Sustainable City Planning

[bwong 36]

welcome!

Many city planners worldwide face the concept of sustainability.  I have been writing a paper on the concept of sustainable city planning and design.  

The summary has it all. What is your opinion? What is "sustainability"? How can we implement it into cities now?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Step one: Get rid of the self centered people are in charge, who only see  city planing and infrastructure improvements as a way to line their own pockets

Step 2: See step one

[Duke87 1,070]

Achieve density, but avoid creating congestion.

That's pretty much it as far as city planning is concerned. Anything else a city planner tries to tell you they're doing to be sustainable is either feelgood bullcrap, not technically a matter of "sustainability" (sustainability and friendliness to the environment are not the same thing, the latter is often mistakenly referred to as the former). or not actually part of their job.

Sustainability really has more to do with engineering and with public/corporate/personal policy than it does with urban planning.

[bwong 36]

Duke87: city planning, from my part, looks way beyond simply achieving density, and avoiding congestion. City planning also looks for the well being of the people in the city, looking for how the city could develop the best, whilst not damaging the valuable land around it. Sustainability, is also a big mix between the both, engineering the small scale, on how buildings can improve the environment, and in city planning, the large scale outlook

[TekindusT 3,809]

As far as I've learnt on a college subject devoted to sustainable development; a society is sustainable when the the rythm it consumes resources is compensated by the growth of this resources in the same rythm. This makes that this hypothetic resource can last for ever if it is consumed in an appropiate rythm. More or less; it is not easy to explain.

A sustainable city couldn't exist without concerned citizens who follow a sustainable life. This means people who recycle 100% of the waste they generate (impossible thing nowadays), people who use only the public transport for their commute and who spend electricity (generated with windmills or solar plants) ONLY when it's strictly needed. Etcetera.

As for the city planning; subway should reach virtually anywhere and/or electric cars should be cheaper to use than regular cars and recharging stations should be placed more or less on every corner. Citizens should stay away of NIMBYism to have mini-solar power plants on each roof despite the visual problems this should bring and landscaping should be "sacrifized" to build windmills.

This isn't easy and cannot be done overnight.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: bwong

City planning also looks for the well being of the people in the city,quote>

Which has nothing to do with sustainability.

looking for how the city could develop the best, whilst not damaging the valuable land around it.quote>

Which ultimately boils down to achieving proper density. Make the most efficient use of the land you have.

Originally posted by: TekindusT

As far as I've learnt on a college subject devoted to sustainable development; a society is sustainable when the the rythm it consumes resources is compensated by the growth of this resources in the same rythm. This makes that this hypothetic resource can last for ever if it is consumed in an appropiate rythm. More or less; it is not easy to explain.quote>

It's very easy to explain, actually. Just define the word. Something is sustainable if it can be sustained. That is to say, we can keep doing it forever (at least on a human timescale).

For instance, solar power is sustainable because we can count on the sun to keep shining, but burning fossil fuels is not because eventually we will run out of them.

A sustainable city couldn't exist without concerned citizens who follow a sustainable life. This means people who recycle 100% of the waste they generate (impossible thing nowadays),quote>

Not necessarily, unrecylced waste can be burned for energy.

people who use only the public transport for their commutequote>

Errr... no. Public transport is not inherently any more sustainable than car travel. What's unsustainable is fossil fuel power; cars powered by renewable energy are just as sustainable as buses and trains powered by renewable energy.

That said, public transport does at least indirectly relate to sustainability in that it is necessary in dense cities because space contstraints make providing parking and roads for everyone's cars impractical (and density = efficiency).

electric cars should be cheaper to use than regular cars and recharging stations should be placed more or less on every corner.quote>

First of all, this has nothing to do with city planning.

Second of all, so long as most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, the sustainability value of an electric car over the next best thing (a hybrid) isn't all that great.

landscaping should be "sacrifized" to build windmills.quote>

Not a good idea. Small wind turbines are relatively ineffient compared to larger ones, and the wind is not necessarily going to be very reliable on your front lawn. You're better off finding places outside of the city to build wind farms.

Besides, wind turbines generate some odd low-frequency sound waves which a lot of people have trouble tolerating. As such, you have to avoid putting turbines anywhere that people are going to be living or working closely downwind from.

[TekindusT 3,809]

@Duke87: Well, you're right in almost all your points. But the point of my previous post was just to show that all aspects of a society need to go altogether to achieve the absolute sustainability, I had been telling a few examples. You can plan the most sustainable city on Earth that, if the system surrounding it and its inhabitants aren't sustainable; everything fails.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I am sorry, but I think sustainable city planning is an oxymoron.  A plan is only good until you take the first steps toward implementing it, at which point it will hit its first unplanned point of resistance.  It works exactly the same way as military tactics.  You plan is good until the first shot is fired.

