1.1 Introduction
Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.
Persian poet Saadi, 13th C
The Persian poet Saadi wrote about humanity. In the above poem, he suggests that to call yourself a human being you must have regard for others. Some 750 years ago, it was already evident that progress and conquest is for naught if we do not possess humanity. The extract from Saadiâs The Golestan was used to exemplify the values of the United Nations in its building in New York. If cities are to be true sanctuaries for all, they must be grounded in humanity. A sustainable city will be one that overflows with humanity and that brings everyone along with it, regardless of circumstance.
Almost all of our modern practices have negative impacts on people and the planet. If we want to survive into the 22nd century, without serious consequences to ourselves and nature, we need to start changing the way we live and the way we do things. The massively reduced human activity during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown vividly demonstrated that the quality of our environment and urban space is directly affected by what we do.
We are now in what we have termed the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which essentially means we are relying more and more on smart technology, digitization, and the Internet of Things and we are striving to create âSmart Cities.â This term means different things to different people, but I believe we get smart if we use technology sensibly to do things better, quicker, more easily, and more efficiently. We particularly need to focus on tools and gadgets that help us reduce energy consumption and operate in a way that is benign and not harmful to the environment, which help society to be more accessible and inclusive and which enhance, delight, and reduce stress. A city that is obsessed with producing technical solutions for the hell of it, or for purely financial gain, is not a Smart City but a capitalist machine. It is unlikely to be a sustainable model, as the endless competition for cheap resources and labor will inevitably mean exploitation of someone or something. We need to think about smart technology as tools to help us to be in harmony with our planet.
In the next couple of decades, we have to drastically change if we are to meet the zero carbon targets that most nations have agreed to. The built environment is responsible for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), so we need to change how we build our homes and cities.
Transport is responsible for over one-third of global GHGs, so we need to change how we as people travel and how we move our goods. Intensive farming is destroying the planet in many ways, by killing our soil and ecosystems and removing rainforests and other habitats, so we will need to rethink how we produce our food and where it comes from. Since we expect 70â80% of the global population to be living in cities by the mid-century, this is a city problem. Cities are the major consumers of the planetâs finite resources, including water, so we need to change how we relate to and use resources. Ever increasing food production, mineral extraction, forest clearance, and fossil fuel reliance may bring short-term, quality-of-life benefits for some, but they are not likely to be equitably distributed, and in the long term the consequences will be environmental destruction, water shortages, and climate disruption. Making cities sustainable, equitable, and environmentally âneutralâ is enshrined in the majority of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), which are our best guide to developing a decent world for people and the environment, and almost all of the goals relate to cities in one way or another. Above all, how we live our lives needs to change; we cannot continue the consumerâsociety model as it is depleting global resources and rendering many communities into poverty. For example, the fashion industry is responsible for 10% of annual global carbon emissions, more than shipping and aviation combined, and it is the worldâs third largest manufacturing sector after the automotive and technology industries.1 Fashion drives much of what we think we need, in terms of gadgets, clothes, and leisure equipment. Media and advertising tells us constantly that last yearâs model is no longer cool. We need to reset our values, learn again to treasure things that have been made with care and skill, and try to keep them until they really wear out.
We need to improve how we trade with each other, in a manner that is fair and does not rely on exploitation. We must change how we regard the natural environment by developing intelligent stewardship of the land. Our legal system needs to acknowledge that the Earth is ultimately our host. How we manage our wealth needs new economic models; banks should facilitate commerce, not be institutions for making money. We need to revise our ideas about growth and how we measure it. The GDP model means we are aspiring to perpetual growth but ignoring quality of life. We need to apply science and technology in a benign way to improve life for all, not just to improve last yearâs fad or to make money.
We need to think about how to live sustainably. The One Planet Living concept has been developed by a UK-based charity and social enterprise, Bioregional. It proposes that sustainable living is based on ten principles, which have now been widely embraced: zero carbon; zero waste; sustainable transport; local materials; local sustainable food; sustainable water; natural habitats + wildlife; culture and heritage; equity and fair trade; and health + happiness.2 This was conceived over two decades ago!
A sustainable city should use all the tools at its disposal to make products, facilities, and services easily accessible for all and to work better. Smart technology must respect citizenâs privacy and rights and data capture should not be used to target individuals or specific groups and should be used within strict protocols, but smart tech does have the power to give systems and network designers the information to design them to maximum efficiency and benefit. Ultimately, our resources and human and material capital are limited, and a good city will use these for the maximum benefit of the citizens. As is described below, these tools can be used across all spectra of activity to do things better, but they are only tools and not replacements for creativity, just like computer-aided design (CAD) does not replace architects and product designers, it simply makes their job easier. Without information, most of humanity is consuming without understanding the implications of their actions â smart tech can help us to improve our performance and to achieve lifestyles that are in balance with the planet.
