Beautiful cities

Wild nature and human building construction. Soft and hard. Sky and skyline meet stones in different shapes.

Cities are beautiful, and if we are building in a right way it can almost be dreamlike.

Cars, cars, cars

It's easy to walk in San Francisco for sure, but the city is build for cars with straight roads (with an small exceptions of Lombart steet!) and highways in different levels (!) at entrences and exits from busy roads. Where does everyone goes? Where do they come from? Do they need to take their car?

 












If you take the bay bridge over to Oakland and later to Berkeley you will see the highways in different levels, and maybe you would think as me- "is that a bridge for a railway?" -"no it was for cars" ""is that a bridge for a railway?!" "-no its another for cars" "that one then?!!!" and you look again and you see a truck 50 meter up in the air.














An unsustainable situation
















 Also.. when I walk here I see things that people in cars doesn't care of ( they should have their eyes on the road), and I just realised that many of both ugly buildings and spaces are just ugly cause noone (that any care about) walks there anyway. It's just the cars, everywhere, and they don't look.

Green and people friendly Göteborg, Sweden

3-dimentional Göteborg, Sweden

Parks, squares, plazas, fountains or just places to sit- benches. Göteborg is built on hills that give different levels and spots for walking, like stairs between the houses and where you can have a coffee one stair up.

With a climate that allow sitting in the sun outside in the city only half a year (and a lot of rainy days then) Göteborg have so many places for that purpose, which makes me wonder why other cities that have hot days with sun (more than three times a week, half a year) every week, year around doesn't have it.

And I guess it is because there is no space for it when the street for the cars have to be there.. no?

History and future of high big buildnings in Sweden

Common in Sweden and mostly parts in Europe is the high, big buildings, not sky scrapes but a big house to live in, its smart- it save space and give more space to green spots. A lot of them comes from 1965-75 when the Million Programme built one million apartments (25% of the apartments today) to save the housing situation in Sweden at that time. The main goal was to build (a lot of) equally high standard apartments for medium class people. And in the same time a lot of (smaller often in wood) historical houses was destroyed and made space for the new ones. Nice kitchen with refrigerator, bathrooms with water closet and baloneys in every apartment was luxury. Also closeness to schools, library, nurseries, playground and common spaces was one part of the plan.

The largest neighborhood with those kinds of houses lays outside the city center and are nowadays for the low income and with a high percentage of immigrants, specially in certain areas where almost everyone is an immigrant, what also make the situation worse with more and more crime and high racial segregation in the suburbs.
Many of the houses are now old, cheap to live in and not high status. They have to be rebuild which would give a great opportunity for jobs right now and also to fix some of the social problems that these neighborhoods have. In the same plan, they would plan for more common space, green areas and activities for the people.

Sustainability is also about economy and social problems

When talking about sustainability, most often it is about the environment, or the ecological sustainability. But for reaching that you have to consider both economic sustainability and social sustainability in a close working network with the nature. The parts can't live alone.

Solving environmental problems must be the focus in a very close future, without a healthy surrounding mankind can't live. Environmental problems are, unfortunately, always abstract, huge and normally seen as luxury problems. Something that people with (time), money and new technology should work with. That is not the real picture.

Economy and ecology are often two opposites sides that with a first look seems to works against each other. It costs to invent green technology and clean emissions. And most of all, as an consequence of a capitalistic way of looking at the world, when resource are non-ending, a wealthy environment is nothing to even count on. This is exacly what the environmental problems is about!
If you then talk about a sustainable economy, that is something different. This will also think about the consequences of the environment or the ground base for everything; the sustaiable economy knows that resources are not never-ending, so if we want to have a stable economy, or a economy that don't have to move around in the world to find more resources, the only way would be to take care of the resources we already have in a good way! We don't have more than this earth to find our resources.
Resources can also be seen as the people in an society, that have a need for things and services. Therefore social sustainability have to been seen as an equally to the other two, and here you have something to work with.

Everything is very close connected to each other. A society have to take care of its residents to take care of the environment, and it can't be too expensive.
We have different solutions for different kind of people. Very wealthy people can do recycling and buy new cars or buy better houses, but how many in the world is that? Sweden and Scandinavia, Japan are maybe some. But even in these countries there are also a big portion of non-rich people that can't do anything at all for their situation. The environmental problems is not the biggest problem. That is to survive.
And even if you are wealthy you don't have to care about the environment, maybe you don't know or maybe you don't- what? Care? Have the energy? The knowledge? It's about a lot. Mostly, environmental problems lays in the environment close to you- if it's not an easy way bike or to take the bus or recycle you would not do it!
And if this is the problem even for wealthy people, how can we then tell people that don't have food for their day to be more environmental sustainable?

