is keeping things going in a healthy way, long into an uncertain future."
-Stephen Mouzon
start by moving to one.
i have huge issues with the fact that people pretend to be interested in sustainability while operating from any location other than a major city.
Where should farmers live, then?
are you a farmer?
No, but I do have an almond tree and a walnut tree, the extent of my livestock are 2 cats.
cool story bro.
if you're in california, as your profile states, you're more of a burden to the environment than me, living in a brooklyn apartment, not having driven a car in the last six months.
stop pretending to care because it's trendy.
I know California cannot compare with the cutting edge greeness that is Brooklyn....bro.
it's funny cause it's true?
sit and think about how much infrastructure has been devoted feed the energy habits of your residential block. how many miles of electrical lines, pipe, gas and sewer lines have been devoted to each inhabitant of the average suburb or sprawled city.
the question really shouldn't be how do we make cities more sustainable, the question should be how to get people to move away from stupidly unsustainable lifestyles outside the city and into the city.
I live in one of the worlds most furtile agricultural regions, California's central valley...I used to live in cities...Chicago, San Jose, Milwaukee...but prefer living in a small town....not a suburb, a town. Much like a city, everything can be accessed by walking, or on line. But unlike a city, the food we eat, mostly comes from within a 50 mile radius from the area farms, many are organic. Our house was designed by a friend of mine who apprenticed with Wright, and was designed to it's environment, and with inexpensive materials, many recycled. The central valley's weather very hot in the summer, yet we never have to use the AC, or heat it in the winter. You haven't driven a car in six months....so I can assume you have not taken a cab anywhere? Or a gas guzzling bus? It's unfortunate though, that the central valley's frequent poor air quality, is due in large part to the pollution of the big cities...LA and SF getting stuck in the valley. The city is far from being the solution, since it is still much of the problem.
But, we do agree on one thing....suburbs.
ok let's go at this point by point:
-- what's the population of the town you speak of? how many houses per block? standard block size? let's look at the infrastructure required to serve the small population that resides around it.
-- organic farming is not something to brag about. organic farming consumes far more acreage than conventional kinds of farming, and has far more of larger ecological footprint on a per pound of production basis. arguing for organic farming is the equivalent of arguing for deforestation. it is not something to brag about. eating a quarter of a gram a year of diluted sevin dust is a small price to pay for the sake of limiting our incursion into naturally green spaces.
-- accessing goods online is not something to brag about either. UPS uses huge vans, not subway lines. you can argue that it's "less worse" than getting on a car and driving up to best buy, but i can assure it, it is far worse than walking over to best buy or taking the subway to best buy.
-- recycling outside of the range of a zone mostly supplied by nuclear plants, as a general rule, produces far more emissions and is far more wasteful than just producing the recycled good from virgin sources (aluminum being the exception to this rule). small towns are far more likely to draw fuel from coal-based electrical plants. most people recycle because it's trendy, not because it does anything for the environment.
-- cabs? actually, i haven't. i see very little use in taking cabs in the city. buses? yeah, definitely have. but let's be realistic, taking a bus in NYC is like carpooling with 45 other people. i don't think you can argue against that. also, most of NYC's buses aren't the "gas guzzling" kind you find out west.
-- finally, you live in a house. that is not sustainable. i don't care how much recycled material you've stuck into your walls, or even if your whole roof is covered in solar panels, the average apartment complex still utilizes only a fraction of the infrastructure used by your house.
density is how you save the planet.
not everyone is entitled to a backyard.
Let's look at one other point....a miserable life stacked on top of each other in Brooklyn....yeah, you avoided the pollution of major cities...actually our buses in SF are electric. The fruits and veggies you and your friends walk around the corner to eat in the winter, were most likely grown here, and trucked to your part of the country, not grown in your major city.....I'll take my back yard, perfect house, and wonderful life, and work towards making my community the best it can be. Cities are giant public urinals. High density is a hell I have no desire to return to, not everyone is entitled to the pollution, crime, and often horrible living conditions of a shit box apartment in a major city. High density creates as many problems as it appears to solve. I admire your passion, though.
Again, this seems to result from different definitions of 'sustainability' - here, resources (e.g., how 'Soylent Green' is sustainable) vs. 'healthful environments' (e.g., how suburbs are sustainable).
Cities have a strong network effect that allows for specialization. I seem to recall reading about studies how increased centralization requires fewer gas stations, etc. per capita. The more 'linked' this city is and the stronger this network/centralization, the more effective and efficient the city can be. They require more resources overall, but there is a greater variety of things that they produce, and the network effect of having so many people centralized in one place helps them become exchange centers. Plus, the sum total of resources required goes down per capita due to this network effect.
Countryside living can be quite sustainable if managed properly, but it has to be treated differently - more isolated, in a way. There is a certain back-to-the-land ethos that is idealized in Victorian literature (air, light, connection to nature). The problem is when people treat country living like city living, and expect the same level of network effect - and so they build gigantic highways to make everyone move really fast across diffused landscapes of low-density resources to achieve the same level of network effect / access to resources.
The nice thing about our society - as an American, and pointed out to me by Europeans I've known - is that we have a gradient between all these different kinds of lifestyles. I think our challenge is to figure out how to get them to integrate better, and how to have each one reach maximum 'sustainability' (so, lifestyle improvements for dense areas, and efficiency / attitude improvements for non-dense areas).
Very well said, Mix.
centralisation theory reminds me the similarity of Richard Rogers theory..this is one the examples of an answer i was looking for ,Mix. cheers!
Thanks...it's way awesome to be appreciated.
I'd also like to hear more about the project you were working on, whenever you're up for sharing more information...sounds interesting!
I don't think that neurosurgery and universities could be possible in 5000 inhabitants towns or villages.
So the love for the small towns is very sweet, but it is not sustainable at all. What would be a sustainable society with no computers, hospitals and industrial and commercial research?
Your description fits to a medieval town, not to a postmodern place to live. Basically you can grow tomatoes on the roofs of NY, but you can't teach brain surgery in villages.
Sustainability is more a marketing trick. I understand a discussion related to the use of limited resources, but don't tell me that the village is the future, because it is not.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.