Sustainable Cities: Assessing the Performance and Practice of Urban Environments 9781350988323, 9780857727541

Citation preview

Pierre Laconte is President of the Foundation for the Urban Environment, which seeks to link urban planning, transportation and the environment. A past President of the International Society of City and Regional Planners, and former Secretary General of the International Association of Public Transport, he was an evaluator for the European Green Capital Award 2012 and 2013 and a member of the Lee Kuan Yew World City Award Council. He is one of the three planners responsible for Louvain new university town in Belgium, which received the Abercrombie Award of the International Union of Architects. His publications include Brussels: Perspectives on a European Capital (co-editor, C. Hein), which shared the Society for Human Ecology 2008 Award for best publication; Water Resources and Land-Use Planning: A Systems Approach (co-editor, Y.Y. Haimes); and Human and Energy Factors in Urban Planning: A Systems Approach (co-editors J. Gibson and A. Rapoport). Chris Gossop is a planner and environmentalist. Until 2011 he served as a UK government planning inspector with responsibility for the scrutiny and determination of planning and environmental appeals up to national level. He has been Deputy Director of the Town and Country Planning Association, where he worked on national and EU-wide policy issues, including energy and the environment, and is a trustee/director of both the National Energy Foundation and the Milton Keynes Parks Trust. He was guest editor for the special issue of Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning on low-carbon cities, and led the congress team for the International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP) 2009 World Congress on low-carbon cities. His publications include editing five editions of the ISOCARP Review on planning theory and practice.

‘A wonderful volume detailing some of the most important and successful criteria, practices and studies of sustainable urbanism. One of its extraordinary merits is the deliberate effort to bring back the comprehensive and integrative nature of the green campaign, which encourages the planning profession to invent more trans-spatial and sectoral tools and solutions in order to deliver sustainability more effectively.’ Hongyang Wang, Professor of Urban Planning and Design, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Nanjing University ‘A valuable contribution, assessing the development and performance of sustainable urban environments. There are many important chapters, including the final output from Professor Sir Peter Hall, on assessing sustainable urban transport. A must read for academics, students and practitioners.’ Robin Hickman, Reader in Transport Planning and the City, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Assessing the Performance and Practice of Urban Environments

PIERRE

Edited by LACONTE and CHRIS GOSSOP

Published in 2016 by I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd London • New York www.ibtauris.com Copyright Editorial Selection q 2016 Pierre Laconte and Chris Gossop Copyright Individual Chapters q 2016 Jochen Albrecht, Michael Braungart, Calvin Chua, Kai Dietrich, Ian Douglas, Mark Dwyer, Jake Garcia, Birgit Georgi, Chris Gossop, Peter Hall, Ulrich Heink, Uli Hellweg, Pierre Laconte, Peter J. Marcotullio, Kerry J. Mashford, Douglas Mulhall, Elke Pahl-Weber, William E. Rees, Andrea Sarzynski, Niels Schulz, Sebastian Seelig The right of Pierre Laconte and Chris Gossop to be identified as the editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Every attempt has been made to gain permission for the use of the images in this book. Any omissions will be rectified in future editions. References to websites were correct at the time of writing. International Library of Human Geography 37 ISBN: 978 1 78453 232 1 eISBN: 978 0 85772 957 6 ePDF: 978 0 85772 754 1 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library A full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: available Typeset in Garamond Three by OKS Prepress Services, Chennai, India Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Introduction: assessing the assessments Pierre Laconte

vii 1

Part I Levels of Observation 1. Energy use in buildings: contributions and considerations in urban systems Kerry J. Mashford

15

2. The certification of neighbourhoods in Germany: towards sustainable development? Elke Pahl-Weber and Sebastian Seelig

38

3. Assessing the urban environment: the European Green Capital Award and other urban assessments Birgit Georgi

50

4. Bilbao, New York and Suzhou – a tale of three cities: assessing the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize Mark Dwyer and Calvin Chua

67

Part II Methodologies/Ways of Thinking 5. Assessing urban greenhouse gas emissions in European medium and large cities: methodological considerations Peter J. Marcotullio, Andrea Sarzynski, Jochen Albrecht, Niels Schulz and Jake Garcia 6. Ecological footprint analysis: assessing urban sustainability William E. Rees

83

102

vi

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

7. The evaluation of urban biodiversity Ulrich Heink

115

8. Transforming the psychology of emissions Douglas Mulhall and Michael Braungart

134

Part III Urban Sustainability – Best Practices 9. Water and the city: canals and waterfront development as tools for a sustainable post-industrial city – assessing best practices Ian Douglas 10. Assessing sustainable urban transport Sir Peter Hall

145 169

11. Assessing the Amsterdam Singel canal area for the UNESCO World Heritage listing (2010): heritage and sustainability Pierre Laconte

184

12. King’s Cross: assessing the development of a new urban quarter for London Chris Gossop

195

13. Concepts for cities in times of climate change: making an entire city district self-sufficient in heat and power Uli Hellweg and Kai Dietrich

216

About the contributors Index

232 237

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures Figure I.1 The Louvain new university town first phase central square, showing the Science Library (architect: A. Jacquemin; overall masterplan and architectural coordination: R. Lemaire, J-P Blondel and P. Laconte).

10

Figure 1.1 Final energy use by sector EU28 – 2012 figures.

17

Figure 1.2 Energy breakdown in non-domestic buildings.

17

Figure 1.3 Indicative composition of actual energy use compared with predicted energy use.

20

Figure 1.4 Typical EPC certificate issued in England and Wales showing current and potential energy rating and environmental impact. 21 Figure 1.5 Swedish building energy certificate from 1 January 2014.

22

Figure 1.6 Examples of buildings being studied under Innovate UK’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme.

24

Figure 1.7 There is almost no correlation between EPC ratings and actual energy intensity.

25

Figure 1.8 Comparison between a traditional cold roof eave junction and a timber frame warm roof eave built using a roof cassette.

26

Figure 1.9 Examples of test equipment used in building performance evaluation.

28

Figure 1.10 Birmingham SuperHome.

33

viii

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 1.11 Camden SuperHome.

34

Figure 2.1 BBSR’s criteria for the certification of single buildings.

40

Figure 2.2 Number of commercial buildings certified and registered for certification in May 2011.

45

Figure 2.3 Development of costs in the building’s life cycle.

46

Figure 3.1 Soil sealing in the six finalist cities of the EGCA 2012/13.

59

Figure 3.2 CO2 emission of cities in the UK.

60

Figure 3.3 Example of different urban delineations and land use.

61

Figure 3.4 Extended urban metabolism concept including drivers like land use planning and infrastructure decisions, patterns like different urban shapes, designs, urban land use intensities, and lifestyles of people as expressed in different forms of mobility, shelter, food consumption.

62

Figure 4.1 Bilbao’s transformed riverside.

68

Figure 4.2 Bilbao’s Metro System.

74

Figure 4.3 New York’s High Line Park.

76

Figure 4.4 Suzhou’s historical centre.

78

Figure 4.5 Suzhou’s Jinji Lake with the city’s central business district in the background.

79

Figure 5.1 Extent of urban versus non-urban areas in Europe.

96

Figure 7.1 Distribution of Holosteum umbellatum and Dysphania botrys in Berlin.

119

Figure 7.2a The old water tower, a relic of former urban industrial use and today a widely visible landmark.

128

Figure 7.2b Combination of former and present use: the old railway tracks determine the location of footpaths. In the background, a tunnel as an arts installation.

129

Figure 7.2c A forest of black locust trees, an example of wildness on a heavily human-altered site.

130

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

ix

Figure 8.1 CO2 as a chemical is adaptable for biological or technical cycles in the circular economy.

139

Figure 9.1 The old commercial wharves along the Douro in Porto, Portugal, have been adapted to provide a wealth of leisure facilities for both residents and visitors.

146

Figure 9.2 The redeveloped dock waterfront at Leith, Edinburgh, Scotland, a blend of restoration and new building.

147

Figure 9.3 Media City, Salford Quays, Greater Manchester.

148

Figure 9.4 The Imperial War Museum North on the Manchester Ship Canal, Trafford Wharf, Greater Manchester.

148

Figure 9.5 Flats overlooking the Bridgewater Canal adjoin the Metrolink tram station at Sale, Greater Manchester.

151

Figure 9.6 Houses and apartments that in January 2016 retailed at £120,000 to £240,000 along the Bridgewater Canal at Sale, Greater Manchester.

151

Figure 9.7 Apartment buildings on the dockside at Salford Quays, Greater Manchester, retailing in January 2016 at £150,000 to £300,000.

152

Figure 9.8 The Lowry arts centre, Salford Quays, Greater Manchester. 154 Figure 9.9 The marina on the new canal in New Islington, Manchester.

157

Figure 9.10 The Chips Building alongside the Ashton Canal at New Islington, about 1 km from Manchester City Centre (Alsop Architects).