It's not fare to blame anyone in this situation. We have to build the right environment for people. So in the short run- we have to clean the environment to fix the social problems to even have an economy. So where should the money come from in the first place?

And WHO would fix it?

Curitiba (link to the right) is a good example of how to make things happen a bit faster and cheaper than in other cities. Because in Curitiba they had big problems with unhealthy people. And it's not only here we have to act right now, everything is connected in this world. There is no self-suficient societys left in the wealthy world, so if you can't see the environmental problems or the health problems or poor people that's because your goods are produced somewhere else.

A very good example of a solved environmental problem is the Mediterranean Sea. When tourists started to go here, the hotels had their sewer right to the ocean. This wasn't so clever, because the tourists came to swim in the sea and didn't want to swim in their feces, so problem was solved quite easy, beacause if they didn't have a nice ocean they didn't have any costumers and then no money.
This is how it's works and should work. Unfortunately a lot of people do swim in feces and also live in it, but noone cares because they are not costumers with money.

If you see as much to the social, economic and ecological side to archive the future for people, that is a future that will be a good solution in the long term; and that is what sustainability is about.

Back in San Francisco

Tool library, bicycle co-op, vegan cheese on your pizza, supermarkets with only organic vegetarian food. And in the same time; poverty. People living outdoors with theirs stuff in a shopping cart, people on the streets talking to them self, a barefooted man with an open wound, like a hole in his foot.

America is the country for both poverty and "new" thinking, as environmental correct food, "better" cars, sharing of thoughts, participation in decisions and a lot of organizations to make a different in all kind of things, like wealth, environment, art etc
-but really does it make a difference?

I come from a very calm country where almost everyone have a place to stay, where the government help people that needs help, and also where people have a medium sense of being environmentally correct. Where almost everything is "lagom" (just right, no more, no less). I see the things here in San Francisco as a bit confusing when people seems to work so hard but they have all theirs problem anyway. More confusing to see all this poor people that nobody even care to give some coins to when the normal thing is to see things in millions of dollars (not kronor... its like everything have to be 10 times more extreme all the time).

When I walk around here, I think about how easy it is to come from a wealthy country/city or even neighborhood and to say; it's just this we have to do; we have this good solution for how to make things better (e.g sustainable development). How easy it seems to be; "we just have to make this", we just have to cut the emissions here", or " if we just do like this".

BUT people, hey! Take the subway to West Oakland and see the empty streets there, and all the empty, dry backyards, or just take a round around the streets and SEE people. What in the world should we do to make things happen to these people?

Conclusion is; it's not about money at all, everything is just about will.

New "City forest" in Alingsås, Sweden

I was on my way to Skövde, but I forgot my key so I went off the train in Alingsås, and why not take a walk and see the new neighborhood there?

"Stadsskogen" - the city in the forest is built right now, first people have moved in in some of the new buildings.
It will be a small village, but a part of the city center, close to nature and the lake Mjörn. 1000 housing and 3000 people will be living here, in houses and apartments. Ultimately, the "City Forest" will include a range of public venues such as shops / crafts, restaurants, cafes, plazas and playgrounds, all belonging to the image of a living city. It is also planned for children and the elderly, and school in the area.
Some houses have been here for decades. I wonder what they say now, when they will live next to high building and close to other people.
The main point is to have the nature close, with small paths, water and "wild" nature close to the houses. With my stubbornness "never walk the same road twice" I tried out the forest when I walked down a non-completed road. It was quite "wild"- I guess it was mainly cause they are cutting trees for the views and the feeling of nature..!


The buildings are so-called "passive houses", which requires almost no heating. The smaller houses have "smart" solution architecture, with small windows to north and bigger to the south for "free" radiator. All material is as far as possible environmentally friendly sound.

Here is a garage under the dirt, the entry was hiding in a corner so everything look like a small hill. The roof will probably be a "green roof" with special plants to reduce heat and water.

Take a look at the little film about City Forest under "links"- quite cozy!

Received awards for environmental solutions in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden

Some people call this city for the most beautiful in the world. Water, old buildings, squares, public transportation (mainly subway and buses) and environmental projects. So what happen in the Hammarby Sjöstad, the sustainable neighborhood? I took the subway-tvärbanan-walked there one day, guessing my way, were in a good mood and had my camera without any sim-card, so no pictures. But it look modern, lawn very shortcut, some flora in the seashore and they have their own ferry.
This district has received awards for it's environmental management.

