Urban Regeneration Practice: 'Eco-City' - Essay Example

?URBAN REGENERATION PRACTICE: DEVELOPMENT OF ‘ECO Introduction Over the last two decades, various measures have been taken to render cities environmentally and socially sustainable. This has resulted in the new phenomenon known as ‘ecocity’. During the 1980s and the 1990s, the term ‘ecocity’ remained as a concept pertaining to ideas of sustainable urban planning, transportation, housing, public participation and social justice. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the phenomenon appears to have become increasingly global and mainstream, with international “recognition of the scale and severity of climate change, and rapid urbanisation particularly in the developing world” (Joss 2010: 239). The term ‘ecocity’ builds on the dynamics and interdependence of ecological and economic sustainability and their key ability to reinforce each other in the urban context. “Innovative cities in both the developed and the developing world have demonstrated that with the appropriate strategic approach they can economically enhance their resource efficiency” (World Bank 2010: 2). Urban regeneration is based on the concept that the same value can be realised from a much smaller and renewable resource base, while reducing harmful pollution and wastage of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Thus urban regeneration has helped to improve the quality of life of citizens, increased their economic competitiveness and resilience, reinforced their financial capacity, and created an enduring culture of sustainability. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to examine urban regeneration practice leading to the development of the new phenomenon of ‘ecocity’. Urban Regeneration and Sustainability A prime focus of urban regeneration today in the United Kingdom is on providing adequate housing supply for the population. This is due to increasing shortages of housing based on their greater demand, leading to soaring house prices. Instead of turning the countryside into urban areas “with sprawling new developments, existing cities are seen as the ideal places in which to solve housing shortages by bringing derelict land back into use” (Jones & Evans 2008: 161). Building long-term sustainability through area-based interventions, and capacity building through neighbourhood management and sustainable development form the key to urban regeneration. Regeneration policy takes several aspects into consideration. Urban problems are multidimensional, including poverty, crime, physical decay and economic stagnation. Cities are dynamic and constantly changing. There can be no final target to urban regeneration policy because it is an ongoing process with changes in the urban environment. Further, there are continued shifts in the nature and perception of urban problems and their solutions with political changes (Carley & Kirk 1998). According to Jones and Evans (2008), there is mainstreaming of initiatives through Public Service Agreements, Local Strategic Partnerships and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, along with devolution of powers to the local level such as Business Improvement Districts through Public Service Agreements, and Local Strategic Partnerships. Urban regeneration policy has increased in scope, becoming more holistic. This is due to recognising the limitations of a mainly physical approach to solving urban problems that are rooted in “complex social and economic processes” (Shaw & Robinson 2010: 125). Contrastingly, Dixon, Otsuka and Abe (2010) state that there is a shift from holistic regeneration to focusing on economics and employment, using Local Enterprise Partnerships and Regional Growth Fund. Recent practice in delivering regeneration include property development, city-center approaches, 60 percent of new house building on Brownfield sites, community planning through combining social, economic and physical requirements, zoning based approaches to neighbourhood management, and partnerships between public, private and voluntary organizations. Recent evaluations of New Labour’s urban policies and initiatives have questioned their originality and effectiveness. The advocating of community involvement is perceived by scholars (Imrie 2003: Atkinson 2007) as ‘mere rhetorical device’ state Shaw and Robinson (2010). However, the authors consider this as a simplistic interpretation, and support the view that the New Labour administration seriously attempted to develop policies to promote community involvement. There are improvements in how problems are conceptualised, with evidence underscoring policy formulation. There is development of a more integrated approach to policy, and community involvement is prioritized as the central feature of the regeneration process. The key themes of contemporary urban policy include neighbourhood renewal, urban renaissance, the development of sustainable communities, and competitive cities. Several of the measures undertaken for urban regeneration have provided significant benefits to the poor. Through the development of compact ecocities, it is hoped that problems of poverty and exclusion will also be addressed along with reducing air pollution due to vehicular traffic used for commuting over long distances. “Urban sustainability of this kind is a powerful and enduring investment that will pay compounding dividends” (World Bank 2010: 2). The global economy is becoming increasingly fast paced and uncertain. As a result, cities that adopt such a combined approach would be potentially better prepared to survive shocks, attract businesses, manage costs, and prosper. The objective is to enable cities in developing countries realize this value and use a more sustainable and rewarding