Consumption and Cruelty

As my last blog entry, I wanted to use this post to sum-up the ideas of the class and my learnings over the semester. But, after seeing this video, I had to share this first. 

\

Source: Sante Nature Innovation 2014, Sans un mot cette video vous rend muet en 6min, Facebook page, 11 April 2014, accessed 3 June 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/554178414627483/videos/741072019271454/>.

In his post, John Voss, former architect now artist whom shared this video, accompanied it with only three words: "faster cheaper more". For me, this perfect summation of what the horror witnessed in this video represents, was just as powerful as the video itself. The suffering experienced by these animals to increase the efficiency of production - fitting more animals in less space, feeding them minimally, processing them alive - all to save a few hours and dollars. And while we may not advocate or even be able to control the conditions these animals have to endure, the possibly even more unnerving scale of production hits home because it is to feed our gross over-consumption. 

We are consumers. Consumers of resources, Consumers of money, Consumers of food. And it's not only bad for our planet, but its bad for ourselves and yet we do it anyway. The discussion on food waste in last week's lecture detailed the environmental impacts of clearing land and the disposal of waste. But we did not touch on the implications of wasting animal products. Animal cruelty as a byproduct of gross consumerism and food waste is a powerful message. Source locally. Only take what we need. Manage waste responsibly. 

To Sum Up

It's difficult to sum up this blog across ideas of population growth, urban planning and smart cities next to climate change and resilience and sustainable behaviours, education and waste management. It's been a rollercoaster of debate over the place of technology in the future of our cities and the role of governments, professionals and individuals in the sustainability movement. City-based solutions to global issues are diverse and sometimes conflicting but there is one message that seems to shine through all of this. When managing sustainability and urbanisation in cities, no matter the tool, the intent must be good and true. This seems obvious but a growing preoccupation with economic outcomes is clear in so many of these articles and videos and it deters from social and environmental objectives, without which, sustainability cannot be achieved. 

Vivid Festival Sydney

Source: 7 News Sydney 2016, Facebook page, 31 May 2016, accessed 2 June 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney/?fref=nf>.

It's that time of the year again. Sydney's Vivid Festival, the world's largest festival of light, music and ideas, wows us and over 1 million of our fellow residents as well as more than 100,000 tourists visiting specifically for the event, with an spectacular show of colour and innovation.

Although I've taken part in the event for years now and often pondered those enormous energy bills, for the first time I've stopped to truly consider the environmental ramifications of such an immense use of electricity. It is the participation of strong sustainability body, Taronga Zoo in the annual light show for the first time that really got me to thinking. How can an organisation working to promote sustainability support such a blatant waste of energy. So I dug a little deeper.

Vivid Sydney (2015) address just how much consideration has been put into the environmental ramifications of the festival. In addition to most installations comprising energy efficient LED globes, Vivid is powered by 100 per cent GreenPower accredited renewable energy. This means that all the power used by installations is offset through an equivalent purchase of renewable energy, essentially an investment in the renewable energy industry. 

Whether Vivid Festival Sydney is entirely powered by renewable energy or not, the educational benefits arguably outweigh the direct environmental repercussions. Sustainable thinking is woven throughout the displays whether they feature innovative ideas for smart cities, low-energy installations or straight-forward sustainability education. Taronga Zoo's own installation promotes education and fundraising for endangered species. Certainly, the economic benefits of the tourism aspect trump the financial energy cost. As long as sustainability remains at the heart of this incredible festival, the long-term outcomes will include positive social, environmental and economic benefits for Sydney.

Source: Vivid Sydney 2015, Vivid Sydney 2015 Lights up with GreenPower, NSW Government, 20 May 2015, accessed 2 June 2016, <http://www.vividsydney.com/sites/default/files/20150520-MR-vivid-sydney-2015-lights-up-with-greenpower_0.pdf>.

Food Waste

This week's panel discussion with Jayantha Sellahewa and Dr Talabal Islam on food waste was certainly thought-provoking. The fact that one-third of food produced is either lost or wasted has enormous ramifications for sustainability. The economic cost - $600 annually for the average Aussie family and $5 billion across Australia - is just the tip of the iceburg (Sellahewa 2016). The two critical perspectives on food waste are the impacts associated with the production of food and those with the waste of it. While Sellahewa focused on food security and the limitations of this world to provide for a growing population as well as the energy and water inputs required in the production of food, Islam explored the economic and environmental costs of the disposal of food waste and how it might be better used (such as biogas & fertiliser).

So how do we mitigate these impacts and prevent food waste? This is a such a significant problem and there are so many levels that need to be addressed, it's by no means a simple solution.

At the production level, we can grow food locally or even domestically to reduce damage (and thus loss) during transportation, the longevity of the food in the supermarket (e.g. imported fruits use up most of their shelf-life during transportation), and restrict leftovers (as home-grown food need only be picked when required and local food can restock on a on demand basis daily).

At the distribution level, which may be one of the most difficult to tackle, we need to transform consumer attitudes and the market. Shopping for less food more often at local fruit shop or corner store over supermarkets. Being less selective on the appearance of fruit and vegetables. Reinterpreting 'best before' dates and educating consumers. And charging more for fresh fruit, vegetables, bread etc. to reflect actual value of the product and discourage consumers from wasting food.

Of course, once food reaches our households, the best solution is behavioural change. To plan meals appropriately but this is a difficult solution to implement.

At the waste level, incentivising consumers to compost their organic waste through incorporation into green bin system, provision of anaerobic digestors or community group that generates fertiliser. Charging consumers for the waste they produce may also provide powerful motivation to discourage waste production. There are, however, equity issues to be considered here for instance families with babies produce a significant amount of waste with nappies.

While there are several opportunities for waste reduction at the domestic level, restaurants, cafes, supermarkets etc are throwing out a significant amount of food every day. It's costly but their businesses are dependent on having a plentiful supply of food for their customers and they operate under strict Australian food safety regulations.

There's some good news on this front in the form of OzHarvest who market themselves as Australia's first perishable food rescue organisation. OzHarvest collects excess food from more than 2,000 commercial outlets to deliver to charities across Australia. The not for profit organisation serves to not only provide quality food for Australian's in need but is a strong advocate for food waste education, tackling the social, economic and environmental impacts of food waste in Australia.


OzHarvest 2016, accessed 29 May 2016 <http://www.ozharvest.org/what-we-do/>.

Sustainable Behaviours

In the Age of Internet, all persons with access to a computer these days has a wealth of information available to them which is highly publicised on social media addressing sustainable behaviours and pointing people in the direction of what is right. Yet still so many of us are partaking in unsustainable practices - do we know it?