Far too many resources are wasted on city planning departments when the money should be going into infrastructure maintenance and enhancement.  The infrastructure of most cities is aging to the point of uselessness, yet the planners don't address it, and the politicians sacrifice maintenance projects to sacred cows in an instant.  Most city planners are planning for growth, and I don't think they give a hoot about sustainability.  All you get is argle-bargle about rhythms.  If it is hard to explain in plain words it is an in-joke.

[bwong 36]

please explain to me how well being is not sustainability. If we aren't being sustainable, then people ain't going to be happy with so much pollution, noise, and other crap.

[morriswalters 16]

Sustainability can be easily enough defined, it's living within your means.  If you spend more than you earn then you are living unsustainably.  If you build cities larger than can be supported by the available resources than you are building unsustainably.  It won't matter how efficiently they use those resources once they are used up or used faster than they can be replaced.  Take a city like Phoenix.  It is in an arid area.  Ultimately water will be a limiting factor on growth.  Since the water supply is finite than growth will be closely related to how it manages it's use of water.  A city planner might look at that situation and recommend zoning regulations to favor native plants in landscapes, rather than more thirsty plants.  Or to discourage the use of outdoor swimming pools where where so much water will be lost to evaporation.  Identify industries that are not water intensive industries and encourage development in such a way to attract those industries.  City planners work with ideals since cities are almost never planned.  But they look and try to identify problems in existing cities and try to think of the best way forward.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: bwong

please explain to me how well being is not sustainability. If we aren't being sustainable, then people ain't going to be happy with so much pollution, noise, and other crap.quote>

Valid point on pollution, but nonetheless there is a thread of a connection at best. "Well being" has so many contributing factors to it that are unrelated. Crime, the economy, quality and availability of all sorts of goods and services, competence of government, agreeability of the local culture... even the weather.

(oh, and noise levels have nothing to do with sustainability, either)

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: bwong

please explain to me how well being is not sustainability. If we aren't being sustainable, then people ain't going to be happy with so much pollution, noise, and other crap.quote>

Valid point on pollution, but nonetheless there is a thread of a connection at best. "Well being" has so many contributing factors to it that are unrelated. Crime, the economy, quality and availability of all sorts of goods and services, competence of government, agreeability of the local culture... even the weather.

(oh, and noise levels have nothing to do with sustainability, either)quote>

This is the biggest  hurdle. maybe not incompetence but greed, they more then willing to start projects like this

so they can get funding for a "Study" and siphon off what they can to themselves and their cronies.  they know they will probably be long gone when that project falls apart under all the red tape years and years later.

I have noticed in the dallas area except for the expansion of the light rail system most of the new hiways being proposed will be toll roads.

[EyeofMobius 27]

"Sustainability" a topic where even the so called experts are at odds with each other.

In city planning what type of sustainability are you after? Environmental? Social? Economic? or does it all need to be "Sustainable?"

For something to truly be sustainable everything about it needs to be operating in a manner that it should in no way have any decline on the three pillars of sustainability over any length of time barring random circumstances.

One other point of arguement on sustainability is whether or not culture needs to be sustainable.

A suggestion on where to look for ideas on sustainable city planning take a look at what the focuses of development have been in periods of time in cities. Looking back in time many cities might have a period of industrialization where economic sustainability was the primary target; the city would then follow with a trend of social sustainability by improving the quality of life with recreation opportunities and services; currently a number of cities are trying to incorporate a period of environmentaly sustainable objectives. Vancouver, Canada seems to follow this reasonably well also I was quite enthusiastic about Portland, US when I went through there.

Examples to provoke sustainable thought(not examples of sustainability):

Nuclear Power: Long lasting high volume energy source; primarily unsustainable because eventually we are going to run out of places to put the radioactive waste.

Hibernia Oil Platform: It's anchored to the ocean floor. Since it can't move it had to be build to withstand impacts from icebergs. Also the oil doesn't last forever. When the oil is gone it seems unlikely that this will be effectively removed leaving a derelict husk of a structure useless in the ocean.

Swiffer Disposable Cleaning products: Filling up landfills because it is more time efficient to throw out a cloth than wash it.

Medical services: designed to keep people alive and healthy for longer lifespans; this results in a larger population overall needing medical care and so medical care grows and keeps more people alive for longer...we will reach the ceiling on this where a decline in the care available is inevitable because the ill far outway the capacity for the medical system to help and we will have more problems happening to many people.

General Motors: It is no longer a profitable company and so its future is threatened.

[nathanthemayor 1,263]

Originally posted by: EyeofMobius

"Sustainability" a topic where even the so called experts are at odds with each other.

In city planning what type of sustainability are you after? Environmental? Social? Economic? or does it all need to be "Sustainable?"

For something to truly be sustainable everything about it needs to be operating in a manner that it should in no way

Examples to provoke sustainable thought(not examples of sustainability):

Nuclear Power: Long lasting high volume energy source; primarily unsustainable because eventually we are going to run out of places to put the radioactive waste.

quote>

That would be a good idea, but as well, I think the Uranium would run out.

[quicksilver991 37]

The uranium would run out in thousands of years. There is so much of it in the ground, and a little bit lasts a long time in a reactor.