growth trajectory when opportunities arise. An analytical and operational framework customized to the needs of individual cities helps them achieve positive results. The four key principles integral to enduring success include using a city-based approach with the local government leading the development process, taking into account the city’s specific circumstances including the local ecology. Secondly, the presence of an expanded platform for collaborative design and decision making, and its aligning with the actions of key stakeholders. Thirdly, a one-system approach enables cities to experience the benefits of integration by planning, designing and managing the entire urban system. Finally, an investment framework that values sustainability and resiliency, incorporating lifecycle analysis, the value for all capital assets, “and a broader scope of risk assessment in decision making” (World Bank 2010: 5). Examining a case study of Kawasaki Ecotown in Japan, it was found that a focus on recycling of industrial waste has helped to reduce environmental pollution, and an exchange of by-products among businesses for mutual benefits. Non-profit organizations comprehensively develop material flows, energy use and land use of the whole Eco-Town. On the other hand, the problems that emerged have to be addressed: a need for policy that promotes environmental burden and participation in the network of byproduct exchanges among Small and Medium Enterprises not located in Zero Emission Industrial areas. Further, complete involvement of stakeholders such as citizens and non-governmental organizations is required. Moreover, promotion of recycling of wastes discharged by urban activities related to “offices, commercial facilities, homes, schools, hospitals, etc” (GECF 2005: 27), and conversely the heat generated from industries should be utilized for urban activities. Urban Regeneration through Designing and Construction of Buildings One of the prime objectives in urban regeneration is sustainable construction which “minimizes impacts on the environment, generates minimal waste during the construction process and produces energy efficient, low maintenance buildings” (Elmualim, Czwakiel, Valle, Ludlow & Shah 2009: 94) with an emphasis on ecology and green designing of buildings. A complex and diverse concept encompassing a wide range of disciplines, sustainable development is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Garland, Hadfield, Howarth and Middleton 2009: 1144). Building construction should be in compliance with the government’s vision comprising four different categories: sustainable consumption and production; climate change and energy, natural resources and enhancing the environment, and creating sustainable communities. Sustainable consumption and production relates to the use of improved products and services lowering the environmental impacts from the use of energy, resources and hazardous substances. Similarly, there will be a gradual elimination of waste in construction through improved design, procurement, and greater re-use and recycling of resources. Further, there will be re-use of existing built assets and the construction of “new, long lasting, energy conscious, adaptable and flexible buildings and structures easy to maintain, operate and deconstruct” (BERR 2007: 4). To counteract global warming caused by carbon emissions, buildings which have a lower carbon footprint should be constructed, ultimately achieving the creation of zero carbon buildings. Further, climate change challenges for the future should be resolved through innovative solutions, according to BERR (2007). For example, conservation of natural resources in new construction and refurbishment projects, the use of Green Infrastructure that delivers numerous social, environmental and economic benefits to society, and the creation, management and improvement of wildlife habitats and natural landscapes close to the urban environment should form a crucial part of development. Creating Sustainable Communities Through Urban Regeneration Good design is a crucial aspect of sustainable construction. “No building, public space, infrastructure or place can be considered genuinely well designed if it does not contribute to environmental, social and economic sustainability” (BERR 2007: 5) which form the triple bottom line. Innovative construction techniques should aim to create radical change and continued enhancement in every aspect of the business. This is necessary because buildings are “responsible for almost half of U.K. carbon emissions, half of water consumption, about one-third of landfill waste, and 13% of all raw materials used in the U.K. economy” (BERR 2007: 3). The government supports the sustainability agenda in building construction through integration of the different processes. Creating sustainable buildings is centred on good design underscoring sustainable construction. This must comply with the triple goals of achieving environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Social sustainability is related to providing social justice and development through community participation for sustainable development, regeneration of neighbourhoods, and embracing corporate social responsibility for green and ethical construction practices. Thus, good sustainable design positively impacts human health and well-being (Elmualim et al 2009). Further, Garland et al (2009) argue that it is essential that the social contribution of the building projects should be evaluated against the economic, environmental and human costs. This is reiterated by Demkin (2008: 606) who adds that “sustainable design conserves natural resources and maximises human comfort through an intimate connection with the natural flows and cycles of the