157

Figure 9.11 ‘The Guts’: a new affordable housing development under construction in New Islington, Manchester.

158

Figure 9.12 Dock redevelopment biodiversity: tree planting beside one of the older developments at Salford Quays.

159

Figure 9.13 The equipment used to release oxygen into the waters of the Manchester Ship Canal turning basin at Salford Quays, Greater Manchester (this equipment was relocated in early 2014).

162

x

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 9.14 Restricted waterfront access, as well as unrealised potential for biodiversity along the Ashton Canal near the Chips Building, New Islington.

165

Figure 10.1 London’s O2 Arena, served by a station on the Jubilee Line.

173

Figure 10.2 New Tysons Corner Silver Line Station.

180

Figure 11.1 View of Amsterdam Singel canal area. It indicates the three ring canals framework.

185

Figure 11.2 View of early building phase. The Bend in the Herengracht by Gerrit Berckheyde (1671– 72).

187

Figure 11.3 Random view of a canal today.

187

Figure 11.4 View of central station, Amsterdam.

188

Figure 12.1 Battlebridge Place – a new public space at an entry point to King’s Cross with St Pancras International in the background.

197

Figure 12.2 The Regent’s Canal, opened in 1820 as a transport route for London’s food and other freight and now a popular facility for leisure boating.

198

Figure 12.3 St Pancras International.

200

Figure 12.4 The opened up frontage to King’s Cross Station with new public square in the foreground.

201

Figure 12.5 King’s Cross Master Plan.

203

Figure 12.6 University of the Arts London and Granary Square.

205

Figure 12.7 The stepped slope linking Granary Square to the canal towpath and a popular place for students during the summer months. 205 Figure 12.8 Five Pancras Square, Camden Council’s new offices and public facilities nearing completion (rear) and construction site for Three Pancras Square (frontage) (June 2014).

207

Figure 12.9 Pancras Square with One and Two at the right (June 2014).

209

Figure 12.10 King’s Boulevard.

212

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xi

Figure 12.11 The striking ArtHouse development, the first market housing at King’s Cross, viewed across the Regent’s Canal with its moored leisure boats.

213

Figure 13.1 Wilhelmsburg, an island located between the north and south arms of the River Elbe and the project site for IBA Hamburg.

219

Figure 13.2 Renewable Wilhelmsburg Concept for the Future.

221

Figure 13.3 Energy Bunker: a memorial transformed into a power plant for renewable energy.

221

Figure 13.4 Weltquartier: renovated social housing.

222

Figure 13.5 Local energy network (energy association) supplying district heating to dwellings and businesses and piloting the ‘feed in’ to the grid of surplus heat from consumers.

223

Figure 13.6 Area covered by the local energy network depicted in Figure 13.5.

224

Figure 13.7 and 13.8 BIQ passive house with bioreactor fac
ade.

225

Figure 13.9 Water houses realised in a water-retention basin.

226

Figure 13.10 ‘Soft houses’.

227

Figure 13.11 Energy Hill.

228

Figure 13.12 Top Climate Campaign: Wilhelmsburger Strasse.

230

Plates Plate 1a and b The National Energy Foundation (NEF), Milton Keynes, England (1a); and the Display Energy Certificate which relates to it (1b). Plate 2a and b The Potsdamer Platz, located in Berlin, Germany’s capital, was the first urban district in Germany certified under the urban districts certificate of the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) in 2011. Plate 3 Assessing the Urban Environment – a selection of city rankings (up to place 8). Plate 4a and b The Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain (a), and Suzhou Industrial Park, Suzhou, China (b).

xii

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Plate 5a Mixed use waterfront development at Wood Wharf, London. Plate 5b Carbon dioxide as a resource for the circular economy. Plate 6a The Medieval town, Amsterdam. Plate 6b The ‘Novissima Urbs’. Plate 7a Cutaway diagram showing the main components of the King’s Cross Energy Centre. Plate 7b The former Midland Grand Hotel and now the St Pancras Renaissance Hotel. Plate 8a IBA Hamburg – a former World War II flak bunker converted to become the central facility for a local district heating network. Plate 8b The ‘Smart Material House’, one of 16 highly energy-efficient houses developed by IBA Hamburg.

Tables Table 3.1 Indicator areas used in different indexes and assessment approaches.

54

Table 3.2 Different indicators for cycling.

58

Table 5.1 Summary of coverage in urban GHG inventories.

90

Table 5.2 Comparison of selected previous GHG results to our approach results for European urban areas (tons CO2 equivalents).

92

Table 5.3 GHG emissions per capita from non-European Cities (tons CO2 equivalents).

95

Table 5.4 Percentage of European GHG emissions by source in different definitions of urban areas.

97

Table 9.1 Prices of residential properties in various locations on canals and waterfronts in England in January 2016 (compiled from estate agents listings – UK pounds, £000).

150

Table 9.2 Public expenditure for London Docklands regeneration.

153

Table 9.3 Positive and negative elements in waterfront developments. 166

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xiii

Table 10.1 Cumulative property market value directly attributable to the JLE by market type and distance band (December 2002).

174

Table 10.2 Modes of rationality in planning European tram systems.

178

Table 12.1 The impacts of the King’s Cross development: a summary assessment.

210

Boxes Box I.1 Louvain new university town, near Brussels.

10

Box 3.1 Qualitative information in the European Green Capital Award. 63 Box 3.2 Is there any ideal sustainable city?

64

Box 5.1 Tools for preparing local GHG emissions inventories.

88

Box 7.1 Indicators of the City Biodiversity Index.

126

Box 11.1 World Heritage List – UNESCO’s criteria for selection.

189

INTRODUCTION ASSESSING THE ASSESSMENTS Pierre Laconte

The origins of this book lie in the realisation that rapid change in building and information technology has created unprecedented challenges for sustainable cities, which cannot be dealt with by using traditional planning methods. The issue was first raised at the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), where Jaime Lerner, representing Brazil, first set out his innovative solutions for sustainable development, as adopted by the City of Curitiba of which he was the mayor. I represented Belgium and explained the ecological planning of the Louvain new university town where work began in 1969.1 The functionalist city movement – dominant in the sixties – considered that cities were a juxtaposition of mono-functional parts, to be linked by motorised transport, rather than a complex integrated system mixing all urban functions. To counter this trend, the university planned for a living community, mixing all functions from the first phase of implementation (see Box I.1 at the end of this introduction). This approach was elaborated in a special issue of The Annals (American Academy of Political and Social Science).2 The Brundtland Report and the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),3 made a breakthrough in the debate about sustainable environments by linking environment and development (including urban development) to form an integrated environmental management. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988, has linked scientists and politicians to develop strategies for a more sustainable world that mitigates and adapts to climate change. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and it requires the reconciliation of the ‘three pillars’ of

2

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

sustainability: environmental, social and economic.4 This book addresses most directly the first of these components and it focuses upon urban areas where the environmental challenge is most pronounced. As Kerry Mashford outlines in the first section of Chapter 1, the achievement of sustainable urban environments depends upon the sustainability of the individual elements of a city or town and on how these operate together to create effective and sustainable urban systems. This three part book is about ‘assessing the assessments’ concerning the state of the urban environment. Part I explores primarily the built environment and at three levels of observation: the individual building, the neighbourhood, and the entire city or town, as expressed through systematic comparisons between those places. Part II is about the techniques that seek to assess urban development and systems as a whole – areas where the different approaches available can yield significantly different results. We end in Part III with a collection of case studies which explore best practice in the pursuit of various types of urban development.

Part I: Levels of Observation The first level is that of the individual building. In terms of their overall ‘green’ rating, numerous sustainability assessment and certification schemes exist, although in some cases their quality has been disputed. The expanding business of environmental assessments and audits includes BREEAM (the Building Research Establishment Assessment Method) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), which lead the commercially available standards for best practice in sustainable design. A large-scale example of BREEAM certification is reported by Chris Gossop in his assessment of London’s King’s Cross development (Chapter 12). In Chapter 1 Kerry Mashford first addresses urban systems as a whole and then focuses on the energy performance of buildings across Europe and their energy use metering, monitoring and benchmarking. A critical issue she raises is that of ‘the performance gap’, whereby owners and occupants are increasingly aware that they may not be getting what they believed they had paid for in new-build performance. Indeed, it seems that we have been deluding ourselves for many years over the true energy performance of many of our buildings.5 In terms of the basic fabric of structures, thanks to progress in building technology and European legislation we know how to construct low or zero energy buildings and the additional cost of these has come down greatly.6 Energy producing buildings (‘þ energy’) may become the powerhouses of tomorrow. But to secure such gains our new buildings must be without the construction flaws that have too often affected actual