All it takes is for Waleed Ally of the Project to do a story on the most controversial new issue for the Australian public to jump on board as evidenced in the latest case with the price cutting of milk and the instant backlash from the public to support Aussie farmers. Unfortunately, when it comes to the sustainable future of our cities, Waleed's stories have focused on the political powers, the governments' role in preventing climate change. Yes these stories have reached a significant audience and had a powerful influence. But Australian citizens can no longer play the blame game and sit back while we demand a more sustainable future for our country, shifting all the responsibility to the fault of our public policy. We need to take responsibility. Do shows like The Project avoid such stories because they're afraid of the response they'll receive from their viewership? Maybe negative response, maybe even decreased ratings. I cannot condemn The Project for relying on evoking passion and outrage in their responders towards the political and big business baddies however behavioural change is paramount to our future and those in the position to inspire it, refuse to step up.

One of our issues then is that all those articles informing the public of the detrimental effects of our unsustainable lifestyles, need to reach the greater population and unfortunately they're only read by those actually interested, those who are unlikely to be major contributors to the problem. How do we catch people? How do we educate? Interestingly, since starting my new job in a big company in March this year, I have been far more exposed to these kind of people, the advocates of sustainable behaviours. It's refreshing to see the articles constantly being posted on our company's social network platform and the growing support sustainable initiatives receive from these members of the building industry, those in positions to make a difference.

In this week already, two articles were shared hoping to deliver information throughout the business and help us choose more sustainable behaviours. The first was on the consumption of bottled water and the extreme levels of CO2 emitted, water used and waste produced compared to tap water. Cleverly, although delivering all the environmental sustainability facts of bottled water production and consumption, the article focused on the outrageous financial costs of bottled water to consumers at 1,000 times over the cost of production. If tonnes of CO2 and barrels of oil are incomprehensible to readers, they can certainly relate to money!

Source: Cool Australia 2016, Bottled Water, accessed 25 May 2016, <http://www.coolaustralia.org/bottled-water-secondary/>.

The second article addressed food sustainability in an anecdote on the writer's experience of giving up meat for a month. The basis of the study was veganism but, probably knowing that would have a hard time convincing the greater Australian audience, the writer expresses full vegan is not a necessity, but a focus on whole foods, locally produced and a reduction in meat consumption will have the same benefits. Similar to the water article, the writer of this journal reflects the sustainable outcomes of cutting the consumption of meat but, in this increasingly health-conscious environment, focuses on the health benefits of a vegan diet, specifically productivity.

Source: Segran, E 2016, 'How Giving Up Meat For a Month Improved My Productivity', Fast Company, 12 May 2016, accessed 24 May 2016, <http://www.fastcompany.com/3059731/your-most-productive-self/how-giving-up-meat-for-a-month-improved-my-productivity?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fast-company-weekly-newsletter&position=4&partner=newsletter&campaign_date=05202016>.

Global knowledge of sustainable behaviours is growing and not only is this information becoming more available to an increasing number of people, it is becoming more 'in-your-face'. The public won't be able to avoid their responsibilities in the sustainable future of our world for much longer and it is our responsibility, as the informed population, to continue sharing this information, to reach the wider population quicker and ensure the information being published and shared is accurate. 

Sustainability Education

I find myself revisiting the sustainability initiatives of Penrith City Council again this week after coming across their "What's On" section where it's clear that educating their residents on sustainability is a key goal for the local government area. Their May initiative involves "sustainable living workshops" held every weekend from the 15th May to the 4th June, providing free courses for locals to learn some fantastic opportunities for sustainable solutions in the home. Workshops being provided equip with home-owners with all the background knowledge to keep chooks in the backyard, install solar power on their roof, grow their own vegetables, fertilise their garden and control pests naturally, and pickle and preserve their own produce. All these courses present opportunities for reducing expenses and improving health and wellbeing within the home in addition to the greater environmental contributions and even promote socialisation in the community. 

Source: Penrith City Council 2016, Sustainable Living Workshops, accessed 23 May 2016, <https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/What-s-On/EventCategory/Classes-and-workshops/Sustainable-living-workshops/>.

Penrith City Council's June initiative is a single event, a free festival held for families with live performances and displays and a central focus of promoting diversion of waste from landfill. This event is particularly clever as it integrates the fun, social activity of a festival with sustainability objectives, enabling the message to be delivered to a wider group of people and associating sustainable waste management with positivity. Sustainability education directed at families is a useful mode of delivery. People are most strongly influenced by the environment around them rather than their own will power so it takes the collective force of a family to create change in the household. Children are far more impressionable than adults and are a great source of encouragement and  a reminder for their parents, who can resort to habitual behaviours. 

Source: Penrith City Council 2016, Waste Not Free Family Festival, accessed 23 May 2016, <https://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/What-s-On/EventCategory/Family-events/Waste-Not-Free-Family-Festival/>.

People are the heart of sustainability. They are not only the source of the issue but the whole purpose of sustainable development - to improve the quality of life for now and the future. So bringing the responsibility back to the people has the most obvious potential for a sustainable future. Not by putting the blame on them but by educating them, enabling them, to make the best decisions possible for the future of their society, their economy, their environment. 

Virtual Reality

With smart cities on the mind as a basis for so many of the developments and decisions relating to sustainable development today, it is not surprising that we're seeing more and more virtual reality. Whether it is because virtual cities are the epitome of smart cities or because virtual reality is a tool for realising our utopia, our ideal smart city, there is no shaking the incredible development in this field - a technology which allows us to see ourselves surrounded by technology. 

The video below allows us to imagine a world where we  become the smart phone and connect in with the city, seeing all the systems around us. 

Source: Matsuda, K 2016, Hyper-Reality, 19 May 2016, accessed 19 May 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs>.

This world presents us with something more than virtual reality, a 'hyper-reality' as described to us by the author. Where we not only see an enhanced version of the world around us but can interact with it. Buildings, infrastructure, even people project a code to the system enabling users of the system to identify every element and then an intelligent computer system provides the user with possible responses to the stimulus it receives. What is particularly strange about this hyper reality is that is hasn't actually changed the way the citizens in this imagined world do things, it has simply made them easier to do. The user still has to go to the shop to buy groceries and motor vehicles still litter the busy streets. And when the system is corrupted, the world around the user appears completely unchanged from how we know it today. Digitisation of the city's components and its people hasn't made the city a better place for the people, it has reduced them to a code in the greater system, it has robbed them of their identity. And, touching on the privacy issues related to big data collection, it was so easy for a hacker to steal the created identity of this woman. 

