[deciduous]

Hey aboutmyplaneteers ! I just got this essay back from my Urban Geo prof at school, and I got an A+ wooot ! to celebrate I thought I'd post it up for everyone to read, and please responses and feedback would be awesome.
I'm posting this in off-topic, because it touches on a number of different topics listed here.

Ideas For a City in Transition
Shane Wilson


How can the city of Vancouver be vivified to benefit the general community as well as the business, trade, social and corporate institutions within the city?
When I use the word “vivify” I am not just referring to a purely asthetic and ecological improvement of the cities landscape, but also to a broader social and community improvement. The aim of Ecological Design [1] is to unify the ecological systems with the social and economic. In my last essay I went into detail on the amazing technologies emerging in the field of ecological design. Many of these are useful not only in new developments, but in being retrofitted to existing structures. Integrated design, green rooftops, water conservation, energy efficiency and sustainably sourced building materials are all areas of development which Vancouver is currently implementing, and in some cases is leading the way [2]. To further understand why Vancouver is such a viable candidate for Ecological Design we must first look at the historical momentum of the city and of modern urban design.

The idea that humans and the natural environment can co-exist in the same area even in an urban context has sprung up in many countries throughout history at different times. The famous “Hanging Gardens of Babylon” were regarded as one of the 7 wonders of the world because they seamlessly fused the urban and natural world [3]. Fanciful stories aside however, it was not until after the industrial revolution in Europe that people first began to recognize society’s increasing disconnection from the natural environment, and the negative consequences therein. One of the first precursors to modern Ecological Design were the early ideas of the “garden city movement” put forth by the Englishman Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928) [4]. His ideas, primarily a reaction against the pollution, crime, poverty, and poor sanitation of industrial London would later become a major influence in the urban development of England after WW2. He argued that people must have access to green-space and natural areas in order to maintain quality of life. Key to his approach to planning was that the towns would be largely independent, managed and financed by the citizens who had an economic interest in them, and be surrounded by a “greenbelt” of natural or agricultural land. Many cities and towns in England were later built under his principles with the guidance of his Town and Country Planning Association, most notably the cities of Letchworth and Welwyn [5]. These cities are still renown as very desirable places to live. Although it may be a stretch to say that the garden city movement was crucial in the early design phase of Vancouver during the 1800s, it is easy to hear the popular ideals that Howard professed in the declaration of Lord Stanley in 1888 upon opening Stanley Park - the largest city-owned park in Canada and the third largest in North America.

[deciduous]

“ Lord Stanley threw his arms to the heavens, as though embracing within them the whole of one thousand acres of primeval forest, and dedicated it 'to the use and enjoyment of peoples of all colours, creeds, and customs, for all time.' [6] ”

Ecological design has arisen out of the need for society to make a change to the fundamental aspects of how a city operates. In Vancouver we have the unique opportunity of being in a city that has major historical momentum in regards to ecological design. Though Vancouver has never had one unified design plan, many of the features that make Vancouver the city it is today were implemented a long time ago. Crucial to ecological design, and as I will discuss later – to new urbanism, is the boulevard. On almost every residential street in Vancouver there is a boulevard which separates the sidewalk from the street. Almost always, these boulevards are lined with trees. These trees not only give the city the feeling of being naturally beautiful but they also help to offset pollution and noise from cars. Although this may seem like a very simple concept, in areas where this concept was not employed early on in development it can be cost-prohibitive to try and implement a boulevard system.

Greater Vancouver has gained an international reputation for various innovative planning initiatives over the years. A healthy economy, employment opportunities, rapid population increases and the desirability of the West Coast lifestyle have contributed to the region's urban design, the architectural character of its neighborhoods and general prosperity. The limited land base of the region circumscribed by the mountains, the border and the sea has increased development pressure and created economic challenges for both the public and private sectors. Because the downtown core was located on a geographically isolated semi-island, major high-rise urban development has remained concentrated in the city core. Successful planning initiatives include the rejection of extensive freeway systems, which allowed the downtown core of Vancouver to remain valuable and productive during a time when many cities were experiencing capital flight and inner city decay [7]. The limited amount of land for expansion has resulted in less suburban sprawl around the city. The redevelopment of the south shore of False Creek and the transformation of former industrial lands into town houses and apartments in the mid-1970s, in areas such as Yaletown has re-invented and revitalized many areas in Vancouver.