ASSESSING

THE

ASSESSMENTS

3

performance, and they must be properly managed so that in use they can achieve their true theoretical potential. And as design and construction techniques improve, resulting in buildings that are increasingly energy frugal, this needs to be matched by their occupiers in terms of an increased awareness of how to achieve that potential. Inevitably, the level of progress made will also depend on the prevailing cost of energy and how this is perceived. Whatever the progress made in making new buildings energy frugal, the yearly addition of new buildings across much of Europe typically forms a small part of the total building stock (for housing in England, currently around 0.5 per cent of the total stock).7 The vast majority of the 2050 building stock already exists and this older stock will be both difficult and costly to retrofit if it is to have a performance anywhere approaching that expected for new build. Heritage buildings are particularly difficult to deal with; associations such as Europa Nostra have repeatedly warned against the application of EU energy efficiency legislation, which risks taking heritage buildings out of the market, or disfiguring them. The second level is that of the urban neighbourhood. Elke PahlWeber and Sebastian Seelig review Germany’s current state of play in respect of this level of certification. They identify five approaches and initiatives that have taken place over the last 15 years or so, the most prominent of which is the certification seal of the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) as applied to neighbourhoods. So far, about 20 such areas have been certified in this way, involving a scale intermediate between that of the city block and the district. The authors indicate that the system is becoming increasingly prominent as a marketing tool for larger development projects; that is indeed one of the aims of the parallel US system LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development).8 We cannot be sure to what extent, if at all, this process is actually driving environmental standards up. Undoubtedly, there is a long way to go before we can be confident about the effective status of certification at this complex level. For one thing, the present scheme has been derived without any strong consensus between the various levels of governance and civil society over goals and common indicators. Secondly, there has been an absence of tools to assess the existing building stock; the LEED-ND, for example, focuses essentially on new neighbourhoods, including green buildings. Thirdly, there is surely a question about the overall scope of neighbourhood certification and what can be quantified. In particular, to what extent can/should it take into account the local traffic dimension (shopping, school runs, retail delivery) in terms of energy use by vehicles?

4

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

The third level of observation is the city as a whole. Numerous indices have been used to compare the sustainability of cities. Birgit Georgi compares several of them, according to their focus and intention, and their underlying selection of data and indicators, assessment criteria and methodology (expert panels, interviews and perceptions). Notwithstanding their differences and biases, they allow cities to learn from each other and encourage them to take action aimed at improving their performance. A specific benchmarking experience worth mentioning is the EU Green Capital Award. Both Birgit Georgi and I were EU evaluators for the candidate cities of 2012 and 2013. Each evaluator was in charge of analysing one of the requested information areas. Frequent meetings among evaluators effectively ensured coherence and avoidance of overlap. Closed meetings between the group of evaluators and the representatives of the cities allowed questions to be raised about their data and its verification by outside sources. Only then was the addition of points made for each item, resulting in the final evaluator ranking. The final choice was made by a jury which had to follow the evaluators’ results, with justifiable exceptions such as avoiding giving the award to two cities in a row from the same country. All parts of the exercise are available on the internet, including any objections. The thoroughness, neutrality and transparency displayed might qualify as an assessment best practice. Among other comparative assessment exercises, using different methodologies, is the biennial Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize, reported by Mark Dwyer and Calvin Chua. Each nominee has to undergo a rigorous two-tier selection process, comprising of a multidisciplinary group of local and international thought leaders and leading practitioners in the field of urban development. The final stage was a visit to the shortlisted cities by the nominating committee. The recommendations by the nominating committee were ultimately validated by the Prize Council. I consider that the thoroughness and neutrality of this exercise could also qualify as an assessment best practice.9

Part II: Methodologies/Ways of Thinking Peter Marcotullio and his co-authors examine selected methods of determining greenhouse gas emissions at the urban scale. They describe the various criteria considered when constructing an urban greenhouse gas protocol, including the definition of urban, the gases that are measured and their source, the scope of analysis and how the measurements are undertaken. They then present results for European medium and large sized cities derived from alternative methodologies to demonstrate the range of results, their own approach being a ‘top-down’ one. This is a particularly valuable comparative

ASSESSING

THE

ASSESSMENTS

5

exercise as the estimates for each city are made by the same team, according to the same methodology. By contrast, as an evaluator for the Green Capital Award 2012 and 2013 I was confronted with 17 estimation methodologies, each candidate city using its own methodology. The results ranged from 3,000 to 10,000 metric tons (tonnes)/year per inhabitant. This discrepancy was in line with the findings of the GHG Study Report 2009 by Bader and Bleidschwitz, which compares the methodologies used by seven specialised institutions.10 Areas of difference include the number of gases assessed (CO2 alone or CO2 equivalents for the six Greenhouse gases (GHGs) taken into account by the IPPC), the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values, the reporting standards and the scope of measurement (direct emissions alone or direct, indirect and life cycle emissions). Solutions to these many discrepancies include enabling communication between existing tools, developing international standards or reaching an international agreement on a single set of tools, in line with the seminal analysis of Peter Marcotullio and his co-authors. As those authors recognise from their own studies, however, the differences in results also reflect the differences in the purposes for which the various types of studies are designed. They advise bringing together the findings from both top-down and bottom-up analyses to support local and regional actions, as well as the continued development of rigorous protocols for estimating urban GHG emissions worldwide, at regional and at local level. This is a key recommendation of the authors, and is still far from being on the political agenda. William E. Rees suggests a framework to examine prospects for urban sustainability, particularly focusing on ecological footprint analysis (EFA) as an essential tool for assessing the sustainability of cities, the technique of which he is the leading developer. This tool includes the biophysical dimensions of urban futures, reminding us that cities are complex biophysical systems subject to natural laws. Because of higher incomes and purchasing power, urbanites make significantly greater demands on the ecosphere than do rural dwellers. City dwellers necessarily continue to satisfy their biometabolisms by consuming the products of natural and managed ecosystems and by disposing of their wastes back into surrounding ecosystems. This is an inherently unsustainable process in that the ‘human enterprise’ cannot continue to function in its present state indefinitely. Guided by EFA, which affirms that we humans are integral components of the ecosystems that support us, we must begin to scale our material demands to the supply of productive biocapacity. This line of thought has been seminal in the great expansion of studies about urban metabolism, among others by the European Environment Agency.11

6

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

This concept approaches the city as a living system like other ecosystems, with their interaction between human activities and nature. It does not stop at single city borders but considers the urbanisation processes across Europe. The concept of the circular economy is part of the same strand of thinking. It involves the re-use, repair and refurbishment of existing materials and products, and what used to be regarded as ‘waste’ becomes a resource. All resources need to be managed more efficiently throughout their life cycle, an imperative that is becoming increasingly recognised by industry. Independently from their contribution to the present book, the concept was addressed by Douglas Mulhall and Michael Braungart (see hereafter) in a report to the Davos World Economic Forum entitled Towards the Circular Economy.12 In July 2014 the European Commission adopted a Communication on the circular economy, the intention of which is to boost recycling, prevent the loss of valuable materials and create jobs and economic growth13 and in two EU countries centres for the implementation of the circular economy have been established.14 These developments are all in line with Rees’ pioneering views. Ulrich Heink bravely tackles the evaluation of urban biodiversity. Biodiversity is a measure of the variety of organisms present in different ecosystems. This can refer to genetic variation, ecosystem variation or species variation (number of species) within a given observation area. As the scale of observation determines the observed phenomenon, urban biodiversity confronts us with the same definition issues as with GHG emissions. The smaller the observation area the more biodiversity interfaces with surrounding areas. As Ulrich Heink says: ‘On the one hand the adverse effects of urbanisation have to be mitigated; on the other hand, concepts for a careful development of urban biodiversity on wasteland are needed.’ This chapter focuses therefore first on general biodiversity values, from which evaluation criteria can be derived. It turns next to the specific features of urban biodiversity and then explores in detail which biodiversity components and processes may be important for biodiversity conservation according to relevant evaluation criteria. It next discusses the use of these criteria as applied by an evaluation procedure at the overall urban level (the City Biodiversity Index) and in a case study – the former rail yard ‘Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde’ in Berlin. This area is a well-defined wasteland. Its former biodiversity has largely disappeared and has been replaced by new species, migrants from a wide hinterland. The side interest of the chapter is its use for understanding the Natura 2000 network. Natura 2000 is an EU-wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive. The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats. Such areas are frequently located in cities, with important

ASSESSING

THE

ASSESSMENTS

7

implications for urban management. A case in point is the Antwerp port extension into a Natura 2000 boundary. At the request of nature protection associations the city had to create from scratch a new protection area.15 The contribution by Douglas Mulhall and Michael Braungart in Chapter 8 complements that by Peter Marcotullio and his fellow authors. While Marcotullio addresses the estimation of GHG emissions, Mulhall and Braungart explore ways of re-using emissions; in this they go beyond the emerging technologies aimed at capturing and storing CO2 to consider the emerging technologies which seek to re-use such materials as a feedstock. In time this application of the circular economy could transform the economics of many processes while tackling the major GHGs at source.