*Environmentally good materials for the buildings
*Renewable energy from solar energy, fuel cells (better batteries), district heating, electricity and biogas from the waste from the area
*Waste water supply biogas production which is used for gas cookers, buses and cars
*Bicycle paths
*Few parking lots

What's wrong?
Straight streets built for cars, no people. Can they meet somewhere? There is a lot of restaurants and cafés in the area, but I couldn't see any ordinary stores like stores for food, small business for local people and so on. The neighborhood feels very empty.

It's not only about climate change

The disaster planet earth is facing, and then all of us ontop of it, is not only climate change. Instead it's about several different things. It seems as some people think that this planet have enough resources to feed and give production to every one of the 6,8 billion people in this planet. Sure, we know that is not possible. We just have too many problem to deal with.

Air pollution (smog, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ground level ozone etc. causes mainly from production and traffic)
Soil erosion (removement of trees and plants, monoculture agriculture, changed waterlevels and directions, change of flow)
Water shortage (soil losses their water-holding characteristics by removement of covering plants, agriculture with intense irrigation, lowering of groundwater level and change waterways i.e cities, industry, cotton production, parks, golf, water games etc)
Nutrients availability in soil decreases (monoculture agriculture, overuse of of fertilizers)

Two questions; Is this something to work with in a global way or is it for local projects? And are the solutions about the physical things, as low-energy, passive buildings, biogas cars, organic cotton, or the way of thinking and doing?

What can we learn if we open up our minds and think more in the ecological way? (i.e in this sentense not meaning buying organic/sustainable goods but instead take a closer look at the meaning of the word ecology; as the study about distribution and abundance of population in interactions with the environment)

For human population or the ecology of humans that would mean; why do we live where we live; what do we need around us in such a place? Can we be their for a longer time? Can the population grow in the specific area? How big is the area? Is it expandable?

Is it even possible to have an society which take those things under consideration? A community based on knowledge in ecology, the ecological city in balance with nature? Do we have to build new cities to manage that? Or can we rebuild houses/neighbourhood's/areas/villages/big cities?? Is it impossible to rebuild whole cities in balance with nature? Small project starts here and there, with small areas with "sustainable" neighbourhood. How can this be enough? Sunpanels on houses, some trees in town and streets without cars. What about the whole spectra, with the whole society and problems to that? What about consumption for instance? What about our ecological footprint? Is it possible do decrease it if we live in such a city? How can we manage to handle the environmental disaster that is close to come?

To argue about climate change is real or not is just a waste of time. We don't have time if it's true, and if it's not, all those small projects now running is a necessity for all the other problem we face.

Last,

Do we need more landarea to expand production (that would be in another planet), do we need more transports (international trade) or do we need (the first real) ecocities that are based on the balance of human and nature, which take care for people and nature and thinks about the consequenses even in the future?

A perfect example of an ecocity area in Malmö, Sweden?

The Western Harbour (Västra hamnen, Malmö, Sweden) is a mix of housing, cafes and small restaurants, shops, schools, squares, closeness to the ocean and opportunity for other people to go and enjoy.

The buildings is both big (as Turning Torso, 54 floors) and small (with 2 floors), and have different appereance. Between the buildings. water flows and water loving plants have been planted. Not planted as in organised parks but instead a bit messy as nature should be.

One of my favourites was also the little greenhouse with tropical plants, right next to a restaurant so you can go in there and eat in windy days and the open storm water system.

From the beginning a dirty industry area, now one of the most attractive areas to live in. An area which also allows other citizens to use the seafront. Maybe not so much a city as a residential area, but it's very very close and it has potential to be more.

A touch of Amsterdam

Windshield and a greenhouse in the same time









Creativity

Urban area, old Christiana gardening and bicycles in Copenhagen, Denmark

Yes, you can feel that you are close to the ocean, you can see that they have their rebuilding programs and they also have huge project for the environment.

Copenhagen have been rewarded as "the most liveable city in the world". In 2006 Copenhagen Municipality received the European Environmental Management Award, the price was for the holistic environmental long-term planning. Copenhagen also have the largest market for organic food, 45% in the municipally sector and 36% of the inhabitants bicycle to work, schools and university.

But Copenhagen, where is the cosiness? Where is the squares and the fun?

I didn't have the feeling of connection between different areas in this city. It was a bit tricky to find things, everything felt in the back of something else.



When arriving from the airport, I saw an area of new buildings, something that almost have some of the elements for a ecocity. I decided to walk there the next day, even if I didn't know what or where it was.

I found it, and it turned out that it was a new area next to the water. It was a rainy day, very cold and windy and right before this neighborhood there was a huge mall, I walked thought it to warm myself. And was a bit confused over what was going on here.The white buildings was quite nice. On the other side I met this grotesque building (first picture) where every apartment seems to have their own balcony behind glass. In the base of the building was nothing! Just asphalt. I guess it was a underground system with a parking house.