surrounding bioclimatic region”. To design landscaping that supports wildlife, while saving and helping to store and treat storm water, it is important to take into consideration the important species in the watershed, and how their habitats can be protected or restored. Therefore, wildlife habitat, plant life, topography and soil conditions should be examined, and techniques employed to “minimize the effects of development, and strengthen connections to regional ecological systems” (Demkin 2008: 606). Further, even urban sites provide opportunities for practising ecological sustainability. For creating green buildings, some techniques include maintaining a roof garden irrigated with captured rain water which is also diverted to irrigate adjacent parks or decorative vegetation. Similarly, a synergistic effect can be produced by the building design incoporating open space, minimizing storm water runoff and reducing the heat island effect which occurs in urban areas where tall buildings retain heat more than open areas. Other strategies include: avoiding development on productive farmland or pristine habitat areas, by utilizing infill and brownfield sites. Similarly, waterways on or near the site should be retained or restored. Biological diversity requires to be strengthened with the planting of native plants or plants that have evolved in similar bioregions. Further, to counter the impacts of the built environment trees should be planted to minimize heat islands produced by paving and roofs “and to offset carbon dioxide emissions from building operations” (Demkin 2008: 606). Storm water runoffs should be reduced with the help of swales, check dams and storage basins to slow and collect water, and keep it onsite. Ecocities should use natural pest control, reduce the use of petroleum based fertilizers, conserve and rebuild top soil, restore habitats and protect local species. Moreover, engaging in bioclimatic design or climate-based or passive design will effectively “reduce a building’s dependence on nonrenewable sources of energy” (Demkin 2008: 606). This would help to reduce the size of building systems, and in some cases even eliminate them. Significantly, buildings attuned to their surroundings climatically will also be architecturally more adaptable, with a stronger sense of place. The emphasis should be on construction using locally available resources which is one of the sound approaches to climate-based design. Ecocities in the Form of Compact Cities High rise buildings have a ripple effect on environmental, social, technical, economic and cultural dimensions. This indicates the shift from its complex functions in the early 20th century to “complex functions as a vertical city in the twenty-first century” (Ng 2009: 295). The ripple effects of high-rise buildings refers to the wider spreading of the trend to construct tall buildings. When integrated with the surrounding city’s competitiveness, their effects on the environment become evident. Conceptually, high rise buildings are most effective when the city changes from a horizontally expanding metropolis to a compact city. These buildings should manage city competitiveness effectively. This is particularly relevant in the competition for urban space, infrastructure and facilities. On the other hand, Graafland, Kavanaugh & Baird (2006) state that high-rise apartments and office towers are as unsustainable as the urban sprawl which struggles to spread horizontally and adversely impacts the environment with higher levels of pollution. High rise buildings with their ultra high density environments cause the threat of high energy costs. Their negative impacts are more than their positive impacts. For example, high rise buildings depend on their surrounding area for energy, drawing heavily from the resources in a vast surrounding region, and “short-sightedly depend on an uninterrupted supply of cheap oil” (Graafland et al 2006: 101). Therefore, the best alternative form of ecocities would be the smaller-scale compact city ideally located close to agricultural lands for local food supply. By means of careful planning and in compliance with construction codes, viable settlements should be provided at optimal densities of people. Graafland et al (2006) reiterate that this will reduce commuting time, use of energy resources, and minimize pollution levels. Compact ecocities aim to save the countryside from greenfield development, and to reduce the use of individual cars. However, evidence from research in three London Buroughs (Williams 1999) reveals that there was no reduction in car use. This is attributed to the complexity of travel patterns based on lifestyle shifts such as cross-London commuting and increased leisure trips. Additionally, limiting development within the urban fringe is adversely impacted by the consequent loss of urban space that reduces ecologically important land, and depletion of space for trees and greenery. Similarly, although traffic emissions may be reduced by the compact city, there is a likelihood of more people experiencing remaining emissions due to the higher population densities. Further, while mixed-use development of the compact city reduces vehicle trip rates, this may vary widely in extent. This is because increased walk-trips in mixed use neighbourhoods often supplement rather than replace automobile trips. According to Arbury (2006), the economic benefits of urban intensification through plans to rejuvenate downtown areas also fail since higher population densities are not found to result in economic growth. Although some gains in efficiency may be possible for the provision of services through increasing population densities, no correlation can be drawn between economic growth and intensification. Improving social