It may seem now to be an exaggerated portrayal of the future of smart cities, but the recognisable integration of ideas from social media platforms and smart phone apps along with the excessive advertising makes this portrayal seem all too real. It is not entirely far-fetched and it touches on some of the very real issues with the integration of information and communication technologies in our cities today.

Resilient Cities Recover Faster

This week David Sanderson from UNSW's Faculty of the Built Environment presented a fascinating lecture on the subject of disaster recovery in cities. 'Resilience' is a relatively new new term to the sustainable built environment diction. It comes as a response to climate change in which we are seeing increased frequency of severe weather events such as flooding and heat waves and increased severity of 'natural' disasters. Sanderson actively avoids use of the term 'natural' when referring to these disasters due to the significant influence of man-made contributions to the overall event and outcome. It is resilience, a city or building's ability to cope with and bounce back from disaster, that we see increasingly used in place of sustainability.
Through much of his own work in not-for-profit disaster relief, Sanderson relays a strong relationship between the social and economic sustainability of a city to its resilience, ability to recover from environmental disaster. Of course, a city's wealth is not the only determinant in its resilience to and from disaster but it is probably the best indicator.
Sanderson compares an earthquake in Japan, one of the most disaster prone countries in the world but also one of the most prepared, to the earthquake in Haiti, six years ago. In Haiti, one of the world's poorest countries, hundreds of thousands were killed and 400,000 still live in tents following the 2010 earthquake.

Images: Hazelton, L 2010, 'Haiti earthquake in pictures: Shell-shocked survivors roam streets scavenging for scaps', Daily Mail Australia, 16 January 2010, accessed 16 May 2016, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243540/Haiti-earthquake-pictures-Shell-shocked-survivors-roam-streets-scavenging-scraps.html>.

The impact of the disaster and the ability of the city to recover from it are influenced by the scale of the disaster, the preparedness of the city, the city's governance and inherent corruption, poor quality infrastructure and masterplanning and of course poverty, especially concentrated poverty. Poorly planned, poorly built, unprepared and corrupt cities, aching with poverty, cannot recover from disaster of this scale and severity.

But what about cities that can? What does a resilient city look like?  As resilience has become more and more part of sustainability discourse in the built environment, we see the literature unraveling on this. And of course, out come the lists - 'The 10 Most Resilient Cities in the World'. Whilst they tend to be a little North-American-centric, the way the rankings are calculated is really solid and gives a strong idea of the major factors that contribute to a city's overall resilience. This is based on a combination of the city's "Vulnerability" score and their "Adaptive Capacity". Vulnerability is based on the categories of climate, environment, resources (including access to food, energy and water), infrastructure and community. It is not surprising that Canadian cities claim the top three positions on this list, as one of the most adaptable countries on the planet with strong sustainability inclinations, sound governance and economic prosperity, stable climatic conditions and low disaster risk. Pictured below is Toronto, ranked number one resilient city in the world.

Image: Schiller, B 2014, 'The 10 Most Resilient Cities in the World', Co.Exist, 5 May 2014, accessed 16 May 2016, <http://www.fastcoexist.com/3029442/the-10-most-resilient-cities-in-the-world?utm_source=facebook>.

Tackling Climate Change with Land Use Planning

Amidst all the recent discussions around resilience, the proactive role of action on climate change cannot be forgotten. And for Emily Wier and Alisa Zomer, the role played by land use planning in a city's defense against climate change is a critical one.

Above zoning ad behavioural-based policies, Wier and Zomer identify transportation planning at the single most effective tool available to cities to mitigate emissions associated with urban form. In the U.S., transportation contributes to nearly one third of carbon emissions and up to more than 50% of all emissions in some cities. Unfortunately while many cities are reducing their carbon emissions, transport-related emissions continue to increase in many cities. Weir and Zomer identify provision of a rail system, commuting distances, connectivity of transit options and a planned mix of commercial and residential development as contributing factors in a city's total transport emissions. Transport planning needs to be addressed on two fronts. The first is through promotion of alternative modes of transport through the provision of public transport to reduce the reliance on private motor vehicles. Secondly, by reducing the physical distance required for residents to commute through smart land use planning. 

The article highlights a number of methods that can be utilised to help achieve better land use planning to reduce carbon emissions. These include:

* Provision of bicycle lanes

* Electric vehicle charging stations

* Bike and car sharing programs

* Zoning to encourage housing and jobs in close proximity

* Setting clear goals and tracking progress toward these

* Linking policies to mitigation measures

* Making data transparent and available to the public

Macquarie Park Station

Source: Ing, D 2010, 'Sydney-Macquarie Park: planes, trains and buses', Blog: Distractions, Reflections, 31 July 2010, accessed 12 May 2016, <http://daviding.com/blog/index.php/archive/yyz-yvr-sydney-macquarie-park-planes-trains-and-buses/>.

Thinking all the way back to Tone Wheeler's lecture in week 2, all of Sydney's smart solutions and climate change action plans will be useless if we don't first tackle the serious problem of poor land use planning inherent in rapid urban sprawl. Very little of the new suburbs being created in Sydney's far west are supporting the principles of sustainable transport plans listed above. They are not providing public transport infrastructure or bicycle lanes nor are they accommodating a variety of uses to allow job opportunities nearby the residential development. No matter how many "zero-carbon" buildings we build, emissions associated with our transport is only growing and the land use planning solutions required to put an end to this need to be implemented fast. 

Source: Wier, E & Zomer, A 2016, 'Land Use Planning: The Critical Part of Climate Action Plans that Most Cities Miss', The Nature of Cities, 13 March 2016, accessed 12 May 2016, <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/03/13/land-use-planning-the-critical-part-of-climate-action-plans-that-most-cities-miss/>.

Living Walls

Green infrastructure is such an essential part of sustainable urbanism, reducing CO2 levels, improving air quality, providing locally-sourced foods and improving physical and psychological wellbeing. But green roofs are not the only possibility for providing green infrastructure in urban environments, more and more we see green appearing on the walls of our buildings. Not only this, but green infrastructure does not need to exist exclusively in our external environments - we spend almost all our time inside so indoor plants present far greater potential for reducing internal carbon dioxide levels, increasing productivity at work, and the close proximity allows us to touch and smell  and feel more connected to nature when indoors, promoting good health and positive feelings. 

That is why this product which appeared on my newsfeed this week was a particularly exciting find.

Source: Verde Vertical 2015, Plug & Plant, accessed 8 May, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmOVa5Mq9Z8>.