Part III: Urban Sustainability – Best Practices Our first case history by Ian Douglas discusses the role of canals and waterfront developments as catalysts for the sustainable post-industrial city. Former dock area redevelopments in Europe range from the re-use of old warehouses, as at Liverpool’s Albert Dock and the dock area of Copenhagen, to the transformation of Bilbao’s steel wasteland into a vibrant urban space, to the creation of major financial precincts such as at Canary Wharf in London. In Greater Manchester, England, the change has been particularly dramatic, helped by aquatic scientists at the University of Manchester, with aeration of water in the former docks and the use of subterranean stormwater holding tanks to minimise the release of untreated sewage from combined sewers into rivers and canals. Waterfront living suddenly became pleasant at all times of the year and regenerated the whole city. The canalside and dockland new developments succeeded through a combination of government support, public and private sector partnerships, and municipal encouragement of developers to take up the waterfront regeneration challenge, through maximising the ecosystem service benefits of canals and other waterways and through being able to benefit from rising land values and property prices. Waterfronts in Europe, as across the world, are now important elements in urban redevelopment and a highly effective re-use of brownfield land and redundant water space, fostering economic, social and environmental sustainability. Sir Peter Hall’s chapter on sustainable urban transport, with its comparison of France and the UK, is not only a major contribution to the present book but it is also – doubtless – his last publication, as sadly he died, at the age of 83, during the final editing of his text. Chris Gossop and I have both enjoyed his friendship over many years and admired his unrelenting energy and his utmost professionalism as an academic and a man eager to see his convictions become

8

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

reality. His contribution to my early symposium ‘Changing cities: challenge to planning’16 and the dialogue around it remain an unforgettable experience. My most recent opportunity to admire him was his guiding of a two-day tour of King’s Cross, interviewing on the way all the major architects involved and the coordinating developer of this best practice (Chapter 12). The main point made here by Peter Hall is that in each country transport project assessment has changed profoundly over half a century, but to varying degrees, and in different ways. The basic shift has been from a predict-andprovide approach to one based on limits set by public capacity to pay for investments, or social equity, or, increasingly in recent decades, environmental sustainability. The UK’s SACTRA Reports, published from 1994, provided a key opportunity to rethink trunk road assessments.17 The first one, devoted to the COBA (cost benefit analysis) of road projects, showed that COBA ignored the traffic generated by new roads. It demonstrated that additional road capacity was attracting more additional cars than the additional road space could handle, and that we were not ‘building our way out of congestion’, but rather towards more congestion. The second report evaluated the role of road transport on regional development and demonstrated with examples that regional development was triggered by human capital and entrepreneurial initiatives, not by more roads. The third evaluated the ‘degeneration of traffic’ resulting from natural disasters and showed with numerous examples, such as the Kobe earthquake, that traffic adapted very quickly to a lower road supply through diversion or modal shift. Peter Hall has paid particular attention to comparing the strong development of trams in France with their much weaker development in the UK. The French versement transport (employer contribution to public transport) allowed the municipalities to impose a yearly contribution on all employers of more than nine staff to finance improved public transport. This generated the resources to achieve more than 100 ‘tram cities’. However, low fares set by elected officials, and increasing costs, entail growing deficits. By comparison, the best tram city in the UK – Manchester – has succeeded in getting the best from the private consortia that won the tenders, minimising the cost borne by the tax payer. My own contribution is about the assessment of heritage and the requirements to be met for UNESCO World Heritage listing. Taking the specific case of the Amsterdam Singel canal area, I was able to demonstrate as part of the UNESCO process that this canal ring layout (of residential canals and service streets), its land subdivision into small plots and its implementation framework and control have proven both their robustness

ASSESSING

THE

ASSESSMENTS

9

and their sustainability across several centuries. Moreover, the area’s integrity and authenticity have been preserved and it has been possible to accommodate changes in functions as well as changes in building styles and building techniques. This adaptability, including adaptive re-use, makes the Singel canal area a prime example of a sustainable urban environment in Europe. It has been a collective masterpiece, not the result of an individual visionary initiative like St Petersburg or Barcelona’s L’Eixample. Chris Gossop’s chapter on London’s King’s Cross area shows how the long-term vision of a fine urban quarter at the heart of an unparalleled network of transport communications is being implemented, focusing upon the railway termini of King’s Cross and St Pancras International and six underground lines. He wonders if the new development matches the architectural quality of its Victorian predecessors and whether the new and refurbished buildings and extensive public realm will set new standards for urban areas everywhere. His overwhelming impression is that it succeeds on these counts. The chapter explores the environmental performance of this development and concludes with a summary analysis of the extent to which the development has met the aims set for it by the development plan and national planning guidance (for example on urban design) and complied with wider sustainability as well as ‘liveability’ considerations. Those considerations span the social and economic as well as environmental ‘pillars’ of sustainability and cultural factors (Table 12.1). The final chapter by Uli Hellweg and Kai Dietrich focuses on Hamburg’s island district of Wilhelmsburg, chosen as the location for Germany’s eighth International Building Exhibition (IBA). The IBA has been developed over a period of more than a century: the general intention of this most original tool is to generate innovative ideas on the shaping of urban life by achieving a replicable model of quality planning. Each has had a special theme or themes and one of the those for IBA Hamburg is making Wilhelmsburg self-sufficient in energy terms. This makes it a pioneer in energy efficiency and in using renewables. Energy is at the forefront of a wider strategy to improve the liveability and sustainability of Wilhelmsburg, in accordance with the three Bruntland pillars of sustainability. A comprehensive study has assessed the building stock and its suitability for upgrading in energy performance terms. The outcome has been the ‘Energy Atlas’, three very different local district heating networks and a number of highly innovative demonstration projects. The ‘Top Climate Plan’ campaign expressed the will to engage local communities and place them at the centre of all improvement plans. In 2013 an urban development company was set up to continue the work of IBA Hamburg in these important areas.

10

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

To sum up, these case histories illustrate different facets of urban sustainability and its assessment: water management and urban renewal projects (Manchester’s canals), sustainable urban transportation (French and UK cities), the enhancement of urban identity and urban heritage through heritage conservation (Amsterdam ring of canals), links between urban heritage and large-scale new developments (London’s King’s Cross) and entirely new developments centred on energy saving (Hamburg’s IBA project). Questions are raised on the evaluation criteria and practices. Box I.1

Louvain new university town, near Brussels.

During the 1960s, the University of Louvain was faced with having to leave its historic location. In 1969 the decision was taken to relocate on an agricultural site on the Brussels periphery and build at each phase of its growth a high density low rise mix of functions (education, culture, commerce and housing), along a pedestrian spine linking all phases. Figure I.1 shows the centre of the new university town’s first phase (1972). The centre of that phase was the Science Library, together with its pedestrian plaza built above an automobile underpass and parking. It is surrounded by university buildings, apartments, shops and restaurants. The town is entirely pedestrian and its underground station (1976) is to become the head station of one of the lines of the Brussels high frequency S-Bahn, instead of a commuter line. Its shopping mall adjacent to the station attracts 8 million visitors a year (2014). Rainwater is collected and fed into a reservoir treated as a publicly accessible lake.

Figure I.1 The Louvain new university town first phase central square, showing the Science Library (architect: A. Jacquemin; overall masterplan and architectural coordination: R. Lemaire, J-P Blondel and P. Laconte). Source: the author.

ASSESSING

THE

ASSESSMENTS

11

Notes 1. P. Laconte (ed.), La recherche de la qualite´ environnementale et urbaine. Le cas de Louvain-laNeuve-Belgique (Seeking environmental and urban quality: the case of Louvain-la-neuve – Belgium) (Lyon, 2009). 2. P. Laconte (ed.), Changing Cities: Challenge to Planning (Philadelphia, 1980). 3. WCED, ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future’ (the Brundtland Report) (New York, 1987). 4. Ibid. 5. L. Reason and K. Mashford, How Much Energy Does Your Building Use? (Oxford, 2014). 6. See, for example, in Brussels the output of the a2m architectural office (2013), www.a2m.be. 7. UK Government Statistics (2013), www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwelling-stockestimates-in-england-2013. 8. LEED-ND, www.usgbc.org/leed. 9. G. Liu (ed.), Cities in Transformation: Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize (Singapore, 2012). 10. N. Bader and R. Bleidschwitz, ‘GHG Study Report 2009’ (Bruges, 2009). 11. J. Minx et al., ‘Developing a Pragmatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe: A Report to the European Environment Agency’. Climatecon Working Paper Series, 1 (2011), http://ideas.climatecon.tu-berlin.de/documents/wpaper/CLIMATECON-201101.pdf (2011). 12. World Economic Forum, ‘Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale-up Across Global Supply Chains’ (Davos, 2014), www.weforum.org. 13. European Commission Press Release Database, ‘Environment: Higher Recycling Targets to Drive Transition to a Circular Economy with New Jobs and Sustainable Growth’ (Brussels, 2014), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-763_en.htm. 14. www.becircular.eu. 15. Port of Antwerp Annual Report, ‘Socially Responsible’ (2011). 16. Laconte, La recherche de la qualite´ environnementale et urbaine. 17. SACTRA, webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/. . ./dft_econappr_pdf_022512.pdf.

