How will cities change in the next decade? First of all 10 years is really not long enough for a lot of change, especially with status quo drivers of urban life. Rather, we must address the form of our communities based on the big picture, with big answers to big problems, with a timeframe that starts at 10 years, and goes on from there for decades beyond.
When we talk about cities, we talk so much about climate change and the loss of ecological balance of the earth's systems. We talk about bio-engineered crops, antibiotics in our water, and an epidemic on addiction. We talk about economic disparity and homelessness, and a greater gap between the haves and the have nots. We talk about racial inequality, immigration issues, and religious wars. And it goes on and on, all seemingly hopeless. You can't pick up the paper or listen to the news without one of these issues (and many more not mentioned) that seems to create a doomsday scenario regarding the future of our civilization, especially our cities. But I wonder in reading all of this, if the real issue isn't one specific problem which affects each and every person, in every way possible. That is overpopulation. I believe that we can't continue to fill up the planet with more and more people, consuming more and more of the land to sustain us, when we have already exceeded the capacity of the planet to maintain the growth of humanity.
We buy electric cars, but use rare earth compounds to make the batteries, and use coal to power the plants that make electricity. We consume fuel for mobility, when the by-products pollute the air and push more and more carbon dioxide into the air. We build more and more buildings, when the carbon footprint of construction is 40% of all the carbon created, We consume more land for roads and highways, only to have them fill up overnight, creating more air pollution, and demands for alternative transportation, all creating their own carbon footprint. We genetically modify food, demand more health care and literally consume the earth making the products, drugs, and facilities that we demand for our survival. We have cities throughout the world that have grossly exceeded their infrastructure in water, sewers, roadways, and power. We suggest that urbanization is the answer when we know for a fact that there is a limit to how many people can be crammed into one city without the cost of survival exceeding the cost of providing public safety and basic needs of food, shelter, health, and products.
So, what does the city of the future look like?
The answer is controlled growth and moderation of consumption to accommodate everyone who resides in that petri dish we call urbanity.
I am not suggesting we back down and stop reproducing, nor that we shouldn't continue to fight climate change on our planet, but it does seem that the problem is bigger than carbon, bigger than weather, and bigger than a one tier approach to solving the world's problems. The problem is that our economic model is based fundamentally on growth, and that growth fuels demand, which in turn fuels consumption. But if in fact we have reached the tipping point, where the number of people exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth, then we really need to change the way we think about the problem and how we attempt to solve it.
For a start, population distribution is greatly out of whack. When we have third world countries who's population exceeds their ability to support the people, we have greater problems of drought, starvation, disease and mortality. Second, we need to consider whether the cost of extending life infinitely is really a wise driver of our health care system. I for one don't want to outlive my ancestors, and I think there is real wisdom in getting out of the way to make room for the younger, stronger. Third, we need to get real with our demands for luxuries that make little sense and have little effect on our quality of life. Do we really need that tiny box of blueberries from Peru in the middle of winter? And how about those 10 trips to the grocery store to pick up one or two items. If everyone would reduce their VMT by 50%, we might even be able to house more people in the cities we have, without the need for more cars, and more infrastructure. Fourth, we need more jobs in more locations. Does it make sense for large cities to subsidize large employers to come there, when a smaller city could use that employer as a means of sustaining their fair share of growth and prosperity? Isn't it more reasonable to support more middle size cities than to force existing mega cities to grow beyond their capacity to support that growth? We have seen in Denver the result of uncontrolled, unmitigated growth, which is slowly eating away the quality of life of those living in the city in virtually every way, and we also are getting well beyond the ability of our region to supply the water that is needed to support the jobs, and the people who are moving here. Here again, economic gain is fueled by growth in one location, at the expense of another location. The result here is that our growth has outstripped our ability to provide housing and food, water and shelter, and the result is a serious housing shortage, a residential market that is one of the most expensive in the nation, and a growing homeless population that no longer can afford to live in our great city.