1.2 City Design
The way we design cities dictates how we live in them. If we are to respond positively to the current climate emergency, city design needs to embrace climate-responsive urbanism, which creates sustainable cities that are not going to perpetuate citiesâ current negative impacts on climate change.
Cities are generally either compact or sprawling. Contemporary urbanism suggests that cities are better if compact as the cost of providing public services is more economical; this is particularly typical of transport services, as it is not viable to provide public transport to far-flung suburbs that will only serve low population numbers. Sprawling cities that cannot be universally served by public transport tend to generate very high volumes of car journeys, which in turn create congestion and pollution. Sprawl also has another negative impact, in that it often creates low-income âghettosâ that perpetuate inequality and poverty. The compact city was the received wisdom for several recent decades, as this model can provide a wide range of services. However, a compact dense city with little open space will lead to social isolation, which in turn can lead to mental health issues. People are naturally sociable and have a need for human interaction as well as a need for connections to nature. How the public realm and streets are designed affects how we relate to our local neighborhood and community; if it is unattractive and heavily dominated by traffic, lacking in green infrastructure and feels dangerous, then residents will not dwell in their local area and are unlikely to know their neighbors; high levels of crime are often associated with such scenarios. Globally there are thousands of cities that have grown ad hoc, without consideration of design or human life, which have become dysfunctional, crime ridden, unhealthy, and unsociable. Urban design needs to focus on people, streets for people to walk and cycle in, public open spaces where people can meet and socialize, and green natural space where people can relax, all central to good health. Ironically, sprawling cities also suffer health problems, for though they may have gardens, the main mode of transport is likely to be by car, with consequential implications of low levels of exercise.
One of the key arguments for the compact city model is that the services are efficient and viable. The inefficient operation of services in lower density cities can be overcome, but only to some extent, by using smart technology to provide services on demand and clustering activity to gain the economies of high usage. The emphasis must be on accessibility and creating connections between facilities that people can access without a car. It is sensible to understand where the majority of people go (or do not go) and to use that information to focus good design on places that people actually use (i.e. direct routes to amenities, public transport, open spaces, parks, and leisure facilities) and making good connections to them.
There is much evidence that people are âhard wiredâ (to quote American biologist E.O. Wilson) to be in touch with nature. Therefore, the inclusion of nature within cities is a fundamental requirement for mental and physical well-being. The inclusion of nature in cities, such as is being promoted by the Biophilic Cities movement, is fundamentally a sustainability principle. Though nature may be at the other end of the spectrum from technology, smart technology can be central to making green and blue infrastructure accessible to the citizens, especially when it comes to the understanding of what goes on in nature and why ecosystems are important to people and the planet.
While we are likely to be in a climate crisis for the next couple of decades, there will necessarily be a need to consider our energy consumption and our energy sources. Electricity, even from renewable sources, comes with some carbon footprint and needs infrastructure to deliver it and transmit it (all with their own carbon and environmental implications). Many of our processes and activities generate waste energy or products that can be captured and used. Cities are well placed to establish closed loop, interdependent systems, where what is waste for one system can be used in another. Local decentralized energy systems can exploit these opportunities, such as district heat networks, which capture waste heat and put it to good use, such as heating homes.
Reaching net zero emissions will demand a rethink of how we build things so that we use less energy. Buildings will need to be much more energy efficient, and smart technology can help create intelligent buildings that understand what is happening outside and make adjustments in time. It is not just about creating new energy-efficient buildings but also helping to make the old building stock much more energy efficient by improving its performance. Also, we must consider the actual building materials we use. Buildings should be in tune with the environment (using materials that are renewable and sustainably sourced) and designs should allow for âpassiveâ heating and cooling rather than relying on mechanical systems. These principles can also be applied to transport systems.
Modern cities have been using vast quantities of concrete, glass, and steel, all of which come with high carbon footprints. We need to think about employing renewable and benign materials for our buildings, which are appropriate for the local climate; air-conditioned glass towers in deserts, overheated buildings in cold climates, and porous buildings in damp climates do not make any kind of sense, as compensating for the problem will inevitably result in high energy use.
The last century has seen an unbridled growth in the use of concrete. On the surface, this may seem OK; the raw materials are in ample supply and it appears to be inert. However, after water, concrete is the most widely used substance on Earth. When one accounts for all stages of production, concrete is said to be responsible for 4â8% of the worldâs CO2 emissions, but its environmental impact is mostly ignored. Along with the CO2 associated with its production, concrete uses almost one-tenth of the worldâs industrial water. Further, the extensive use of concrete in cities for sidewalks, streets, parking lots, and generally anywhere we think should not be allowed to get muddy is a prime contributor to the urban heat island effect, as it absorbs solar heat and traps gases from vehicle exhaust and air-conditioning units. Chatham House (a UK-based think tank) and the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate predict that conti...