PART I LEVELS OF OBSERVATION

CHAPTER 1 ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS: CONTRIBUTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS IN URBAN SYSTEMS Kerry J. Mashford

The achievement of truly sustainable urban environments depends on the sustainability of the individual elements that make up a town or city as well as how these elements work together to create effective and sustainable urban systems. The collective contribution of buildings to the energy demands of a city represents usually the largest and most difficult to manage component. Whilst buildings impact upon sustainability in many other ways, energy performance is a reasonable proxy for overall sustainability and hence this chapter focuses on the energy performance of the new and existing buildings across Europe. It explains how we have been deluding ourselves for many years about their true energy efficiency, illustrated by examples from current large-scale studies, and explains what is happening to address this at European Union (EU) level and in individual member states. It introduces some of the schemes and metrics used to measure and demonstrate the energy performance and overall sustainability of buildings, together with tools and techniques coming into more common use to test, verify and benchmark both the intrinsic performance of a building (its fabric and services) and the energy consumed (and in some cases generated) in its operation. For existing buildings which in Europe in 2050 will still make up the majority of built stock in our towns and cities, the chapter considers what can be done to improve their energy performance, taking into account the social and financial circumstances of building owners and occupiers, including giving some inspiring examples of what is known as deep retrofit.

16

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

The chapter concludes that by adopting an approach to construction and refurbishment of buildings in which practice is informed by measured performance, we can dramatically improve the energy performance of buildings and their consequent energy burden on urban areas, reducing their impact on local and global climate and leaving a much more manageable task for energy supply systems.

Buildings in city systems At some time between 20081 and 2010, human population distribution passed a very significant tipping point: for the first time in history more than half the world’s population now lives in towns and cities and this wave of urbanisation is continuing.2 As the world’s population continues to grow from just over 7 billion currently to a projected 9 billion by 2050, both the number of people living in urban areas and the proportion of the total population living in towns and cities will increase further. By 2050, the World Health Organization projects that the urban population will reach 6.4 billion, representing seven out of every ten people.3 If society is to continue to function; if human beings are to have relatively healthy and comfortable lives; if we are to have any hope of continuing to live within the resource constraints of a single planet, then we have no option but to apply our best minds and our best efforts to innovating and adapting our collective lifestyles to live within our means. City systems, already the most impactful contributors to resource use, will become ever more significant as population and urbanisation grow. The concentration of human activity in cities leads naturally to some resource efficiencies, most significantly in terms of transport, as distances travelled and comparatively high public transport use increase per capita efficiency. The benefits of densification are less significant for buildings, in part because major cities especially are host to substantially greater numbers of prestige offices, hotels and public buildings than prevail elsewhere. Prestige city buildings tend to have disproportionately high energy use – a topic we will return to later. Across Europe, final energy use in buildings accounts for 39 per cent of total energy consumption – residential energy accounting for 26 per cent and nondomestic (or services in Figure 1.1) for 13 per cent. Within the non-domestic buildings category, more than 50 per cent of energy use is for offices, retail and wholesale trade (Figure 1.2). Whilst non-domestic buildings account for a smaller overall proportion, their energy use per square metre, or ‘specific energy’, is on average about 40 per cent above that for residential buildings and is growing at a faster rate. In cities the specific energy of non-domestic buildings is greater still, compared with residential buildings because residences in cities are generally smaller than in less densely populated areas and

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

17

1% 13%

2%

26%

Industry Transport Residential Agriculture/forestry Services Unspecified

26%

32%

Figure 1.1 Final energy use by sector EU28 – 2012 figures. Source: Eurostat Statistics Explained, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_ explained/index.php/Consumption_of_energy#Consumption.

a greater proportion of non-domestic buildings can be classified as ‘prestige’, having particularly spacious public areas and being highly serviced. Cities also suffer from the ‘heat island effect’, where waste heat from transport, cooling systems and human activity combines with space heating leakage from buildings to raise the ambient external temperature. In temperate regions this leads to an increase in use of air conditioning, which in turns adds more waste heat to the surroundings, creating a vicious cycle. Add to this a rise in ambient temperature as a result of climate change

6% 6%

26%

10%

12%

12%

28%

Offices Wholesale and retail trade Education Hotels and restaurants Hospitals Sports Facilities Other

Figure 1.2 Energy breakdown in non-domestic buildings. Source: Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE), ‘Europe’s Buildings under the Microscope’, October 2011, p. 52.

18

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

and many experts now predict that, within the next 20–30 years, night-time cooling of building fabric, roads, plazas and pavements in cities will not be sufficient to restore the city to an acceptable temperature for the beginning of the next day. There is the danger that city systems will become thermally unstable, unable to moderate their temperature effectively with the current mix of buildings, their fabric performance and services. If left unchecked, city infrastructure will fail, city dwellers, workers and visitors will suffer heat stress, and emergency services, deprived of functioning power, water, transport and information infrastructure systems, will be overwhelmed and unable to respond. With buildings collectively representing the largest contributor to energy use and emissions, and knowing just how great the potential is to improve them, there is every reason to address this from all possible angles. Making sure that every new building added to the stock contributes as little as possible to the growing problem, and ideally reduces the problem through being energy positive and carbon negative,4 is one course of action – but knowing how well new buildings really perform in terms of energy is critical to improving the delivery of intrinsically energy-efficient buildings. Buildings that perform well from an energy perspective also tend to be those that use water more efficiently and have better indoor air quality, thus providing a good internal environment for living and working, A large number of sustainability assessment schemes have been developed across the world to capture these and other factors, such as biodiversity, ethical procurement, embodied energy. Some are more widely adopted in Europe and their respective merits are discussed in many studies.5 We also need to focus on upgrading our existing stock. An estimated 60 per cent of the buildings that will be standing in 20506 have already been built, with 40 per cent of current domestic stock across Europe having been constructed before 1960 when energy-related building regulations were in their infancy. This represents not only a challenge but also offers potential for individual and societal benefits, extending beyond the obvious ones of cost and comfort. Whilst there is debate amongst the governments of the European (EU) member states about the realistically achievable target for energy efficiency savings from existing buildings, the Buildings Performance Institute Europe7 estimates that up to 71 per cent energy savings can be achieved through refurbishing our existing buildings, bringing opportunities for economic development as the refurbishment sector grows in size and capability. The final piece of the jigsaw is improving the ways buildings are operated, be they complex or simple, domestic or non-domestic, occupied by owners or tenanted. Internal studies by major property companies have shown that, even

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

19

in a prestige headquarters office with a very good energy and sustainability certification, 20– 30 per cent energy improvement can be achieved through recommissioning and better operational energy management. And if one needed any more convincing, studies comparing the cost of investment in electricity generation with investment in improvements to energy efficiency in buildings, show that it should be quicker and cheaper to improve our buildings than to build new power stations.8

What is the composition of building energy use? The energy used by buildings comes from two main demand generators – the intrinsic performance of the building and the energy demands arising from the use of the building. In most recent practice, these are now increasingly offset by an energy contribution from building integrated power generation and thermal exchange systems. To take these in turn, the intrinsic performance of the building is determined by the fabric performance of the envelope and the energy required to run the basic (regulated) plant and equipment comprising the building services. In the limit, once a building is constructed, there is rarely any need for additional energy to keep it standing up! But, to be useful as a building, a comfortable indoor environment needs to be maintained and this requires heating, cooling, ventilation and other services. The intrinsic energy performance of a building is therefore determined on the assumption that a standard set of internal conditions is maintained, taking into account varying external conditions. This is similar to the practice of reporting fuel economy and CO2 emissions performance for cars on the basis of a standardised test cycle. But, just as no one expects to drive their car according to the strictly controlled conditions determined by the standardised test cycle, neither should we expect buildings to be operated according to the standard assumptions used to arrive at their predicted energy demand. This brings us to consider the energy demand determined by the way occupants use the building, which again can be considered to comprise two main sources. Firstly, the internal conditions desired by particular occupants may differ significantly from those assumed by the standard assessment method: occupants may prefer a higher or lower indoor temperature, may choose to leave windows open even when the outside temperature is low, take far more showers or have deeper baths that the basic model assumes. These would all have an impact on the regulated loads – those considered as part of the intrinsic performance. In addition, a wide variety of activities can take place in buildings and many of these use energy – these are termed unregulated loads. Devices and appliances that are plugged in constitute the bulk of this

20

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 1.3 Indicative composition of actual energy use compared with predicted energy use. Source: the author.

additional energy requirement and are frequently referred to as ‘plug loads’ or ‘small power’. Whether we consider the effect occupants have on the regulated or unregulated loads it is clear that occupant behaviour, specifically the way occupants interact with their building and its controls, can have a very substantial impact on the total energy demand (Figure 1.3).