[deciduous]

The creation of eight regional town centers such as Metrotown in Burnaby, Lonsdale in North Vancouver and Haney Town Centre in Maple Ridge is actually quite similar to Howard’s idea of having many smaller economically independent cities connected to the main city. These town centers provide a focal point for higher density residential neighborhoods combined with business and commercial opportunities easily accessible via the regional transit system. They serve as an alternative to the familiar suburban commute into downtown Vancouver and as an effective way to accommodate urban growth and decentralize employment opportunities within the region.

The last and most ecologically important factor in Vancouver’s development over time has been the creation and preservation of a large variety of parks. The City of Vancouver is dotted with hundreds of parks, some are very large like Stanley Park and Queen Elizabeth Park, and many are small dots on the map such as Delamont or Quadra Park [8]. The key here is that the parks are not concentrated in one area, but rather they encompass all parts of the city. Because of this, no matter where you live in Vancouver, whether you’re on Commercial Drive, Marpole, Kerrisdale, or even the Downtown Eastside your never very far from a park or green-space area, and the quality of life that comes with it. It is important to note when looking at this map that although downtown appears to have very few parks compared to the rest of Vancouver, the large size of Stanley Park, and the many green areas adjacent to the large office towers downtown offsets this disparity significantly.

So, if Vancouver already has such a great history of development, then why is it even necessary to implement the kind of wide sweeping changes that come with Ecological Design? Simply put, Vancouver is the product of an outdated mode of thinking, but the potential for change here is like nowhere else. Like many cities today, Vancouver has been built around modernist principles. The city of Vancouver, although it maintains one of the best systems of parks in Canada, is victim to the same culprit of design manipulation as every major city – the automobile. The automobile that once gave us seemingly endless potential for expansion and mobility is now becoming the very thing that is undoing the fabric of community. To understand this problem we must first understand what the role and function of a city is.

[deciduous]

In his book “ Points of Interest – How to Divide Space?” David Engwicht speaks extensively on the role of cars within the urban environment, and the purpose of the city [9]. He argues that the city’s essential function is to facilitate exchange. That is to say the exchange of resources, information and ideas. Engwicht puts forth the idea that a city has two main types of space – exchange space and movement space. The exchange space is where everything happens. From buying the groceries, closing the big investment deal, watching a street performer, trade and commerce on all levels, as well as the primary space for social interaction. Movement space is the areas we allocate to transportation, which allows us to move from one area of exchange to another. Through extensive research Engwicht is able to effectively demonstrate that as cars became an ever increasingly essential part of urban life, the size and effect of the transportation space has grown to such a degree that it significantly stifles the very thing it was put in place to give access to – exchange space. He points to the “movement myth” that people move for the sake of moving, when in fact they are moving to get to a certain place of exchange. If a city is to facilitate exchange it must also facilitate movement, but not at the expense of the exchange space itself, or it will become what Engwicht dubbed the “anti-city”. Perhaps the most striking example of this can be seen in Los Angeles where over 70% the city is devoted to automobile use – highways, roads, and most significantly parking lots. Ironically, even though LA has such a majority of movement space, movement is still unbearably slow at peak hours.

