Both opposing solutions have their pros and cons.
RURAL AUTONOMY
I am definitely more attracted to the Eco-idealist approach to living sustainably, however this is not for everyone. Travel between work and country, creating an ideal mixture of facilities and trades becomes difficult. Also the commercial popularity a 'tree change' to city dwellers disrupts the ideals of living of the land. The shift to a traditional manner of living does form a complete self-sufficient system should there be planning in place to manage these developments successfully. The Ecovillage at Currumbin is a modern day example of this, however the price of purchasing these developments is high, and young people wanting to move in and live off the land in a community is impossible. Can Woodford provide a prototype of communal living for a common goal of sustainability that is not economically biased? Is this possible with the current way people are accustomed to living? Can technology assist in this, by allowing people to work from home?
James Lovelock's Gaia theory is particulary appropriate to designing for this type of area, treating the earth as one organism. This is also reflected by the ecologist approach taken by Ken Yeang, who is famous for mainly his high rise buildings, the eco-mimicry of his buildings can be adopted at any scale. In the interview below Ken Yeang speaks about his ideas in solving issues of transport, cities, health and the environment.
LINEAR CONCENTRATION
Compact cities are highlighted as being more sustainable due to less reliance on transport. I do not entirely agree with this conclusion as it has not considered the energy required to transport vast amounts of food grown in the country into cities. This is where intensive city farming could come into play, however this takes a lot of energy also. There is increased yield due to increase artificial light, lack of pests, disease and drought. These need to be powered by artificial light and chemicals, so is this really a sustainable options as it does not form a closed system.
http://nuvege.com/about3.html
http://www.verticalfarm.com/blog
The feasibility on urban intensification also requires a total overhaul of current planning schemes, to reflect the lack of reliance on cars and smaller households. Also the cost of living in the inner city increases, so housing affordability is a huge issue. City planning using dispersed concentrations along transport routes broken by wildlife corridors seem to be a desirable strategy. By increasing density to two or three story flats with shared walls, rather than inefficient one story dwellings, and high energy high rise buildings cities could live more sustainably. Also by sharing gardens for growing food within walking distance eases the pressure of food miles.
Here is a link to some interesting blog images with some 'futuristic' city megastructure which have impacted on Architectural theory today:
http://www.oobject.com/category/futuristic-megastructures/
Barton compares using four types of urban-form strategies:
1. Dispersal vs concentration
2. Segregation or inter-mixture of urban activities
3. Settlement Density
4. Shape
No comments:
Post a Comment