Changing Tack: The Compact City Fallacy
------- Michael Neuman
I read a thought provoking article by Michael Neuman as part of my research. The first time I read the article I was on the bus to work, and I was so engrossed that I missed my stop. So the second time, I made sure I was in a quiet place, and let myself delve into the controversial paper.
^^^^I can't provide a link to the article but I strongly suggest reading this critique of Neuman here http://gbdmagazine.com/2013/23-notebook/
*****This post is a bit of a change of tack for my series on high-rise living. I realised as I read Neuman's paper that this topic and his discussion are exactly what I was trying to say in my first couple of posts. So while I want to continue my discussion on high-rise living in cities, I want to now change the topic to 'compact cities' and whether they are sustainable. Thus, my next couple of posts will be on compact cities, urban sprawl and a number of case studies for both, in Shanghai, Sydney and Canberra (an example of a lack of density and too much sprawl).******
Let's start from the beginning. Neuman essentially challenges and confronts the widely held view that compact, high-rise cities are sustainable.
Compact cities are defined by Neuman as the 'opposite to urban sprawl'. For me, I think of compact cities as high density, high rise communities that are built around transport hubs and entertainment, food and retail offerings. For Sydney, it would be George Street, Circular Quay and Barangaroo as the foundation of the compact city. Other suburbs such as Surry Hills and Woolloomooloo are also become more compact and dense.
The appeal of high rise living, and the general consensus among many of the population (including myself, until this article) is that compact cities are more sustainable (yet to define sustainable, wait for that!) because of the reasons that I outlined in my last post. They include less car travel due to the centrality of the city, a decrease in cost of utilities, cheaper infrastructure, less land consumption, greater social equity, lower consumption of energy and resources and greater livability.
However, what Neuman is trying to point out, which becomes glaringly obvious to me straight away, is that no city is sustainable. Sustainability, or the core notion of sustainability is to 'sustain'. That is, to keep something going over the long run. Neuman argues, can any compact city do that? Or better yet, can any city anywhere sustain itself? And the answer is simply, no.
Cities survive on imported goods from their various catchment areas and from overseas. No city can sustain itself over time, because it is after all, a city.
That is the wrong question to ask, says Neuman. What we should be asking of our cities is "whether the process of building, living, consuming and producing in cities is sustainable?". Neuman likens a city to a human body. One must not ask if the human body is sustainable, because it all depends on the choices and processes of the person who inhabits that body. One must ask if the person lives sustainably.
Reading this article has well and truly opened my eyes. Is there any city that is truly sustainable?
I want to explore this concept for the next couple of blogs, the next one will be about urban sprawl.
For further information on the sustainability of cities, have a look at these:
http://gbdmagazine.com/2013/23-notebook/
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MMflCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=Michael+Neuman+fallacy&source=bl&ots=dcfGzJiOVj&sig=M2-8y6Frt0KJGp4Y7t_QewKJISA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGFRVYbaB4PTmAXavoDwBA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Neuman%20fallacy&f=false
No comments:
Post a Comment