Building certification So how do we go about assessing and certifying buildings in terms of their energy performance? Across Europe, the promotion of energy efficiency in buildings is the purpose of the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, with which all member states must comply. When the Directive was first implemented in 2002, its focus was on CO2 emissions but it has since been refocused on energy efficiency, with energy intensity9 being the primary metric and an objective to deliver ‘nearly zero energy buildings’ from 2020 onwards. The Directive includes energy used for space and hot water heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting (i.e. regulated loads) in both new and existing domestic and non-domestic buildings. Whist the Directive requires all member states to implement assessments of energy performance, set minimum standards of energy performance in buildings and provide independent oversight of energy performance certificates (EPCs) and reports, it does not mandate the methods used or the minimum standards required. However, it does oblige each member state to establish methods of assessment, reporting and enforcement, in accordance with the requirements of the Directive. Hence, whilst the Directive is EU wide, its interpretation and implementation differs between countries within the EU (Figures 1.4 and 1.5).

Figure 1.4 Typical EPC certificate issued in England and Wales showing current and potential energy rating and environmental impact. Source: UK Government and NEF.

22

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 1.5 Swedish building energy certificate from 1 January 2014. Source: Swedish Government.

Without exception, all EU member states require the energy performance of new buildings to be assessed at the design stage using approved modelling and calculation methods (and increasingly this is also being adopted for major refurbishments), resulting in classification of ‘as designed’ performance, usually in terms of kWh/m2yr, although in some states CO2 emissions are also used. Although in 2015 the UK government abandoned its commitments to zero carbon standards for new buildings, there is still a significant focus on improving the performance of new-builds, both domestic and commercial. The UK government is now focusing on energy as well as carbon and has confirmed its commitment to the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) of 2010, which requires all new

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

23

buildings to be ‘nearly zero energy’ from 1 January 2021. As energy and carbon dioxide are not directly interchangeable indicators persisting with both could cause additional complications for the UK.10 Only in Sweden is it currently required to provide building energy certificates for all new buildings, based on actual energy consumption, this being based on measurements made during the second heating season of the building. One might expect that being able to differentiate buildings on the basis of their energy performance would be a significant source of competitive advantage for the building owner at rental or sale and also for the designer and specialist consultants involved in the design. Indeed, if followed through into verified performance in practice, such advantages would also accrue to the main contractor and specialist subcontractors. There is some evidence that buildings with a high energy performance are beginning to enjoy a competitive advantage, although this still tends to be more attributable to the building’s overall sustainability rating (e.g. BREEAM Excellent) and associated prestige status than to the energy efficiency of the building. In many cases the causality is reversed in that only a prestige building that is expected to attract high rental income is thought to warrant the incorporation of the many and various sustainability credentials that enable it to be classified as BREEAM Excellent or LEED Platinum. Much of the focus for debate in relation to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive has been on determining what constitutes ‘nearly zero energy buildings’ and how to achieve this by 2020. Little attention was given initially to the fact that the objective is to deliver ‘nearly zero energy buildings’ not just to deliver buildings designed to be nearly zero energy. This is a very different matter. In practice, this ‘design based’ certification is rarely faithfully translated into physical buildings that perform as predicted. Studies undertaken in the UK on behalf of Innovate UK11 across almost 50 new non-domestic buildings and approaching 4000 new dwellings, are providing initial indications that energy ‘in use’ is typically between two and four times that predicted, and often considerably higher,12 taking into account unregulated loads (Figure 1.6). Similar findings are emerging from many other studies to the extent that the frequency and extent of the discrepancy between predicted and operational performance, in terms of energy use and other parameters, is becoming more widely recognised and is now referred to as ‘the performance gap’. The factors that contribute to this performance gap, their relative magnitude and how they can be eliminated or reduced is a major focus for research and for the development of tools, methods and improved practice. In part following from Innovate UK studies mentioned above, the Zero Carbon Hub in the UK was tasked with conducting a major study involving an extensive breadth and

24

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

depth of industry stakeholders. It published its evidence report in March 2014 in which the various contributing factors are explored.13 Having raised a client’s expectations by producing a building design with exemplary theoretical performance, failure to realise this in practice could have far reaching consequences, not least loss of competitive advantage and a potential backlash against aspirationally good design. A study by the Better Building Partnership14 showed almost no correlation between the operational energy intensity in use and that predicted at design (Figure 1.7). Whilst some proportion of the performance gap can be attributed to assumptions and approximations in building modelling, one of the main sources of the performance gap is the realisation of the building – the translation of the design into contractual requirements and subsequently into physical form. This realisation is subject to ‘accidental’ design changes arising from product and material substitution, poor buildability of the design details, lack of precision in construction and poor understanding of the consequences of decisions taken on-site, all compounded by failure in the communication of design intent. In projects that have taken great care to eliminate these sources of divergence, the performance gap has been significantly reduced or even eliminated. It remains a major shift of culture and practice to roll this out across the construction sector. Failure to commission building services and systems correctly, and to configure them for the specific situation, also contributes significantly to

Figure 1.6 Examples of buildings being studied under Innovate UK’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme. Source: Innovate UK.

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

25

Energy intensity, kgCO2/m2/year (adjusted for hours and weather)

the performance gap, since this results in a deviation from the designed operating regime. Quality assurance, ‘in process’ testing and inspection regimes during construction typically fall far short of those found in other ‘manufacturing’ sectors. Food and drink; automotive; domestic appliances – whatever one can bring to mind, is manufactured using assured processes with testing of the product at various stages of manufacture, with auditing and feedback loops into product and process improvement – but not so for most buildings. In some EU countries we test and certify the air tightness of a building at completion but that is about the extent of it: ‘in process’ inspection is largely focused on safety and structural integrity and is often cursory in other respects. In the UK, developers are required to complete and submit an ‘as built’ SAP15 assessment, but SAP assessors are usually remote from the construction process of the building so do not capture even the deliberate, well-considered design changes that occur during construction, let alone the accidental ones. Consequently, the ‘as built’ SAP is usually a re-run of the ‘as designed’ SAP with only airtightness figures updated to reflect the constructed building. Apart from not representing the ‘as built’ building, this failure adequately to test and verify the performance of buildings, capture the details of what was actually built, revise performance predictions accordingly and feed back the measured performance to design, means that there is little individual, corporate or sector learning from the process and hence the benefits of this 500 Non-A/C A/C Median

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

A B

C

D

E

F G

Figure 1.7 There is almost no correlation between EPC ratings and actual energy intensity. Source: Bill Bordass & Better Building Partnership.

Figure 1.8 Comparison between a traditional cold roof eave junction (top) and a timber frame warm roof eave built using a roof cassette (bottom). It is virtually impossible to construct a traditional eave with mineral wool quilt as shown in the drawings – which leads to cold bridging and air movement at the junction. Source: adapted from diagrams produced by Zero Carbon Hub.

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

27

well-intentioned requirement are not obtained. Better, faster, simpler testing methods such as the rapid air tightness testing method ‘PULSE’ developed by the University of Nottingham and others is an example of a tool that could make ‘in process’ and completion verification testing more effective and informative.16 This places a continued and growing burden on the infrastructure of our towns and cities further exacerbated by the urban heat island effect and, as these new buildings join the ranks of ‘existing’ buildings, we perpetuate the need for deep refurbishments of those existing buildings. In summary, then, it is vital that we not only improve our collective ability to design low, zero or positive energy buildings (those that contribute energy to the grid), but also that their delivery is ensured through the application of knowledge and effective processes – we must not delude ourselves that low energy design is the end of the job. The knowledge and skills to connect these various factors will be increasingly valuable in Europe and across the world as population growth increases the pressure to create viable new ecosystems combining both natural and anthropogenic resource flows.