equity by using the compact city model of development has also not been confirmed by research. By reducing the size of dwellings in compact cities to accommodate increased densities of population, overcrowding resulting in closer proximity of residential areas to industrial areas; higher rates of crime; and potentially negative impacts on social segregation and housing affordability are all clearly undesirable social outcomes. Moreover, whether the compact city will be acceptable to the general public is another issue to be considered. Requiring industry to once again become a part of residential areas after decentralization since the Second World War, may be difficult to achieve. Residents prefer to avoid over-development, over-crowding, loss of amenities or sharing them with increasing numbers of people. Arbury (2006) supports this view, adding that people battle to save playing fields or sports grounds from being used for construction plans. Thus, collective disruption, and a huge but unknown redistribution of benefits are significant issues that will need to be tackled. The fragmentation of local government and the overhauling of previous planning policies that support automobile dependency and oppose mixed use development will also need to be dealt with (Arbury 2006). The Requirements for an Ideal Modern Ecocity It is vital to make urban areas more sustainable. As compared to any other human environment, cities in developed countries consume the greatest amounts of natural resources. The chief forms of urban planning and development in the twentieth century are the urban sprawl and suburbanization. These are universally considered highly unsustainable environmentally, socially as well as economically. The compact city concept took root to resolve the problems related to urban sprawl. This model of urban intensification was expected to result in beneficial outcomes in reduced use of private cars, save countrysides from constructional development, promote social equity, revive declining and deserted downtown areas, promote urban vitality and achieve long term sustainability. However, according to Arbury (2006), the compact city model has been found unsuitable due to its complexity, uncertainty on its sustainability benefits, its level of feasibility in an urban environment, and extent of acceptability to the local population. There are various ways of achieving urban compaction to suit local conditions best and in a feasible manner. Examples are Britain’s use of derelict and abandoned sites to develop the residential areas, the creation of urban growth limits and rise of new urbanism in the USA, and the development of medium density housing in Australia and New Zealand. Thus, to meet the challenge of achieving sustainable development, alternatives have to be sought to the urban sprawl, the predominant form of urban development since the Second World War. The urban outcomes that actually contribute to sustainable development have to be identified (Arbury 2006). It is possible to develop an ideal modern ecocity by implementing the five main elements of urban development and spatial planning towards sustainable dvelopment. According to Naess (2001), these essential elements for urban development are as follows: A reduction of the energy use and emissions per capita in the city to meet the levels of ecological and distributional criteria for sustainable development at the global level; minimizing the conversion of and encroachments on natural areas, ecosystems and soil resources for food production; reducing to the minimum the use of environmentally harmful construction materials; replacing open-ended flows where natural resources are transformed into waste into closed loops depending more on local resources; and a sound environment for the city’s inhabitants devoid of pollution and noise damaging to the inhabitants’ health, while providing adequate green areas for the population to experience nature and benefit in all aspects from close proximity to nature. Thus, it is evident that to form an ideal, modern ecocity, it is necessary to transform the form and function of the city to meet the criteria for sustainability. Further, both the Habitat Agenda and the United Nation’s Agenda 21 suggest that the objectives of urban sustainability should include compact urban development. Densities of populations living in the compact cities should go higher, “every possible opportunity should be taken to recycle brownfield land, in preference to new greenfield development, living and working should be no longer separated” (Girard 2003: 62), but should be in close proximity to each other. Moreover, further decentralization from the city should be opposed. For this purpose, moderately high mixed use constructions can be built, urban open space and sensitive ecosystems preserved, and a minimized use of vehicles, reduced waste and pollution can be promoted. Further, the creation of decent, affordable and suitably located residential facilities and community-oriented environments, greater social equity through opportunities for the least advantaged, and the development of a restorative local economy are essential. Evidence from a research study conducted by McGreal, Webb, Adair and Berry (2006) indicates that investment property in urban renewal and regeneration areas can be of the same value or exceed that of national and local standards, offering significant investment opportunities. Present conditions in UK cities is believed to be greatly improved with people being better housed, in better health, with longer lives, and freed from hard physical drudgery. At the same time, the authors note that New Labour’s urban regeneration policies have been disappointing, with past mistakes repeated, failure of some