The impact of cars on the urban environment extends far beyond the actual physical space with which the cars occupy. When movement space is given top priority the social cost of cars becomes immediately apparent. We can already see this impact in Vancouver as you drive farther away from the city center, and into the outlying areas of Greater Vancouver. You begin to see more and more of the type of development typical of the “Levittown” suburbs of California [10]. Large single function exchange spaces such as a massive Chapters bookstore set back from the road and surrounded by a sprawling expanse of parking lot. Row upon row of these large department stores, all connected by a large multi-lane highway. Set farther in from the highway are the type of sub-urban developments that exemplify Engwicht’s “anti-city”. That is, large single-family dwellings with over-sized lots, two car garages at the front, and with no sidewalk. After all, in this type of development there is no place of exchange within a reasonable walking distance. Every aspect of life whether it be work, education, shopping or socializing is dependant on the use of the car. Furthermore, not only do we lose the ability to exchange goods and information easily, we also lose something more intangible – a sense of community.

[deciduous]

When people live their lives from within their homes, cars, and offices without the opportunity to interact with other random people from their neighborhood, there is little sense of connection to the larger community within which they live. A sense of anonymity is created. This is further compounded by the modern day emphasis on individual success and consumerism. We are taught from a young age now, by the television and by popular culture that the lowest price rules, and so as local stores go out of business and large mega marts spring up at an alarming rate few people tend to question the radical changes happening in our society. Even if for a moment we were to forget about the social and environmental consequences of car dependant living and the urban sprawl which it encourages, we are still suffering a massive loss of our most important resource in life which is of course time. The farther apart we stretch our exchange spaces from where we live and work, the longer we will spend driving.

In the same way that Howard’s idea of “garden cities” came as a reaction to the horrible living conditions of industrial era cities, the concept of “new urbanism” has arisen from the horrible social conditions of the modern post-industrial automobile era city. New Urbanism is still an emerging field, with many different development companies marketing their own version under the name, so it is hard to get an exact definition of what New Urbanism is, or whether it fits in with Ecological Design. The most respected authority on New Urbanism that I found was the Chicago-based “Congress for the New Urbanism” Founded by Calthorpe, Duany, Moule, Plater-Zyberk, Polyzoides, and Solomon in 1993. On their website the CNU charter states clearly that

“ We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice. ” [11]

[deciduous]

So, after learning about the ideas and advancements being created within the field of New Urbanism it was clear to me that this model fits together well with Ecological Design. Even though the New Urbanists seem to focus most their literature primarily on the idea of community values and morals, there is also a clear acknowledgement of the need for environmentally sound development and this is encouraging. Even though most of the New Urbanism communities that are being built today do not usually conform with all of the seven principles of Ecological Design [12] I described in my earlier essay, they can be considered ecologically beneficial in a number of ways.

First and most important is the emphasis on having the ingredients for everyday life within a walk able area of ones home. This means that much of what we currently use cars for – groceries, pharmacy, driving kids to school, going out to eat, or other recreational activities can be easily done within the existing community without the need for excessive amounts of driving. This in and of its self is a significant step towards what I see as the ultimate goal of Ecological Design with the urban environment – sustainability. The difference here between Ecological Design and New Urbanism is that New Urbanism puts more emphasis on the sustainability of the community, whereas Ecological Design is concerned primarily with finding ways in which the community, once established can live in better harmony with the natural environment.

Today, as global warming and the possibility of a peak oil crisis are becoming central issues in the public debate, more and more people are looking for ways in which they can become more self-sufficient or to reduce their “ecological footprint”. You may have heard the metaphor about humanity's "footprint" on the earth. It's often referred to as our "ecological footprint," a term coined by University of British Columbia professor Bill Rees. He estimates that if everyone in the world lived like we do in North America, we would need the resources of four or five more planets [13]. Obviously, this is not a possibility. It is possible however, for people here in North America to not only reduce their own ecological footprint, but also regain the sense of community we think of when we remember the traditional small town America.