Buildings in use Addressing the design and delivery of a building is but the foundation of energy-efficient operation. In the early years of its life, main contractors (and perhaps subcontractors and designers) may continue to have some involvement with the building, for example through the defects period and, if good practice is followed, as part of a ‘soft landings process’17 and/or by undertaking seasonal commissioning to ensure the building systems can be configured and have settings established for all seasonal conditions. After a building is two or three years old, however, contact with those who brought it into being falls away and the building owners or occupiers are on their own. Building owners and occupiers have diverse motivations for improving the energy performance of their buildings, be it through energy efficiency and/or through generation. For owners and tenants of prestige properties one of the primary considerations is the environmental credentials of the building, which reflect on the reputation of the corporate entities involved, in turn influencing their customer base, business relationships and the attraction and retention of staff. The US Institute for Building Efficiency summarises results from a number of studies investigating the primarily financial benefits of green buildings with good energy performance.18 Parameters include tangible financial measures such as resale value, rental rates, occupancy rates, operating expenses and operating income, plus some less tangible ones such as productivity gains. In all of the tangible metrics green buildings

28

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Blower door

Heat flux

Thermal camera

Flow hood

Datalogger and Sensors

Tracer gas

Air quality meter

Figure 1.9 Examples of test equipment used in building performance evaluation. Source: NEF.

outperformed buildings with no certified environmental performance with the benefits in more recent studies being greater than those in earlier studies. In the UK, however, a study by Fuerst, McAllister and Ekeowa, of which initial findings were published in 2011, shows little correlation between environmental certification and financial metrics.19 The Energy Act 2011, which will make it unlawful after 2018 to rent out residential or business premises with F and G (EPC) ratings, will begin to focus business motives as we approach the deadline. After the deadline, there may be different consequences such as less legitimate movement of tenants in and out of poorly rated properties, with ‘informal’ or black market property rental blossoming. For all commercial owners and tenants, the monetary cost of energy is important, but, even though this may well be large by domestic standards, the larger the company concerned, the less financially significant the operational building energy tends to be; so building energy improvements will be driven by different motives – legislation, security of energy supply, reputation and, eventually, simply that this is the way things are done when buildings are procured, refurbished and managed. For domestic owner occupiers, energy costs, whilst significant, may not be sufficiently compelling to drive investment in energy improvements: if an owner occupier can afford the energy they are using, any potential investment

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

29

in their home is more likely to be spent on home improvements for which they can see more immediate benefits (such as a new kitchen or bathroom) than explicitly in improving the thermal performance of the fabric of the property. Conversely, for those struggling to meet their energy bills, there is no money to pay for investments of any kind, so the home owner will continue to live in a poorly performing home in as much comfort as they can afford until and unless external help is offered. The link between poorly performing homes and individual and societal health has long been acknowledged but, until quite recently, not measured or subjected to cost – benefit analysis that could justify investment from public funding to offset the cost of dealing with ill health, crime, antisocial behaviour, unemployment and even remedial education. Research by Alice Jones on behalf of Nottingham City Homes20 is one recent example of work aimed at quantifying the health and societal impacts of improving homes, individually and on a community scale. It is clear that the true costs of poor quality, energy inefficient housing is not fully recognised and, until this changes, the funding to invest in improvements on behalf of those unable to pay for them will not be reallocated from other parts of the public purse. We will continue to tackle the symptoms, rather than the cause.

Reducing operational energy use: metering, monitoring and benchmarking Notwithstanding these different circumstances and drivers, there is a growing interest in better energy efficiency, with initiatives, legislative and market requirements, and an increasing choice of mechanisms by which building owners and occupiers are able to monitor over time both the total energy used in their buildings and its disaggregation by end use. In several EU countries this is helped by a requirement to meter energy by end use, and by tenant (in a multi-tenanted building). However, evidence emerging from studies investigating the implementation of the UK’s submetering requirements for new build which is expected to be published after Innovate UK’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme is complete, reveals that whilst meters are being installed, the metering strategy rarely reflects the subdivision of space or use and is almost never properly commissioned or reconciled, hence leading to very poor quality data. This is a lost opportunity and currently just adds to the capital cost of the project without providing beneficial information. If intelligently designed and configured and correctly reconciled, sub-metering can provide a high level of granularity in energy use. If this is then analysed using a tool such as CIBSE’s TM22,21 it can identify unnecessary or unintended demands on

30

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

energy and target improvements accordingly. Examples of this include lighting being switched on automatically when not required or heating ‘fighting’ air conditioning. As building owners and occupants are beginning to recognise the value that correctly configured sub-metering can deliver, reports are emerging of contractors being challenged to revisit sub-metering installations, correct them and reconcile the meters. At a much more aggregated level, annual energy use can be captured through fiscal meter readings and used in benchmarking. Benchmarking websites are springing up across the EU and elsewhere, that allow the user to compare their own building(s) against a portfolio of anonymised buildings, filtered to comprise only buildings of similar type and use. Carbon Buzz22 is one such tool. In some large corporates for which environmental performance is a company value, league tables of the company’s own buildings’ energy performances are being introduced, coupled with exchange of best practice across the corporation. For leading commercial landlords, the separation of landlord and tenant energy use is important so this level of disaggregation is being adopted. In order to comply with the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, in any building over 500m2, whether publically or privately owned, an energy certificate not more than ten years old must be displayed in a prominent position. There is no stipulation as to whether these certificates are arrived at using theoretical energy performance data or measured data and different member states have interpreted this requirement in different ways. For example, in the UK, Norway, Sweden and Belgium energy performance certificates, based on measured energy use, are required to be displayed in public buildings over a certain size, and some non-public buildings are also adopting similar displays to illustrate their (usually good) energy performance. In the UK, the Display Energy Certificate (DEC) is based on measured data with the requirement that larger public buildings (those over 1000m2) renew these certificates each year (Plates 1a and 1b). Also in the UK, for all other buildings that are the subject of a transaction such as sale or lease agreement, an energy performance certificate (EPC) based on the characteristics of the building, but not including the measured energy use, must be produced and provided to the potential purchaser or leaseholder or tenant. Although not mandated, it is encouraging to note that some commercial organisations at the leading edge of energy performance are beginning to disclose publicly the energy use of their buildings, sometimes in real time, on the basis that this will make business sense to them in a number of ways – reputation, cost savings etc. In the US, the state of California is leading the implementation of this practice, having enacted an energy use disclosure

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

31

programme in 2007 for non-residential buildings which, from 2014 onwards, requires building owners and occupiers to report actual energy use using the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager System.23 In the UK, Carbon Culture24 provides a platform for building owners and occupiers to disclose their building energy use from a rolling average based on metered data. Other tools are being made available, often by not-for-profit bodies, to provide building owners and occupiers with the means not only to track their overall energy use, but to benchmark this against others, disaggregate the end uses of energy and to support individual initiatives to improve energy efficiency. The Green Construction Board in the UK (convened by the UK Government) has recently commissioned a study into ways and means to encourage building owners and occupiers to pay greater attention to measuring and reducing their energy use through reporting mechanisms, benchmarking and associated tools.25 At a city level, at the time of writing, the Greater London Authority is formulating a project to promote and enable energy disclosure amongst its business constituents. The National Energy Foundation has been working with Legal & General, a major owner of commercial property, and with Building Energy Solutions to devise VolDEC, a landlord/tenant energy use measurement and benchmarking system which, having been piloted in 16 commercial multi-tenanted office buildings, is now being made available more widely.26 So at many levels there is growing activity as building owners and occupiers see the business benefits of improving the use of energy in their buildings. Metering and monitoring devices, benchmarking and analysis tools provide the means to find out how well a building performs in comparison with its peers and where to target efforts to improve energy use. With 60 per cent of Europe’s 2050 buildings already in existence (up to 80 per cent quoted for the UK) the energy-efficient upgrade of the built stock represents the largest infrastructure challenge we face in relation to achieving a sustainable future. However, just as we have demonstrated above how easy it is to design for good energy performance and then fail to deliver that performance, the same applies to retrofit and refurbishment. Effective refurbishment at scale requires a professional approach, establishing the pattern of energy use before refurbishment, validating the improvements made to building fabric and services in the course of the refurbishment, and verifying the delivered performance through measurement and monitoring. As is recommended for new build, capturing process improvements successively to improve the effectiveness of refurbishment is essential if we are to make headway towards achieving the 71 per cent reduction in energy use (cited earlier) among Europe’s existing buildings.

32

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

For some of the stock, however, in particular poor quality housing, we must recognise that reduction in energy demand following refurbishment will be less than expected from the improvement in building performance, and may even be zero. This is because the benefit of improving energy performance will result in occupants being more comfortable for the same energy use, rather than reducing their energy demand. For these occupants, the primary benefit will justifiably be in improved quality of life. In contrast, there are individual home owners committed to improving their own building energy and CO2 emissions. The SuperHome network27 is a community of such individuals, known as SuperHomers, who have succeeded in reducing their domestic CO2 emissions by at least 60 per cent and are willing to share their knowledge and experience with others through open homes events and web exchanges (Figures 1.10, 1.11). Since the creation of the SuperHomes network in 2007 others have been formed and a federation of such networks has recently been established. Reports indicate that householders are inspired to take action to improve the energy performance of their homes and many of their fears are allayed by visiting homes that have been so improved and discussing practicalities with the owners.