This new design by Vertical Green combines living walls with smart technology to deliver an extremely simple indoor planting system that can be used by anyone anywhere. Not only is the system incredibly easy to install at whatever scale is desired by the user, but requires minimal maintenance which is one of the biggest issues for green walls today both limiting successful outcomes and causing significant financial costs. This system monitors moisture, light levels and temperature and using a smart data collection and sharing technology, sends this information to an application on the user's smartphone so they can monitor levels and ensure conditions are appropriate for the plants. This not only enables users with next to no understanding of growing plants to grow their own indoor plants (on walls, saving space no less!) but also reminds the user to take care of the plants as required ensuring successful growth. One of the later images shown in the video of a woman picking a sprig of herbs direct from her vertical green to add straight to her cooking really sums up for me the brilliant possibilities of this system. Imagine people who live in apartments being able to pick ingredients as local as they come without even having to leave the kitchen - this is the future of sustainable urban environments. 

Green Roofs

With green infrastructure the topic of this week's discussion, it's fitting that France has just passed a new law mandating all new rooftops to be topped with plants or solar panels. In an article releasing this news, sustainable food production and consumption advocacy group, Eat Local Grown (2016) relays the many benefits of green roofs. From passive thermal control, reducing heating and cooling energy demands, to stormwater control and habitat provision for native birds, green roofs are a comprehensive sustainable solution for urban environments. French environmental activists were advocating for a green roofing law to be passed however the inclusion of solar panels enables versatility and selectivity for the end user. This law was passed seven years ago in Toronto for all new industrial and residential buildings.

Image: Eat Local Grown 2016, France Declares All New Rooftops Must Be Topped With Plants Or Solar Panels, accessed 5 May 2016, <http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/14358-france-rooftops-plants-or-solar.html>.

Green roofs are a relatively inexpensive solution to the urban heat island effect, provision of open green space, locally grown food and are aesthetically pleasing to the eye in addition to improving air quality and reducing heating and cooling energy demand in buildings. 

With other countries catching onto the many benefits of green roofs, now is the time for Australia to enhance its own green infrastructure and realise the economic, social and environmental benefits that come with it. The study of Biophilia, human beings innate connection with nature, is now strongly embraced in the discourse of the sustainable built environment and there is abundant evidence that a visual connection with plants improves physical and mental wellbeing. So, in addition to all of the above, not only does greenery make people generally feel good, it actually contributes to increased recovery times and improves health. There is no longer an excuse to be wasting perfectly good roof space and more and more as we find better alternatives for vertical planting, there will be no excuse for wasting facades. Can we transform our buildings and eventually our cities and grow back the greenery destroyed in their construction? It's time we bring new meaning to the term 'urban jungle'.

ADDIT:

But maybe a greener future in our cities isn't as far away for Sydney as we think. This week, while working on a project in Penrith City Council area, I was scrolling through their DCP and was excited to come across a two-page section after their landscaping requirements promoting installment of green roofs and roof gardens. This section provided basic technical information to assist developers in the installation of green roofs as well as a comprehensive list and explanation on the many benefits offered by green roofs. The inclusion of this section in the DCP will surely encourage developers to consider green roofs or roof gardens as a landscaping option. Here's hoping that many other local councils are also advocating green roofs in their DCP's!

Source: Penrith City Council 2014, Development Control Plan

Urban Heat Island

Tonight, in a lecture on Urban Microclimate, Jonathan Fox expressed the concept of Urban Heat Island to us as an equation. In his explanation, Jonathan put forth the very interesting suggestion of a relationship between Urban Heat Island and the ageing population. Whilst my mind immediately made the link that significant climatic differentiation in urban areas was particularly dangerous for the elderly who are particularly susceptible to the heat, Jonathan went on to explain that the elderly, being more highly affected by the heat, are more reliant on mechanical heating and cooling and thus likely contributing to the heat island effect even more.

The contribution of mechanical heating and cooling to the urban heat island was illustrated in a graph which highlighted HVAC use as the perpetrator of 40% of our total energy usage.

The close but not identical nature of my first thought as compared to Jonathan’s explanation got me thinking further. Urban Heat Island is not an equation. It is a cycle. This means that the tools we use to mitigate the symptoms** of Urban Heat Island in fact contribute to and worsen the problem. This is not good. As our surroundings get hotter, more stuffy and more polluted, we rely on air conditioning more and more to improve the temperature, flow and quality of the air inside our buildings. Unfortunately, air-conditioning units emit CO2 and heat to the air immediately outside our buildings, increasing our reliance upon them. Hot and dirty city air not only makes us uncomfortable, it makes us sick. Obviously the best defence against urban heat island is the incorporation of green surfaces in our cities.

Chua, G & Hadley, E 2014, 'Sydney tower named world's 'Best Tall Building' by CTBUH', Architecture & Design, November 2014, accessed 2 May 2016, <http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/one-central-park-sydney-named-the-world-s-best-tal>.

Hopefully this is just the beginning and we see our buildings start to move from the now very overused and rarely accurate term ‘green’ to a more literal interpretation, physically covered in greenery. Unfortunately, introducing greenery can only come slowly and it has limitations. More immediately, we need to stop the everyday air-conditioner. There are so many alternatives out there now. Evaporative cooling, trigeneration, chilled beams. Many examples of passive thermal design in which no active cooling system is required at all sans for maybe a simple fan.

Unfortunately HVAC is not our only heat source in the city. And a big one is producing even more heat and pollution and odorous fumes. I’m sure we’ve all had the experience of jumping out of plane in a foreign city to be overwhelmed (and sickened) by the city smell. Despite travelling to some pretty dense parts of Asia, I remember this most vividly upon arrival in Los Angeles - one of the most car-dependent cities in the world. The fumes and heat generated by all that traffic was unbearable.

Groves, M 2013 'Elon Musk hates 405 Freeway traffic, offers money to speed widening', Los Angeles Times, 25 April 2013, accessed 2 May 2016, <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/25/local/la-me-ln-elon-musk-405-freeway-20130425>.

Interestingly enough, the 2013 article written by Martha Groves from which this image was grabbed discusses the need for further road-widening due to major traffic problems in LA. Unfortunately it seems LA is stuck in its own cycle - it has been developed so entirely around cars that residents rely totally on cars and thus, road infrastructure needs to further developed, further cutting out the place for public transport within their system.

Phasing out cars from our cities would be hugely beneficial to mitigating the urban heat island due to its triple-fold outcome. Firstly, in that the impact of a significant generator of heat, air pollutants and greenhouse gases would be lessened. Secondly, moving people outside reduces their dependence on a controlled, air-conditioned environment and we would undoubtedly see behavioural change within our buildings as an outcome. And finally, that there would be less need for roads and thus smaller surface area of a particularly high-heat emitting surface.

