As an advocate of Ecopolis for the best part of 2 decades I was pleased to see the idea given such a beguiling presentation in New Scientist of 17 June.
There has been a good deal of seminal work by far more people than Fred Pearce mentions, but he has done a fair job of bringing together most of the key issues that define an Ecopolis (and the front cover illustration was terrific!).
What I can’t understand is why he misrepresents Christopher Alexander as an advocate for inflexible cities that deny the value of neighbourhoods. Quite the opposite, Alexander and his cohorts have been responsible for some of the most influential work (notably A Pattern Language) in favour of the making of meaningful, workable neighbourhoods as part of empowering people to make and shape their urban environments. It is not “Alexander’s philosophy that has turned many cities…into social and ecological disaster areas”. The reasons for that are more to do with the workings of global capital and the interests of oil companies and the motor industry than any planning theory.
The accompanying editorial was right on the money. Along with others who have been battling away with these ideas, like my friend and colleague Richard Register of Ecocity Builders, I see the remaking of our cities as the key to making a future that enables us humans to deal with the challenges of a changing climate and ecological disruption and enjoy a prolonged tenure on this planet.
Integration of architecture, planning and ecology is essential to the development of truly viable ecological cities. The groundbreaking concept of cities as ecosystems was probably first presented by Boyden et al in their study on the city ecology of Hong Kong in the 1970s but was largely overlooked by planners. Perhaps it is not surprising that China is taking the initiative in trying to make ecological cities — although planners and architects in most countries are largely deprived of ecological education in China there has been a strong commitment to the development of urban ecology as a science and planning tool for some time, led by people like the indefatigable Dr Rusong Wang.
Incidentally, as a committed ‘ecopolitan’ architect I have always explained that New Scientist is my journal of choice because it contains real news and fresh ideas that are relevant to making ecological cities whereas in architectural journals such material is conspicuous by its absence.
I look forward to more great articles on the making of Ecopolis.
Nathan Bubb | 14-Aug-06 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
I stumbled across a back copy of the New Scientis, and was very impressed. Full of great ideas, and references to follow-up.
I wrote a brief outline:
Eco-cities special: Ecopolis now 16 June 2006 … Fred Pearce … Magazine issue 2556
Forget the rural idyll – urban living may be the best way to save the planet, as New Scientist discovers A HUNDRED years ago, the largest city in the world was London, with a population of 6.5 million. Today it is dwarfed by Tokyo. With barely a quarter the population of London a century ago, Japan’s capital city has since mushroomed to 34 million, propelling it to pole position in the global city league table.
Tokyo’s phenomenal growth is largely down to a single factor: migration from the countryside to the city. It is just one of many to have overtaken London, which with a population of 7.5 million today doesn’t even make the top 20.
This rural to urban migration can now be seen in scores of cities across the globe. And it has brought us to a pivotal moment in human history. In 1900, most people lived in the countryside, with a little over 10 per cent of the world’s population living in cities. … From next year, the population of the globe will be living predominately in urban environments. We need to find a way to do so on a sustainable basis.
(The complete article is 3153 words long, from page 36)
= = = NOTES from the Article :
= = = = = ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS : Average for the globe: 1.8 hectares per person - - Americans……… : 9.7h Shanghai……….. : 7.0h Rural China……. : 1.6h
CAR JOURNEYS : Private Transport energy per capita - - Houston………… : 65,000 Mn. Joules (eyeballed from chart) Denver…………. : 58,000 Mn New York………. : 48,000 Mn Montreal……….. : 29,000 Mn Stockholm…….. : 19,000 Mn Copenhagen…….. : 16,000 Mn London………… : 12,000 Mn Singapore……… : 10,500 Mn Tokyo………….. : 7,500 Mn Hong kong………. : 4,000 Mn Philippines…….. : 3,000 Mn
Note : related to density: more dense, the less car journeys per capita
= = LOTS of interest on this idea on my website