experiments, and non-fulfillment of earlier promises. “Inconsistencies and contradictions have become increasingly apparent, notably between the drive for economic growth and the goal of environmental sustainability” (Shaw & Robinson 2010: 142). Several initiatives with heavy investments have not shown beneficial outcomes. Conclusion This paper has highlighted urban regeneration and the development of ecocities. It is necessary for urban regeneration policy to address new complex and difficult challenges related to economic recession, effects of climate change such as flooding due to rising sea levels and power shortages, as well as depletion of renewable and nonrenewable resources. There is a significant shift towards low energy solutions. Shaw and Robinson (2010: 149) support this view, adding that “communities themselves will have to find new ways to consume less and live sustainably”. Moreover, regeneration would require greater state intervention, with the period of Thatcherite deregulation being over. The line of action should integrate progressive vision and leadership with the resources of the state, and the knowledge-base and interests of local communities. The evidence indicates that for achieving sustainability in the construction of new buildings in an ecocity, it is necessary to combine innovative style with sustainability in design, procurement and construction practices. The requirements of an ideal modern ecocity with sustainable architecture, have also been examined. The development of neither highrise buildings of several storeys’ height nor urban sprawl is recommended due to resource depletion and pollution problems respectively. Therefore a viable solution is an intermediate density low-rise compact city that is geometrically integrated, and supports the use of public transport rather than individual vehicles. This approach would make the urban environment more adaptable for achieving a better quality of life. Other advantages are that the compact ecocity situated in a well-planned infrastructural network promotes the development of social equity, and a sense of community. Bibliography Arbury, J. (2006). From urban sprawl to compact city – An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland. Thesis. Retrieved on 15th November, 2011 from: http://portal.jarbury.net/thesis.pdf Atkinson, R. (2007). Securing an urban renaissance: Crime, community, and British urban policy. London: The Policy Press. BERR (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). (2007). Draft strategy for sustainable construction: A consultation paper July 2007. Draft Government-Industry Strategy. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Communities and Local Government; Department for Culture, Media and Sport; Strategic Forum for Construction; and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Retrieved on 15th November, 2011 from: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file40641.pdf Carley, M. & Kirk, K. (1998). Sustainable by 2020?: A strategic approach to urban regeneration for Britain’s cities. London: The Policy Press. Demkin, J.A. (2008). The architect’s handbook of professional practice. Edition 14. The United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons. Dixon, T., Otsuka, N. & Abe, H. (2010). Cities in recession: Urban regeneration in Manchester (England) and Osaka (Japan) and the case of ‘hardcore’ Brownfield sites. Retrieved on 15th November, 2011 from: http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=7616&fileExtension=PDF Elmualim, A., Czwakiel, A., Valle, R., Ludlow, G. & Shah, S. (2009). The practice of sustainable facilities management: Design sentiments and the knowledge chasm. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5 (1-2): pp.91-102. Garland, N., Hadfield, M., Howarth, G. & Middleton, D. (2009). Investment in sustainable development: A U.K. perspective on the business and academic challenges. Sustainability, 1: pp.1144-1160. GECF (Global Environment Center Foundation). (2005). Ecotowns in Japan: Implications and lessons for developing countries and cities. Global Environment Center Foundation. Retrieved on 15th November, 2011 from: http://gec.jp/gec/EN/publications/Eco_Towns_in_Japan.pdf Girard, L.F. (2003). The human sustainable city: Challenges and perspectives from the Habitat agenda. England: Ashgate Publishing. Graafland, A., Kavanaugh, L.J. & Baird, G. (2006). Crossover: Architecture, urbanism, technology. The United Kingdom: 010 Publishers. Imrie, R. (2003). Urban renaissance?: New Labour, community and urban policy. London: The Policy Press. Jones, P. & Evans, J. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK. England: Sage Publications Ltd. Joss, S. (2010). Ecocities – A global survey 2009. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 129: pp.239-250. McGreal, S., Webb, J.R., Adair, A. & Berry, J. (2006). Risk and diversification for regeneration/ urban renewal properties: Evidence from the U.K.. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 12 (1): pp.1-12. Naess, P. (2001). Urban planning and sustainable development. European Planning Studies, 9 (4): pp.503-524. Ng, E. (2009). Designing high-density cities for social and environmental sustainability. London: Earthscan. Shaw, K. & Robinson, F. (2010). UK urban regeneration policies in the early twenty-first Century: Continuity or change? The Town Planning Review, 81 (2): pp.123-149. Williams, K. (1999). Urban intensification policies in England: Problems and contradictions. Land Use Policy, 16 (3): pp.167-178. World Bank. (2010). Eco2 Cities: Ecological cities as economic cities. Synopsis. The World Bank. Retrieved on 15th November, 2011 from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1270074782769/Eco2Cities_synopsis.pdf Read More