Controlling Carbon Emissions

Following the 21st annual Conference of Parties held in Paris in December last year, an article has recently been released by the World Bank sharing the views of leaders of countries, cities and big business alike on putting a price on carbon. This reflects a world-wide agreements by countries to do more and a shifting focus to businesses to own their role in the global warming crisis.
In this article, we see political leaders from right across the globe including developing countries such as Ethiopia and Mexico voice their reflections on the Paris Agreement and the inevitability of implementing (or for some increasing) a tax on carbon to combat carbon emissions.
Why is it that these developing countries, with much greater concerns than we have in the first world, are taking the necessary steps to combat global warming while Australia is still sitting on the fence and not pulling our own act together on this issue?
Is it because, as a country with a small population, we have a relatively minor contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and thus think our impact is significant enough to warrant action? Or that we should be exempt? Is it because we still don't believe in climate change? Or is it because we're so strongly dominated by business that we let them run the show and are so concerned for their electoral vote that we refuse to force them to be accountable for their actions?
Maybe carbon tax is not the answer.

As a coach long before I ever studied the Built Environment or Sustainability, I’ve had a lot of experience in understanding what motivates people. One of the most important principles I’ve learnt in training people to do the right thing, is that incentives are a far more powerful motive than punishment. This is a well-known concept for trainers.

I cannot see, then, why this wouldn’t translate into business. Surely businesses, which are run by people, are far more driven to do the right thing when motivated by incentives rather than punishment. That is why I do not believe the Carbon Tax to be the answer. I do not believe it’s entirely without its place, in fact, it may be essential. But it is not comprehensive. Businesses need to be incentivised to learn to do the right thing. Instead of only taxing them heavily when they do the wrong thing (i.e. emit excessive levels of CO2), we should reward them when they do the right thing. We should promote sustainable energy initiatives of companies with an incentive program.

The biggest argument against the Carbon tax in Australia is the secondary impacts it has upon citizens. Where the cost of energy to users was increased significantly to offset the cost to companies. An incentive program would not present the same issues to households. 

This seems to be realised by the president of Mexico, where clean energy certificates were introduced in conjunction with carbon taxing to incentivise businesses to do the right thing.

Another extremely important viewpoint realised in this article is that of Mayor Eduardo Paes of Rio de Janiero who puts the responsibilities for climate change action back on the cities as the source of 70% of emissions. Rather than tackling climate change at the federal level, reducing the issue to a much more manageable level allows greenhouse gas emissions to be tackled at the source and not generalised, accommodating and recognising the unique attributes of the city and its inhabitants that contribute to the issue. Below is pictured a Global Climate March event in Rio de Janiero on the 29th November 2015, one of the thousands held in the lead up to the 2015 United Nations Climate Chnage Conference in Paris.

Image: Adelaide Silva, M 2015, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29 November 2015, accessed from Alamy on 28 April 2016, <http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-rio-de-janeiro-brazil-29th-november-2015-global-climate-march-event-90641797.html>.

Reference:  The World Bank 2016, 'Leaders Set Landmark Global Goals for Pricing Carbon Pollution', The World Bank, 21 April 2016, accessed 28 April 2016, <http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/04/21/leaders-set-landmark-global-goals-for-pricing-carbon-pollution>.

Proactive v Reactive Resilience

As highlighted by The Project's Waleed Aly in a recent piece attacking Herald Sun journalist, Andrew Bolt for his ignorance, climate change can no longer be dismissed as a possibility, opinion or even a theory.

Source: The Climate Council 2016, The Bolt Retort, Facebook page, 7 April 2016, accessed 21 April 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil/videos/784838048319457/>.

We can no longer ignore climate change. Surely there is no way our political leaders can continue to refute the evidence. And the time to act is now. We talk about resilience theory more and more. It is our cities' ability to respond to the effects of climate change. But simply recovering from disturbances caused by climate change is a reactive response. Nina-Marie Lister (2016) discusses a transition to Proactive Resilience.

Lister describes how despite more than two decades of research, little has been done in the development of policy strategies and design applications for resilience. While extreme weather events including New York's Superstorm Sandy in 2011 and Toronto's ice storm in 2013 has prompted resilience strategies, these have been reactive and rarely continued on into long-term plans once the crisis has subsided. A proactive response involves coordinated urban planning and design for resilience. Resilience must be built into the design of our cities. So what does this look like?

Well, as urbanisation places increasing pressure on our cities, the quality of the infrastructure being built to support it is diminishing. In order for our cities to be resilient, it is most important to never lose sight of the quality of urban planning and built form. After this most essential factor, Lister discusses three approaches to be incorporated in our cities and in our buildings when designing for resilience.

1. Embracing dynamic system change in favour of stability, certainty and predictability. Dynamicity describes a quality which we more familiarly refer to as 'adaptability'.

Image: Non linear habitat management: Dynamic uses proposed for Massachussets Military Reservation at various stages of ecoloical succession (Lister 2016)

2. Reintegration of landscape with planning and architecture incorporating coastal management policieis and flood management plans

Image: Toronto's Wet Weather Master Plan, drawn in section to depict implication on landscape infrastructures (Lister 2016).

3. Transformative capacity i.e. shifting our perception of acceptable norms our environments need to bounce back to by building in the ability to change with conditions.

Image: Resilience visualised as a function of the adaptive cycle (Lister 2016)

Resilience is an interesting new approach to sustainability and certainly an important consideration not just because it is becoming increasingly relevant with increased frequency and severity of natural disasters but because of its place in responding to war and resource scarcity and financial crises. However, a focus on resilience can sometimes cause a tendency for us to be reactive in our response to sustainability. Resilience-thinking needs to be directed to a proactive approach which equips our cities to avoid the impacts of crisis rather than simply being adequately equipped to recover from crises after they have struck.

Source: Lister, N 2016, 'From Reactive to Proactive Resilience: Designing the New Sustainability', The Nature of Cities, 15 March 2016, accessed 22 April 2016, <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/03/15/from-reactive-to-proactive-resilience-designing-the-new-sustainability/>.

Sustainability and Resilience

In this week’s reading, Charles Redman discusses whether sustainability and resilience, which have started to become interchangeable terms, should be combined or remain distinct. Whilst it has become commonplace for researchers to want to combine Sustainability science and resilience theory, Redman argues that although he at first had the same inclination, “fundamental assumptions within each approach differed and even contradicted each other” (Redman 2012).

Redman’s  purpose in making this argument is that by treating resilience and sustainability separately, the distinctiveness of these approaches may be built upon and then we can focus on how their shared objectives may be achieved. Redman likens resilience and sustainability to adaptation and transformation. While resilience is the “capacity of a system to experience shocks while retaining function, structure, feedback capabilities, and therefore identity”, sustainability science seeks to address the “major challenges facing society” while ensuring the wellbeing of humans and the planet (Redman 2012).

