The Ecological Paradigm and Urban Design

I find that one of the most serendipitous and coincidental aspects of the ecological paradigm in urban design is that it reinforces all of the ‘good’ design principles that many designers, researchers, and politicians have been talking about for years but for which they have found little traction in practice. I’m amazed at the increasing importance of the ecological paradigm and its role in both changing public behavior and political attitude. Of course not all aspects of the ecological paradigm have as much traction as others. For example, the fundamental infrastructure necessary for implementing a more metabolic (less throughput) type model of material use and reuse, while necessary for future sustainability, will have trouble finding implementation on a large-scale because of the sticker shock associated with drastic infrastructure redevelopment. Small-scale changes (of which recycling and composting are pieces) simply won’t get us to a sustainable future. Of all the choices we have in moving toward a more sustainable economy I believe this change to be the most daunting.

On the other hand, I believe that in the past few years there have been a number of aspects of the ecological paradigm that have gained increasing traction. While I see the idea of green infrastructure as a re-branding of green space and street trees. The idea of green infrastructure provides scientifically measurable benefits to the city at large, beyond recreation, for why street trees and green space are necessary. I worry, though, that taken to its extreme the argument for green infrastructure has a hidden suburban agenda within it. While most of the authors from the readings would agree that increased densities generally reduce per capita ecological footprint, Gill et al. would argue that density without adequate green infrastructure does not go far enough in addressing the impact of climate change on cities – increased density must also come with equal amounts of increased green infrastructure.

The runaway success of the Congress for New Urbanism and the demographic shift from population decline in urban centers to slow population growth have brought living in areas of increased density back into vogue in the United States. Vancouver’s Ecodensity program, and the Lloyd Crossings Design Plan, not to mention the spurt of tower construction in San Francisco, demonstrate that citizens today accept increased density in ways that ten years ago was unthinkable. The fact that there is a market for places of higher density has direct implications on ecological footprint and lifestyle. Living in cities is akin to owning a Prius: many people want others to know that they are ecologically minded, educated, and ‘being the change they want to see in the world’.

Ultimately though, I’ve come to believe that Newman and Kenworthy ultimately hold the trump card. Transportation is the key that makes higher densities and smaller ecological footprints work. Transportation and land use decision-making at the local and regional level will have the greatest impact on creating sustainable places. Not that all high density places are sustainable but that compared with the sprawl there can be little argument that per capita people living in cities produce smaller ecological footprints than those who live in the sprawl. How far acceptance of density will permeate into American culture is yet to be seen though. Whether it will simply become another option that is supplied by the market or the dominant style supplied by the market will ultimately rest with the quality of urban design around new and old centers of urban density.

Personally, I have the feeling that most Americans are waiting for technology to assuage their guilty global warming consciences so that they can keep their two acres, 2.5 cars, and 1.8 without having to live in the city.