Sustainable City Race, Part 1: Definition
Several news items have filtered through the internet lately demonstrating the many tangents of a larger ideal. Perhaps this connective thinking was triggered by an Earth Day ad on the subway this morning, but it culminated with WAN’s announcement of the Ultimate Eco-city today.
Humankind’s competitive streak has broached new territory - sustainable cities.
In a previous world, where more is more, bigger and taller were the only goals to aspire towards. Today, however, the words of Mies are relevant again, though in a different context. ‘Less is more’ now applies to entire cities, ‘less’ referring to carbon.
[Image: Map developed by the Vulcan Project illustrating total CO2 emissions. Courtesy of The Vulcan Project, via Archinect.]
Today I will begin a three part series addressing the race for sustainable cities. Part one will look at what it means to be a sustainable city, while part two and three will highlight two developments striving to become the world’s first sustainable city from scratch.
To begin, I would like to reference some material from the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, known as CIRIA, to illustrate the many faces of sustainability.
“Sustainability” and in turn “sustainable development” are terms that mean different things to different people, making it difficult to provide a single definition. The original definition (and the one still most widely used) of sustainable development was made in the Bruntland Report (Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987) which defined it as:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Sustainable development is all about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. This can be achieved through the three strands of social equity which recognises the needs of everyone, maintenance of stable levels of economic growth and employment, and using natural resources prudently, whilst protecting, and if possible enhancing, the environment.
[Image: Venn diagram illustrating the path to sustainable development. Courtesy of CIRIA.]
Before we consider sustainable cities, I think it is important to take note of this diagram. They MUST be environmentally, socially, AND economically sustainable. Not in this particular order, but with considerable success in each category. Different groups like to focus on one particular factor to advance their agenda, and while it has positive impacts on a targeted plan, a singular focus will not lead to a sustainable city. This is especially true of the environmental group. Although, I do sympathize tremendously with their campaign because we probably need to take the largest steps in that realm, the fact remains that we must address all three points to achieve the ‘ultimate eco-city.’
Sustainable City, an initiative toward a sustainable future for San Francisco, lays out a similar premise in their 5 year plan:
A balanced and sustainable social system is not possible without addressing the economic and community-development needs of the City’s residents. Wealth in the economy will enable the City to make the long-term capital investments necessary to create and maintain an environmentally sensitive and esthetically pleasing place to live. An equitable distribution of the community’s wealth will enable all residents to participate in civic life and will maximize the City’s human resource potential. Sustained economic growth and expansion of markets for the City’s goods and services can be achieved in ways that are environmentally benign and socially just.
I think most people will agree this is obvious, and at least makes some sense. Therefore, I think we can accept as a premise of a sustainable city that three conditions must be met - enviromental, economic, and social sustainability - and move on to the implementation and measurement of sustainable practices.
If we look at a study that has already quantified and developed a ranking system for American cities, we can begin to understand the terms of these practices. One such project, SustainLane, conducted a study in 2006 of the 50 largest US cities by population with the following premise and the following categories.
SustainLane believes sustainability is a more appropriate approach for urban areas because it recognizes people and institutions as the primary actors that benefit from change, with indirect benefits also accruing for natural systems as a result.
[Image: Portland’s #1 ranking sustainability score. Courtesy of SustainLane.]
Portland was the top ranking city in this study, with the top 10 as follows:
- Portland - 85.08
- San Francisco - 81.82
- Seattle - 79.64
- Chicago - 70.64
- Oakland - 69.18
- New York City - 68.20
- Boston - 68.18
- Philadelphia - 67.28
- Denver - 66.72
- Minneapolis - 66.60
Then if we jump to the end of the list, Columbus at 32.50, you can get an idea of the relative differential within the entire study. Fifty points separates the top and bottom of the list. I’m not sure if this is incredibly disappointing in its disparity, or encouraging in the sense that some cities are really onto something that others can learn from.
San Francisco, in particular, has an interesting story to tell.
[Image: San Francisco’s #2 ranking sustainability score. Courtesy of SustainLane.]
Overall, San Francisco ranks in most categories as ’sustainability leader,’ but in three categories it ranks as ’sustainability in danger.’ Understandably, these three categories are geographically connected. Its ranking in ‘metro congestion’ and ‘housing affordability’ are related to constraints on growth by the natural boundaries of a peninsula, and it’s natural disaster risk to its proximity to the San Andreas fault. Does this mean the city has approached an equilibrium with its population?
If we look at New York City, it speaks similarly about density and sustainability.
[Image: New York City’s #6 ranking sustainability score. Courtesy of SustainLane.]
Even though this shows much more of a mixed bag, it tells a similar story to San Francisco. It does both really well and poorly in categories related to high density. This is a current you will see in several cities within the top 10, because there is a strong connection between high density and sustainability.
Finally, how does all this begin to relate or preempt a reading of two developments trying to become sustainable from a blank slate?
First, it tells us a few things to look for. Second, it tells us that density can provide sustainable systems due to economies of scale, but that at a certain point density works against sustainability. Thus, much like in nature, the quest for sustainability is lead by the process of reaching equilibrium…
Also in the sustainable city race series…
Part 2: Masdar
Part 3: Dongtan
Related Links:
CIRIA
Sustainable City
SustainLane
ZeroCarbonCity
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I would be happy to elaborate, however, I think a better place for you to start is an event that begins tonight. The Ecocity World Summit is being held in San Francisco this year. Check out the speakers and topics to gauge the current status in the development of sustainable cities.
Loading ...
can you please throw more light on the trends of a sustainable city and her characteristics.