[Msprintz 25]

Sustainability, well that's tough one to define in relation to city planning.  The standard notion would be to build up, and cram people and services into towers reaching to the heavens.  That in and of itself has it's pitfalls. 

I'd say a sensible mix of concentrated built up downtown cores would be the best option for sustainability, and the reigning in of suburbs that seems to sprout like weeds to preserve open land for forests and farming use.  Mixed use buildings would have to be a part of the plan for this idea to truely work.   

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: EyeofMobius

Examples to provoke sustainable thought(not examples of sustainability):

Hibernia Oil Platform: It's anchored to the ocean floor. Since it can't move it had to be build to withstand impacts from icebergs. Also the oil doesn't last forever. When the oil is gone it seems unlikely that this will be effectively removed leaving a derelict husk of a structure useless in the ocean. quote>

Not exactly usless. It would become a habitat for sealife and a base for coral reef formation  provided it remains undisturbed for long enough.

[diamonddog_74 32]

If we could only lose about 4.5 billion people, maybe we can learn to become sustainable.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Volunteers?

[diamonddog_74 32]

Soylent Green, anyone?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Nuclear waste:  We aren't doing enough to re-refine that stuff because we can't handle the "hot" materials.  Silly to bury all those nice elements in the dark, dark ground when we could, maybe, find a use for those things.  Something like finding all the nice rare earth elements that make integrated circuits possible in all those mine tailings.

More money for research, please.

[Terring 6,476]

Something like this?

[bwong 36]

^I would suppose so, but really, there isn't enough demand, or actually, there is too much demand for more residential development world wide, that simply having so much parkland is, well, stupid. In cities like Chicago, or New York, where they actually have a large park in the middle of the city, land cost start to spiral all the way up.

[mightygoose 92]

actually energy watch predict peak uranium in 2035.

[Darani 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: bwong

City planning also looks for the well being of the people in the city,quote>

Which has nothing to do with sustainability.quote>

well being has everything to do with sustainability.u cannot divorce socio-cultural aspects from planning n viceversa.architecture,urban planning affect social-cultural life of citizens,in some aspects it determines them.so one cannot look at the density versus congestion alone.the social life aspect has to be considered.if the urban planning solution is one that achieves density without congestion that is fine,but if the quality of social life is lost,or the result is a deterioration of cultural values n norms of the society being planned for(coz most planning is doing in existing communities..unless its a utopia)..then it has achieved nothing.if the aim of sustainability is to improve then it doesnt matter how beautiful or well articulated the urban spaces or buildings are-what matters is the improvement in the life of the people in the city.which isnt a matter of congestion or density alone.one simply has to consider both sustaining the environment and the people-and with people what matters most is their economic sustainability and their cultural/religious/social life.and u find that in many aspects the social life is determined by the integrativeness of the society which is greatly determined through planning.social interactivenes boosts to security/defensible spaces,as opposed to anonymity characterised neighbourhoods which boost crime.some societies need police stations,some need gates wt security men,some just need defensible spaces.thts why most neighbourhoods fail,coz theyr designed/planned for wt ppl who knw little of the social life of the communities theyr designing for,nor do they consider them in their decisionmaking.so wen things fail they blame people-but in essence,u have to understand a peoples social life for u to improve it,u hv to listen n know thr needs,study their ways not design as if ur from mars.the same way architect have to understand a clients needs to design well a biulding for him,the urban planner has to understand the society's needs to b able to know not just what they need but why they need it as well.it has never been a question of figures and statistics,its always been abt quality of life

[Duke87 1,070]

Yes, social/cultural aspects are important in planning. But what does that have to do with sustainablity?

I get what you're saying about a community not being viable if everyone hates living there, but that's a separate issue and there isn't really a correlation. There are, after all, suburban communities full of perfectly happy people who all drive around gas-guzzing SUVs and sports cars. Many of those people would be miserable if they had to live in the city and drive smaller cars or not drive at all.

Ultimately, it's different strokes for different folks. Yes, some will enjoy doing things to live sustainably and jump at the opportunity. But others will look at it more like taking their medicine and want to avoid it. The idea that sustainable living universally improves community well-being falls firmly into the "feelgood bullcrap" category.

(also... Capital letters. Line breaks. Spaces after periods and commas. These things are your friends.)

[avrelivs 24]

@Duke87 i think it is erroneous to claim that 'well-being' and 'noise levels' have nothing to do with sustainability...

...and your definition of "sustainability" gives absolutely no insight:

"Something is sustainable if it can be sustained." 

sustainability:

(latin breakdown) sus + -tinere,  comb. form of tenere  'to hold' and sus meaning 'from below'

ability - the capacity to act or do.

Essentially, it means the capacity to hold up one's (self/family/culture/society) from beneath it.

..with this definition there is no need to argue what does and does not directly concern 'sustainability' as an intellectual idea.

...because every action and everything can ONLY do ONE of two things: either contribute to, or subtract from, the sustainability of itself.

..but you have made some good points i will admit.