Even if the new area has lot of greenspots, closeness to water (bathing and boats) and a long and narrow park along the water, it felt very boring. With no people at all (because of the rain? the newish feeling, or the contruction? everyone in the mall?!), straight and lifeless squares, a lot of paths but not cosy (enough).

You can see green spots in Copenhagen, but when you walk there it hard to find it. In Christiania, for example, it's still some gardening and green spots, houses with green corners and some special apperience.



Christiania is just a remnant of what it have been. But we found some cosy spots. Small houses, small gardens and a lot of green...














 I also like the bridge between the houses!

















Also, this building with greens- made a special appearence of this road in Copenhagen.

Terrasse house and green spots in Warsaw, Poland

Warsaw with Ecocity elements?

One example is that a quater of Warsaw is greenspace! Which many, today, are nagged in the edges when building new houses. Best way to hinder that is to build compact and high like in the innercity of Warsaw.

Another thing that I observed was the greenspace infront of the central station; the grass was not only ordinare grass as in lawn, instead a mix with small green plants, especially Plantago spp, it looked more like a landscape than a small park or a lawn- very nice and "wild". Also higher plants lived here, made different levels and colors of the "lawn".

When visited the Palace of Arts and Culture we aslo saw this building with terrasses and a small green house in the top? (tried to zoom in first picture above), and you can also see corridores with trees and green space in this city (last picture).


I guess that Warsaw having a lot better transit network (trams, buses, subway), more green areas and more rebuildning than many many other cities. Since joining the European Union 2004, Wasaw had experienced the biggest economic boom in its history. What will the consequences be in a soon future?

Abstract

It's not new at al; planet earth is in an urgent need of something new that have the solution on global climate change, starving, unhealthy people, soil loss, water shortage, biodiversity loss and high human population increase rate. Sustainability is a word that is used more and more in every level in the society around the planet and the concept from the small organisation Ecocity Builders is certainly one of the broadest, including everyone on the planet to take action. The founder Richard Register has now 40 years of experience and means that the change is going to slow. He mean that the organisation have the answer on what the human need now; we have to rebuild cities to be more dense in the same time be rebuild to a better place to live in. This paper investigate how to spread information from a small organisation to a broad target group, and what strategies the organisation use to go from information spreading to real life action meaning actually rebuild the cities to ecocities.

Introduction (draft and first part)
Rutherford (2004) gives us the number that eighty percent of the American population are now living in metropolitan regions. Worldwide we have a number of half the world’s population living in cities. And more will come. If we take a closer look at the largest cities "mega cities" some of them like Mexico City have grown from 2.9 million to 22.1 million from 1950 to 2004, Jakarta from 1.5 to 16.0, Istanbul 1.1 to 11.1 meaning growing 10 times in around 50 years, some even more extreme is Seoul-Injon that have grown from 1.0 to 21.9 and Dhaka 40 times from 0.4 to 15.9 (Planet of slums, but there is a homepage...). Mumbai is estimated to grown to 33 million to 2025 (2.9 million in 1950 and 19.1 million people in 2004) and to be the largest city in the world, even if it’s not sure its biologically or ecologically sustainable (Planet of slums, but there is a investigation). When people are moving there so fast the cities is not prepared for it and slums will be the result. One of five people in the cities in the world are living in the slums. There is a need to do something for the cities.

Rutherford, R.H., 2004. Regreening the Metropolis: Pathway to more ecological cities. New York Academy of Sciences, 1023, p.49-61

Pathway from the village of Hjo center to pure nature, Sweden

Went to Hjo today and visited a close friends mother. She told me that the city council have made a new path under the most trafficked road from Jönköping so we took a walk in the neighborhood and here are some pictures.

The path takes you from the town the whole way to Mullsjön, a popular lake. All the way there, you would be close to the creek Hjoån, whish is quite big. As you can see in the pictures there are some old houses left from the past, in the picture an old mill that is now used for temporary uses, like art gallery, lecture hall for Öring (Salmo trutta) excursions and more. You can also find signs on the path that explain what you can see there. The excursion of Öring is held in the night and you can see them spawn. For a price of 100 Skr (12 dollar) you will first have a small lecture, then the group walk to watch them and after that it is time for fika (coffee and talking).

Before, it was mostly people in the neighborhood who used the path to take a walk with their dog, also my friends mother. Now, with the rebuilding and lenghten under the road instead of trying to go over it, the path lead somewhere. Such a thing removed the barrier of the big road and gave the people the ability to walk or bike in the nature to the nature. I like to call this an Ecocity thought, even if Hjo is a small village with a lot of cars, this is a big initiative and should be use in different areas.