Whilst Redman argues for the separation of these approaches and many other academics argue for their combination, I see two distinct terms that not only have significant overlap but which are dependent on each other. While sustainability is an approach to present day challenges without compromising the needs of the future, resilience is the response after the challenge, the urban environment’s inherent ability to bounce back. Whilst these two things can exist as completely separate characteristics, they are unlikely to. A sustainable response to a city responding to crisis would not only be to rebuild itself but to rebuild itself to resist the effects of a repetition of that crisis in the future – to meet the needs of the future generation. Therefore, while maybe not essential, a sustainable city is likely to be, should be, resilient. What about a resilient city? Well, a city that can comfortably bounce back from a crisis is a city that can support itself and its people for the long-term and should therefore be sustainable. But hold up. While this meets our most basic definition of ‘sustainability’ it doesn’t necessarily satisfy the triple-bottom-line ‘sustainability approach’. A resilient city which supports the economy and health and society to bounce back after crisis, cannot be sustainable if it has completely destroyed the environment in the process.

This discussion of resilience vs sustainability reminded me of the self-recycling video I wrote about in my post the other day and a website I discovered shortly after this: http://newplasticseconomy.org/

The New Plastics Economy is a movement driven by the environmental impacts of plastic disposal from the traditional linear economy of make à take à dispose towards a new “circular economy” in which plastics are reused over and over again. Whilst this idea is born out of the ‘sustainability approach’ to tackle a current issue, it has ramifications on the resilience of the plastics economy. Say the raw resource suddenly ran out. The current linear plastics economy would not be able to bounce back from this. It relies on raw material input to keep the system going. The circular system on the other hand, is a more resilient one in which a component (raw material) could be taken out and the system would continue to operate. Say New Plastic Economy’s resolution to the plastic problem was self-recycling as seen in the video from my last post. This system which touches on some sustainability factors such as lower energy emissions but does not satisfy others in its decreased efficiency, is even more resilient as it has a multitude of individual operations functioning so no matter which one is disrupted, it will not affect the continued functioning of any other machine or the system as a whole.  

Source: Redman, C 2012, ‘Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct pursuits?’, Ecology & Society, vol. 19 no. 2, DOI: 10.5751/ES-06390-190237, pp. 398-405.

Source: Ellen Macarthur Foundation 2016, The New Plastics Economy, accessed 15 April 2016, <http://newplasticseconomy.org/>.

Self-Recycling

Last night Richard Horsfield from Macquarie University's Department of Environmental Sciences gave a lecture on Waste Management for Sustainable Cities. One point raised by Horsfield which I found particularly interesting and got me thinking was that developing countries are much better at recycling. Citizens in these countries perform a lot of self-recycling because recyclable goods are too valuable a resource for people with nothing. This idea of self-recycling reminded me of a video I saw on my facebook news feed.

Video: Hakkens, D 2016, Precious Plastic - create things from plastic, 24 March 2016, accessed on 16 April 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdUkOjIP0Ok>.

Dave Hakkens, composer of this video presents a series called 'Precious Plastic' which instructs watchers first how to build their own plastic shredders, teaches them about the different types of recyclable plastics and their melting points, how to build moulds and finally how to turn waste plastics into exciting new things. Hakkens creates a variety of beautiful, durable and useful objects using upcycled plastics and is just one of a number of youtubers, bloggers and the like jumping on the self-recycling band-wagon. Whilst self-recycling has been entwined in the lifestyle of the world's poorest since plastics began, there is now a wealth of information available which encourages the first world to do the same - saving energy, transportation and the user's own dollar in the process. One of the most exciting things I think coming out of this self-recycling phenomenon which is depicted in this video is the creation of plastic spool. Here, we see the opportunity to take the product of quite a base recycling technology and feeding it into one of our newest smart technologies: 3D printing. Plastic spool represents the base ingredient for 3D printing and a magnificent opportunity for creating a world of incredible yet inexpensive, completely recyclable, low energy intensive, super quick objects at the domestic scale. Imagine a future where mass plastic production is no more and 100% of recyclable plastics are reused for better things resulting in minimal need for the manufacture of new plastics. Not only will we be a thriftier and more sustainable people, we will be a more creative and artistic people!

Portable Living

Video: Channel Exclusively 2016, Unbelievable House Truck Transforms, 21 March 2016, accessed 15 April 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV1IRqmBDcE>.

Recently, a friend uploaded this video to facebook with a caption along the lines of "this is so cool, I want this!" Although I dismissed this particular animation as unrealistic with its scale, brick construction and level of hydraulic mechanics being financially not viable, structurally not feasible and spatially not supportive of furniture or other necessities in compact state, I found the video quite thought-provoking for a number of reasons.

Firstly, upon reflecting on changes that could be made to the design depicted in this video, I dissected how a similar idea could in fact be affordable both in its construction and its mechanics, be lighter for transportation and also support inbuilt furniture. I found further videos depicting real-life 'house trucks', all unique and many very luxurious. 

Aside from being pretty cool (also represents the current gap between smart technology as an idea and as a solution), this got me thinking about re-inventing the idea of home and what this could mean for urban sustainability.

Imagine if, instead of setting up permanent buildings, buildings were transportable. Maybe you'd take your car to work in the morning or maybe work would come to you. Land would not have to be destroyed to accommodate housing development however a new roadwork system would certainly be required. Living is suddenly far more affordable since the price of land is what carries the unaffordable cost of breaking into the housing market at present. Maybe we become nomads, seasonal migrators like the Aboriginal ancestors of the land before us but in a far more westernised luxury way, moving from place to place with the seasons and the availability of foods.There are no longer cities so the issue of urban growth is a thing of the past. However, although each unit takes up far less room than a standard lot, we cannot build up, ultimately presenting the same space issues. 

Even with light-weight construction and relying on manual fold-out, this form of housing may be neither affordable for everyone or realistic at a city scale. Which got me thinking further back to a video I saved back in January on how to construct a granny flat for less than $10,000. The builders open up the granny flat as essentially a flat pack of prefabricated panels on site and construct it within only a few hours. The video can be found at this link: http://www.domain.com.au/news/build-a-granny-flat-for-less-than-10k-20140831-10amu2/ 

Video/Images: Walsh, A 2014, Build a granny flat for less than $10k, Domain, 1 Sep 2014, accessed 19 January 2016, <http://www.domain.com.au/news/build-a-granny-flat-for-less-than-10k-20140831-10amu2/>.