Bottom line is that the population boom in our country will probably take care of itself in ways that are not pleasant to discuss. Nature has a way of taking control, and our lack of resources and differential wealth is bound to eventually create more war, disease, and a shorter lifespan. We already are seeing that effect in our nation where the lifespan has for the first time dropped because of the drug epidemic. Somehow, someway, there will be a leveling of the field created when demand exceeds the capacity to supply that demand, as example wars driven by our thirst for fossil fuels. But in the meantime, as architects, we must not stand still and complacently watch while the world goes to hell from causes beyond what we can comprehend. I personally believe that we have the capacity to greatly extend the time of human habitation on this earth. But we need to think globally and get beyond local politics. We need to foster a world attitude of balance and sustainability, resilience and a more nature driven approach to problem solving. Bio-mimicry is just one example of designing buildings that replicate nature's way. We need to change our economic model that rewards, not growth, but rather sustainability. This means that instead of rewarding consumption, we instead need to reward innovation and reward those companies who produce the most sustainable products, while penalizing the wasters and the polluters.
This means that as a profession we must step outside our comfort zone, become political, and live a life that reflects our values as providers rather than consumers. As architects, we really are at the top of the food change. We are the ones who define the built environment, create the patterns of urban growth, and define the cities of the future. We are the ones who ultimately control the building industries, affect the carbon footprint of our community (30% of total carbon consumption). We are the ones who define how people live, where they live, and what they do for work. Without our solutions, urban growth is sprawl, sprawl is consumption, and ultimately human habitation is greatly compromised. Unfortunately, we can't just focus on the next star building, for the wealthiest consummer. Architecture is not a profession just for the elite. We must get our hands dirty, become community advocates, run for public office, and get beyond buildings, becoming instead stewards of the environment and true drivers of the quality and form of our cities.
The future of our cities looks pretty grim if there is just status quo. The proliferation of junk is unfortunately driven by our need to please the client, to take the commission because we need to feed our families. But it doesn't have to be that way. As an industry, we must be the leaders of form, we must drive innovation in the building materials supply, we must give people something different beyond the status quo. We need to reward architects who think outside the box, get beyond commodity, and create solutions to these global problems. I know I am preaching to the choir, and as Fellows, we represent the top 5% of the profession. But I just cannot believe that we have a much greater impact on the future of our cities than we exert today. We have the problem solving abilities and the drive to make changes. We have the control of the built environment, should we desire to take control of it. We have the ability to change the way people think, and to change the decision making process of what gets built and where. We can, and we must take a greater stand for what gets built and how, in the form of our cities, and the economics of job creation and quality of life. If we create this future, based upon our training and our influence, the future of our cities can thrive for many generations. But if we don't provide better answers, the future of cities are doomed to become cesspools of human consumpion, reserved only for the richest of the rich, at the expense of the rest of the population who no longer can afford to live and work there.
Overpopulation will ultimately strangle the very lifeblood of our cities, and ultimately our civilization, and our earth's capacity to sustain human habitation.
------------------------------
Richard von Luhrte FAIA
Denver CO
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-07-2020 20:19
From: Nikolaus Philipsen
Subject: How will cities change in the next decade?
In a time of instant messaging we are well informed about the now not only here, but also where our children live, our parents and friends, even if it is half way around the world. The more we illuminate the present from so many angles, the more the past sinks into impenetrable darkness. While some process in a week more information than our ancestors did in a lifetime, historic awareness has sunk to an all time low. The future hardly fares any better, the 10-day weather forecast notwithstanding. For the forebears the future was much like the past. Now all that is certain is that there will be change. Unfortunately, lately many people around the world got convinced that the future won't be good, so why even bother trying to decipher it?
|
Who would have predicted that London will have a boom in bicycling? |
Not only at the end of a decade is this blog trying to tease out trends, the future and lessons from the past. This has been its topic for more than a decade. Taking the longer view beyond the moment. With a brand-new decade in its nascent state, speculation about what the future will hold is especially tempting. This article keeps it to cities and communities outside those popular "ten of" lists. It is, instead... READ FULL ARTICLE
HERE
------------------------------
[Klaus] Philipsen FAIA
Archplan Inc. Philipsen Architects
Baltimore MD
------------------------------