if green and blue structures in cities are to become significant in cities based on the services that they are capable of provide (Improve air quality, control Micro climate, Noise reduction, Rainwated drainage, Improved water quality, Increased groundwater recharge, Wastewater treatment, Flood protection, etc) we need to engage residents in a dialogue with the ecological processes happening in them

In some of my posts I try to express my concerns about the growing believe that green technologies or green buildings will solve our environmental problems. Although I do believe that these new technologies can create less impact than many of our existing constructions, I also see their growing promotion as a new business opportunity, one that many are trying to manipulate and take advantage of.

To rely on green technologies is to abstract and to de-individualize the responsibility we have towards our environment (if you pay a tax for CO2 emissions it doesn’t mean that you are doing better for the environment). Buildings alone wont do it and some even argue that it is citizens and their lifestyles that will achieve sustainability, not engineers, architects or planners (see eg. Julian Agyeman and Per Berg).

Even if we live in a zero-energy building nothing will be achieved if that house is part of the sprawling development of the city, or if the vertical garden demands more energy in its maintenance than the one it produces, or if we still drive to buy the milk (40% of all urban travel in the US happens within 2 miles & nearly all of that travel is by car!), or eat highly processed food coming from the other side of the globe, or follow our current consumption pattern of shop just for the sake of shopping, and so on and so on. 

This seems to be the case in the United States where green-building technologies have become the latest thing in the market. In a CNN special report a group of American architects argue that the American building-design community’s vision of sustainability is myopically focused. They say that the so-called “green” buildings are simply not sustainable if (as it is now):”their occupants drive long distances every day, the energy they consume is carbon-intensive, their technology is too complicated to use or too difficult to maintain, their impact stops at the property line, they deny the use of pre-existing infrastructure or building fabric , they are conceived in isolation from larger, systemic environmental change”.

All these seem to be things that we all (planners, designers, engineers, … news paper boys, house wifes/husbands, doctors, firefighters, gardeners, farmers, teachers ….. buildings, cars, roads, etc, etc, etc) need to address in the development and everyday life of our cities.

“New York City (Steady) State” is a project and exhibition created by Terreform. A very interesting non-profit design group that promotes green design in cities. The project’s objective is to explore how can the ecological footprint of New York City become co-terminus with its political boundaries. The driving force of the project is that: the city can become completely self-sufficient.

For doing so the project explores strategies to improve the use an improvement of water, air and climate, food, energy, building, manufacture, movement, and waste.What is interesting about the project, and Terreform in general, is their believe that we can not achieve self-sufficiency if we do not change our life styles and habits. Although they propose some “ecothecnology” solutions they are also critical to these when saying that such technologies tend “to abstract and de-individualize responsibility and to de-politicize the environmental problem”. In my opinion this is why in the project’s images emphasis is made on showing people making the change and not the infrastructure or the buildings. 

This reminds me some of the quotes that I have put in this blog:

citizens not engineers will achieve sustainability - Julian Agyeman

to effectively address the global environmental problems, we will have to start with the lifestyle of residents in their local communities - Per Berg

designers, engineers, planners, artists, sociologists in collaboration and partnership with citizens will achieve sustainability

you can find more information and pictures of the project in designboom or follow terreform’s blog

By giving importance to the small and nearby green areas of the city, Copenhagen intends to reinforce its strategies towards reducing the city’s CO2 emissions and also contain climate adaptation. The plan “Pocket parks, more trees and more green” intends to prepare Copenhagen for a warmer and wetter future. The local authority aims to create 14 pockets parks and planting 3,000 trees over the next seven years. 

Planners in Copenhagen understand that such initiatives go beyond climate adaptations. “Besides preparing the city for future climate change we also make the city a better place to live. The green areas helps us to cope with torrential rain and heatwaves - but also makes people better able to play and enjoy themselves outdoors” says Mikkel Aarø-Hansen, head of the Center for the Environment (klimatilpasning). Therefore each park will have its own identity and has to be developed specifically to the site in question. Involvement of local residents in the development process is important to ensure that the park fits the needs and desires of the local community (sustainablecities.dk)