Aside from the remarkable speed and waste minimisation that comes with pre-fabricated construction, what struck me about this video was the impermanence of this little home. Not only is this building without foundations but it was constructed on wheels for ease of transportation. Prefabricated construction presents an opportunity for more affordable living but also a new way of thinking about homes - portable houses, adaptable houses, modular houses. That can be moved or renovated or expanded quickly as required for a growing population whilst minimising environmental damage caused by construction. 

Smart Transport

This week, after a friend posted a video on facebook, I discovered the 'Information Civil Engineering' page which is a fascinating resource of time-lapse construction videos and innovative animations. Scrolling through video after video and picture after picture, this page presented a very interesting follow-up to last week's smart city discussion. 

As I mentioned in last week's post, if there is one good thing that could come out of smart solutions, it is smart transportation, a resolution to our car issue. And while the posts I read through on Information Civil Engineering's page do not illustrate innovative new transport solutions, they do depict innovative development processes (or smart construction solutions) to resolving some of the issues with our current transport systems. 

The first image which captured my attention was this one which pictures a truck towing a boring device with a diameter around four times the truck's own width. The reason this image struck me - aside from the obvious wow factor - was that it pictured the exact image my fiance tried to convey to me over the phone only a few night's ago of seeing an enormous truck towing an even larger boring device not dissimilar to this one (although I'm sure not quite this size) along the relatively narrow Castle Hill Road. The boring device is a self-driven machine which has been working away at the tunnel for the north-west rail link for some time. An incredible use of smart technology to construct a public transport network beneath the preciously scarce and valuable land of an increasingly urbanised Sydney. However, I find it a little ironic that a contraption designed to build more efficient transport systems has to be transported by a truck on our everyday commuter roads - and as my fiance recalled, the entire eastbound road had to be closed to do so.

 

Image: Information Civil Engineering 2016, 4 April 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/Information-Civil-Engineering-383870055097958/timeline>

The next image which I loved not because it particularly represents a smart technology but because of what it represents; a variety of transport modes, integrated, working in harmony to deliver an all-inclusive transport system. I don't think we can abolish personal motor transport completely from our cities. Sometimes a car is - whether we like it or not - essential. Hopefully it won't be long before we see the common current day car being replaced completely by a lightweight electrical vehicle with much more sustainable prospects. However, before that day, the image below represents a kind of ideal scenario where there are only a couple of cars on the road (not the major Sydney traffic jams we all have to deal with on a daily basis whether we're taking a car or not), several pedestrians walking and a regular rapid train network for public transport commuters. Whilst provision of improved pedestrian, cycle way and public transport infrastructure is essential, a smart solutions relies on the integration of a variety of transport modes. My main argument against the image below would be that hierarchically, the system requires a restructure (yes, this wouldn't work structurally but just an idea). Motor vehicles should not be provided with the best views of the surrounding waterway (they're driving anyway - they can't look out the window). If road and rail were switched, commuters could be encouraged to catch the train to work everyday just to take advantage of the views. I know that for me, the views over Sydney Harbour from the Harbour Bridge is what made the very long train trip to Crows Nest worthwhile everyday.

Image: Information Civil Engineering 2016, 4 April 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/Information-Civil-Engineering-383870055097958/timeline>

Finally, the below video illustrates again a smart space utilisation strategy for transport in cities to cope with population growth but this time, a different sort of smart technology is being utilised so that a train system can run beneath the sea. I'm not sure what I find more interesting about this idea, that modules of two-way train-line could potentially be prefabricated and linked on site or that the construction site is built to simply float on the water, requiring no land at all. 

Video: Information Civil Engineering 2016, 3 April 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/Information-Civil-Engineering-383870055097958/timeline>

Although we haven't yet started building intercontinental transport systems along the ocean bed, maybe this idea is the beginnings of a new more sustainable system of international travel. I don't think it completely unrealistic to believe that at some time in the future we may be connected to our neighbouring countries by some sort of high-speed sub-ocean rail system. In fact, it's already begun over in Scandinavia where we see the technologies pictured in this video meet the integrated transport network pictured above...

Source: Andrei, M 2015, 'This amazing bridge-tunnel connects Sweden and Denmark', ZME Science, 22 September 2015, accessed 6 April 2016, <http://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/oresunt-bridge-sweden-denmark/>.

This is the Oresund Bridge, an incredible structure stretching 8 km over the Oresund Strait from Denmark to Sweden. Incredibly, this bridge connects into 4 km of underwater tunnel supporting 2 lanes of traffic each way and a two-way train line. 

Knowing Vs Doing

In the lead-up to this week's lecture on Emissions, Energy and Measurement, Anne Trumble's article on 'Knowing vs. Doing: Propelling Design with Ecology' seems like an appropriate topic for discussion. In this article, Trumble refers to a book entitled Project Ecologies to argue her point that a very theoretical and complex interpretation of landscape architecture (and not just landscape architecture but all urban design practice) in the literature is creating a barrier for the practical realisation of ecological design. 

Ecology has evolved from being a natural science to a trans-disciplinary model across fields such as social sciences and art. It has further been reduced to a metaphor to describe anything remotely related to the environment and even as a descriptor for dense networks of connectivity. Because of its "descent into simplistic truisms that everything if interlinked and interacting", Trumble argues, "it loses its meaning as a specific idea." The confusion is further amplified by the broad spectrum of fields over which ecology spans from landscape ecology and human ecology to evolutionary ecology and unified theory of ecology. The below image from Project Ecologies taken from Trumble's article illustrates the complex and theoretical nature of literary ideas in landscape ecology. 

I find myself agreeing the Trumble as I find the highly theoretical nature of much of our information is not only restricted to academic literature but in our higher education learning. Across the five years of my Architectural degrees, a huge proportion of our learning was dedicated to design and it wasn't until years into the program that any consideration of the buildability of these designs was given. I undertook subjects designed purely to stimulate creativity and very few which equipped me with the knowledge to design practical solutions in the real-world. 

Similarly, the world has gained incredible insight into the sources and impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and even how to measure it and what levels are appropriate. But what are we doing about it? We are so concerned with telling people what not to do and explaining the ramifications of our actions that we're not improving the wealth of information available to convey what needs to be done. People now understand how their actions are having negative effects but what they don't know is what alternatives are available to them. 

Source: Trumble, A 2016, 'Knowing vs Doing: Propelling Design with Ecology', The Nature of Cities, 14 March 2016, accessed 23 March 2016, <http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/03/14/projective-ecologies-review/>.

A Smarter Future for Sydney

Smart devices, smart people, smart ideas. These are the three key components that make up a smart city (Chris Petit 2016).