That is not to say that we should all go back to living in small towns, or in a small town mentality. It is the diversity of the city and the creative technologies emerging from it that will spur this new revolution in urban development. I believe that what is necessary now is a truly integrative approach to planning. One of the great visionaries of the modern world Albert Einstein summed this up perfectly when he observed that

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Indeed, it will take a complete restructuring of how we perceive ourselves in relation to the natural world and to each other before real changes can come about it. The very language of our economy is embedded with the notion that the planet is here for us to exploit for an infinite amount of time. In his forward thinking book “Green Markets – the Economics of Sustainable Development” Theodore Panayotou of the Harvard Institute for Economic Growth point out that the very structure and language of our economy supports the old ideals of endless consumption and growth. When we talk about forests we refer to them as “resources” not nature. When a “resource” is extracted it is called “production”. Panayotou points out that when the real costs of development are considered (the environmental and social costs not currently counted by the economic system) a very different picture begins to emerge than the one we are being told by the government and by the media.

It is quite often now that I see in the news the debate between development and conservation. This has become a very divisive issue, often with very little middle ground. Like many people today, I feel trapped in the middle. I care about the environment and I support conservation, but at the same time I don’t want to have to sacrifice my quality of life. Development is always portrayed as being at odds with conservation, but as we have seen with both Ecological Design and with New Urbanism this perception is now being turned on its head. When economics, environmentalism and community work together this creates what is now called “sustainable development”.

[deciduous]

Vancouver is now poised with the historic opportunity to be an example for the world by implementing sustainable development on a large scale. The 2010 Olympic Games is the kind of large-scale massive development that can act as a catalyst for sustainable development in Vancouver. On their website, the Vancouver Olympic Committee has listed sustainability –quickly becoming the “catch phrase” of our times, as a top priority. It remains to be seen however, if the games will able to start a chain reaction within the city, with private developers and city councils getting on board. I believe the most influential impact the Olympic Games will have on Vancouver is the legacy of new structures it will leave behind. It is very encouraging to see that many if not all of the new buildings being designed and built for the Olympic games are being done with the intention to become certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System [14]. LEED has quickly become the most respected standard in North America for developing sustainable buildings. It was created to define “green building” by establishing a set of common standards. These standards are rigorous and the challenge is real.

I believe that as developers, innovators, environmentalists, community activists and eventually even politicians see the rising tide of sustainable development in Vancouver, this could become more than a way of planning our city, it can become a means unto its own end. Vancouver is a city in transition. For a long time we were a “resource extraction” economy. Now tourism is the dominant economic force, with the high tech, gaming, and film industry exploding as well. But what if Vancouver were to become the most sustainable city on earth? Not only would the tourism industry benefit, Vancouver would become a global center for research on technologies and new approaches to development. Unlike traditional forms of resource extraction, sustainable development is an emerging industry in which there is infinite room for growth – because it IS sustainable. By bringing together the vibrant fields of New Urbanism, Ecological Design and sustainable development Vancouver can become vivified in a way that benefits all aspects of society – social, environmental, economic and global.

In the collection of Vancouver stories contained in “The Greater Vancouver Book – an urban encyclopedia” by Chuck Davis, Tony Eberts is quoted as saying

“Our greatest treasure lies around us in the mountains, sea, rivers, lakes and forests, not in what we've built. We don't have the Louvre or the British Museum; we have one of the world's richest salmon rivers. Instead of the Leaning Tower of Pisa we have mountain ranges with flower meadows in summer and skiing in winter. No Taj Mahal, but an inland sea offering unrivalled cruising, fishing and watersports.”

Indeed, if Vancouver is truly to become a “global city” such as London or Paris it will be by showing the world a shining example of what it means to be an integrated sustainable urban community living at the gateway to the great north wilderness.

[deciduous]

Okay thats it, had to post several times to get it all up due to contraints on post size.. Your thoughts ?

[Stepper]

Hey deciduous--excellent analysis of how the automobile is not only choking people, it is choking city economies as well!

I'm glad to hear that the new buildings Vancouver is planning for the Olympics will be LEED certified. These planners are pioneers now, but I hope that 15 or 20 years down the road, all new buildings will be built to such standards.

[deciduous]

yes exactly, its important to set a good example. If developers can see the benefits of existing buildings, and there is less red-tape involved in going green we will see more buildings going up like this.