Figure 1: Own Interpretation of the Smart City model

Three things we see plenty of in Sydney - yet we are a long way from being able to call ourselves a smart city. Why? Because smart cities are all about the relationship between these things by way of COMMUNICATION. Smart city development relies on BIG DATA. This is where we're lagging behind as a city and a nation. It seems to me that government and developers are ready to fully embrace smart technology whether it be the Opal Card or Building Management Systems. But it is in the collection and the sharing and the use of big data that we're lagging behind --> we've forked out the bulk of the smart investment and yet we can't seem to take it that step further and actually use the data which is so easily available to us with these technologies. 

In this course thus far, our interpretation of the Smart City has been a critical one. Challenging the now rather common notion that smart city is the future, we have been persuaded to recognise the many issues that come with adopting the smart city as our model. 

Of course, millions if not billions of dollars invested in new technologies that don't solve issues such as starvation, climate change or safety is not worthwhile. But when we discuss smart ideas to build smart cities, the hope is that they ultimately lead to solving greater issues. Since my local council just forked out $40 million to add an extra lane to a road that currently has no traffic problems, why not instead spend our money (which we must have an excess of if the council is feeding into projects like this) investing in research for smarter modes of transport? Modes of transport which are faster, use less non-renewable fuels, emit less CO2, require less infrastructure, are comfortable, safer, cleaner. 

Since the state government has already committed $1.2 billion (Allie Coyne, 2013) to the Opal Card system, why not invest in the collection of data from these cards to better understand public transport usage and appropriate modes of smart transport. 

Figure 2: Masdar City's driverless, electric-powered Personal Rapid Transit vehicles

Is this the answer? Maybe not. But how can it be any worse than the system we have in Sydney today of vast road networks and fossil-fuel-powered personal motor vehicles? Australian governments spend $18.5 billion maintaining and upgrading existing roads and building new ones every year (National Commission of Audit 2013). The Barangaroo precinct in Sydney is a $6 billion investment in itself (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2013). And for the UAE, Masdar City was a $22 billion investment (Peter Savodnik 2011) - including public and private transport networks. Yes, it's an expensive investment. Will it pay off? So far, we do not know. There have been setbacks and the completion date for the project has unfortunately been drawn out. But the city promises housing for 40,000 and work for 50,000 more. It is a city designed to be a centre for research and innovation. Compared to that $18.5 billion we're wasting in roads, isn't an integrated smart model worth a second thought? We know it's too late to go back, we - Sydney-siders - are used to a certain comfort in life we're not so easily going to give up. Of course, there is a bigger place for bicycles in our lives than we're currently committing but developing infrastructure for bicycles is hardly enough especally for a city that is ow so sprawled out. And our public transport systems are neither reliable, fully accessible or particularly safe late at night. So, how do we connect our city? Investment in smart infrastructure must have some place in our city's future. But whether the answer is smart technology or not, the solution right now relies on smart thinking - that is integration. The collection of data on a big scale, it's use in connecting smart people and smart ideas with smart technology. Or maybe it will be using smart technology to find smart ideas or inform smart people. However we find the relationship, it must be through integration. 

This is why Sydney is still dumb. Our systems need to work together. And in working together, we become smarter - and cleaner, and safer and healthier. Ultimately, how can a smarter city be a bad thing? If it is, then it is not truly smart. 

Image credit (figure 2): Masdar Institute 2016, Campus & Community: Transport, Masdar, accessed 20 March 2016, <https://www.masdar.ac.ae/campus-community/the-campus/transport>.

References:

• Petit, C. 2016, Smart Cities, lecture at the University of New South Wales, 17 March 2016. 
• Coyne, A. 2013, 'NSW pours $15m more into Opal project', IT News, 9 December 2013, <http://www.itnews.com.au/news/nsw-pours-15m-more-into-opal-project-366941>.
• National Commission of Audit 2013, What do governments do in Australia today?, Australian Government, accessed 20 March 2016, <http://www,ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-vol-1/3-what-do-govs-do-in-aust-today.html>.
• NSW Gov Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2013, Overview, Barangaroo, accessed 20 March 2016, <http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/overview.aspx>.
• Savodnik, P. 2011, 'Masdar City, Castle in the Sand', Bloomberg, 9 Dec 2011, <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-08/masdar-city-castle-in-the-sand>.

Poor Planning, Bad Design

In follow up to last week's lecture on residential growth and sprawl in Sydney, an article by Brandon Donnelly titled 'The Death of Planning Expertise' reflecting similar concerns on the other side of the globe was an interesting find. Funnily enough, this North American-based article attributes the demise of good town planning to the rise of  'community participation' and an associated lost respect for experts in the built environment field. Donnelly asserts that as people have been empowered by an increasing network of information sharing, they begin to devalue the expert knowledge of architects. It's a 'power to the people' type attitude that views the architectural opinion as pretentious. 

The author illustrates his viewpoint with the below image, however no information on the location or what we're actually seeing here is provided. This could be slums from what we can tell from this image.

Source: Donnelly, B 2014, 'The Death of Planning Expertise', Sustainable Cities Collective, 19 June 2014, accessed 16 March 2016, <http://www.sustainablecitiescollective.com/donnellyb/259921/death-planning-expertise?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=>.

Although there are certainly valid opinions being expressed in this article which is supported by my last entry, I can't entirely agree with the idea. Poor urban planning is entirely an outcome of a government's (or multiple governments') failure to deliver appropriate policy. If the argument is in fact of the architectural scale, which may be likely as Donnelly generally points to architects as our experts rather than town planners in this article, there is evidence to both support and refute the claims made here. 

Firstly, it is undeniable that a lack of expert consultation in residential development is certainly a barrier for sustainable outcomes. The proportion of houses designed by architects to project homes being built is now astronomical. Despite the recent increasing sustainability concerns of these big developers, there is a gap in design knowledge still apparent. On a recent visit to Fairwater Community at Blacktown, a new master-planned community development by Frasers, I observed homes equipped with rainwater tanks and air-conditioning systems powered by geothermal technology. Unfortunately, the brick-veneer construction of these homes and the 3mm sheets of glass and their entirely glazed back walls didn't support the energy-efficiency gains of their high-tech thermal control systems. However, this considered, are the so-called professionals actually doing a better job?

Having been working in the building industry for two years now, I have witnessed both positive and negative answers to this question. Whilst my most recent job was under a highly-experienced architect who valued design integrity and delivered architecture which reflected as such, there was often strong back-lash from the client and project manager who thought they knew better. On the other hand, in my first job I witnessed the architect design absolute monstrosities of glass and concrete for wealthy clients, without any consideration for sustainable design with a view only to satisfy the client's demands. 

Both urban planning and good sustainable design are dwindling in our cities right around the world. But is it due to the empowerment of lay people and decreasing respect for our built environment professionals or because of an increasingly money-driven focus in our development system?