Maintenance and operation Building maintenance plays an often underestimated role in determining overall energy efficiency and hence energy demand. Maintenance of building fabric is important to maintain air tightness, thermal efficiency and the overall condition of the building fabric, which in turn has consequences for occupant health – for example, excess humidity causes mould growth. Lack of fabric maintenance tends to be more noticeable than neglecting the maintenance of services – there is a tendency to take the view: ‘If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.’ However, services, being on the whole energy using devices, have a direct impact on energy demand – a freely rotating bearing takes much less energy to move than a worn bearing, and hence a poorly maintained building services plant uses much more energy. The US Institute for Building Efficiency summarises studies with impacts typically above 20 per cent and on occasions up to 60 per cent for specific plant and equipment.28 Poorly maintained services often continue to use excessive energy for months, even years, before failing, often catastrophically. Another opportunity is then lost as replacement equipment has to be sourced quickly as a ‘distress purchase’ and thus the purchaser fails to review the options for more energy-efficient equipment at what could be an opportune time. Strategies and tools to improve real-time control of energy use are also needed. Approaches to achieving this range from adopting very simple

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

33

Figure 1.10 Birmingham SuperHome. Source: SuperHomes, www.superhomes.org.uk.

building energy design strategies with simple, intuitive occupant controls, through to buildings with highly complex energy management strategies implemented through building management systems with technically qualified building energy managers. Aside from good maintenance, the season to season, day to day, hour to hour and minute to minute operation of a building presents the largest potential for maximising energy-efficient operation or, conversely, of squandering energy through lack of information, understanding and ability to control. Effective user-centric control of non-domestic buildings is perhaps the single largest failing in high-specification buildings, with services frequently found to be acting in conflict with one another, automated controls unable to reflect actual needs (e.g. for lighting), lack of clear occupant controls and high levels of energy use during unoccupied hours. The lessons being learned over and over again are to make building services as simple as practicable, with clear controls that occupants can use to modify their immediate environment. Where the strategy is for more automated control, for example where most users are transient or fabric and services are interdependent, it is essential to have appropriately qualified professional staff responsible for overseeing and adjusting the building controls, monitoring building performance and making the necessary modifications on appropriate timescales – operating a

34

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 1.11 Camden SuperHome. Source: SuperHomes, www.superhomes.org.uk.

complex building is analogous to being a flight engineer or ship’s engineer. Many potentially excellent but complex buildings fail to perform as a result of this role being severely underestimated. Where unskilled occupants do have control over aspects of their building’s operation, whether non-domestic or domestic, then simplicity, clarity and a modicum of education and engagement are recommended. The impact of what is often termed occupant behaviour on building energy use is an extensive research field. The way occupants use their homes, for example, can easily lead to four to six times energy use differences between almost identical buildings. Some of the impact arises justifiably from people living in their homes (after all that is what they are for), carrying out everyday tasks, heating their homes to a level they find comfortable and engaging in preferred pastimes. But some of the energy demand arises from ignorance and misunderstanding – not understanding how different systems work; how to

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

35

turn them on or off; how to programme them; and the extent to which occupants’ actions can impact energy use. For many individuals there is little incentive for them to adopt more energy-efficient practices as their energy costs, whilst increasing, are still well within their means and life presents other priorities. The challenge is in part at least a marketing one – to engage the widest possible spectrum of society in acting to reduce energy demand in their homes and workplaces. Trigger points such as cost savings equivalent to sales volume for a retailer or the ability of tenants to afford their rent and hence not default for a social housing landlord could motivate different individuals and organisations. Linking these to information about current practices, guidance about changing practices and providing feedback on progress can reinforce and sustain impact. The introduction of smart meters and energy use monitors has the potential to provide real-time energy use information, enabling feedback on actions such as switching off unused appliances. The psychological basis for relating this information to messages that connect with the motivations of individuals is very much work in progress.

Conclusions Awareness of the significance of energy use in buildings is rising in both the domestic and non-domestic sectors and collective knowledge about how to minimise and manage the energy demands of new and existing buildings is growing rapidly. The performance gap cat is now out of the bag so everyone is increasingly aware that they may not be getting what they thought they had paid for in new-build performance. Better/simpler testing and verification methods are required in order for all stakeholders to check performance, close the loop and consolidate learning from practice. If these are made available and those delivering buildings can be held to account then greater emphasis on delivering promised/predicted performance will follow. Energy-efficient refurbishment of existing buildings is rapidly gaining recognition as a major challenge for the Western world, where the majority of buildings expected to be in operation in 2050 are already in existence. Here too, the performance gap must be minimised, with testing and verification before and after refurbishment becoming the norm. Rapid, robust, reliable, field-based methods are required. Building owners, operators and occupants have a major impact on in-use performance and energy demand and providing real-time energy use in intelligible, informative ways will give individuals the tools they need to

36

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

understand and reduce their energy use and link this with individual and corporate motivation. Improving the energy performance of our buildings will lead to a broad range of societal, quality of life benefits as well as addressing the global challenge of climate change and its impact on the urban environment. To achieve this within available timescales, there is a pressing need for governments and all those involved in the sector to create the legislative, regulatory, and market conditions to accelerate the move to low-energy, highperforming buildings.

Notes 1. United Nations Population Fund, ‘Urbanization’, https://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization. htm. 2. United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision Makers’ (Nairobi, 2009). 3. World Health Organisation, ‘Urban Population Growth’, http://www.who.int/gho/ urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/. 4. Energy-positive buildings generate energy and hence contribute to energy supply. Carbon-negative buildings remove CO2 from the atmosphere either directly through sequestering which is very unusual, or during operation by generating more energy from renewable sources than they consume. Buildings are often simultaneously energy positive and carbon negative but one does not imply the other. 5. R. Reed, A. Bilos, S. Wilkinson and K.-W. Schulte, ‘International comparison of sustainable rating tools’, The Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1/1 (2009). 6. The Carbon Trust, ‘Low Carbon Refurbishment of Buildings: A Guide to Achieving Carbon Savings from Refurbishment of Non-domestic Buildings’, Management Guide CTV038 (2008). 7. Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE), ‘Europe’s Buildings under the Microscope’ (2011), p. 16. 8. Sustainable Energy Association, ‘Clean Energy Measures in Buildings are Cheaper’ (2014). 9. Energy intensity is the energy used per square metre of occupied floor space. 10. CIBSE, http://www.cibse.org/content/Events/Tech_Briefing_2013/Hywel%20Davies%20 Technical%20Briefing%2031_Oct_2013.pdf. 11. Innovate UK, formerly the Technology Strategy Board, is the UK’s innovation agency tasked with using public funding to accelerate innovation across UK businesses – https:// www.innovateuk.org/. 12. Final results are expected to be released by Innovate UK at the end of 2015. 13. Zero Carbon Hub, ‘Closing the Gap between Design & As-Built Performance’. Evidence Review Report, March 2014, http://www.zerocarbonhub.org/sites/default/files/resources/ reports/Closing_the_Gap_Between_Design_and_As-Built_Performance-Evidence_ Review_Report_0.pdf. 14. Better Buildings Partnership, ‘A Tale of Two Buildings: Are EPCs a True Indicator of Energy Efficiency?’ (2012), http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/tale-two-buildings. 15. The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) is the methodology used by the UK Government to assess and compare the energy and environmental performance of dwellings, https://www.gov.uk/standard-assessment-procedure.

ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS

37

16. E. Cooper, X. Zheng, C. Wood, M. Gillot, M. Tetlow, S. Riffat, L. De Simon, ‘Field Trialling of a New Airtightness Tester in a Range of UK Homes’, 36th AIVC Conference (Madrid, 2015). 17. BSRIA, ‘Soft Landings’, https://www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/soft-landings/. 18. Institute for Building Efficiency, ‘Green Building Asset Valuation: Trends and Data’ (2011), http://www.institutebe.com/InstituteBE/media/Library/Resources/Green%20Buildings/ Research_Snapshot_Green_Building_Asset_Value.pdf. 19. F. Fuerst, P. McAllister and B. Ekeowa, ‘The impact of energy performance certificates on the rental and capital values of commercial property assets: some preliminary evidence from the UK’, Working Papers in Real Estate & Planning, 1/11 (2011), http://centaur.reading. ac.uk/26977/1/0111.pdf. 20. http://www.nottinghamcityhomes.org.uk/documents/modern_warm_secure/impact_ studies/Impact_Research_update_2012-13_June_2013.pdf. 21. CIBSE, http://www.cibse.org/knowledge/cibse-tm/tm22-energy-assessment-reportingmethodology. 22. Carbon Buzz, http://www.carbonbuzz.org/. 23. Energy Star for Existing Buildings, http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-ownersand-managers/existing-buildings. 24. Carbon Culture, https://platform.carbonculture.net/landing/. 25. The Green Construction Board, http://www.greenconstructionboard.org/. 26. VolDEC, http://www.voldec.com. 27. SuperHomes, http://www.superhomes.org.uk/. 28. Institute for Building Efficiency, http://www.institutebe.com/Building-PerformanceManagement/Studies-Show-HVAC-System-Maintenance-Saves-Energy.aspx.

CHAPTER 2 THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT? Elke Pahl-Weber and Sebastian Seelig

The current debate on the certification or assessment of neighbourhoods in Germany as well as existing initiatives in this field shows the rising importance that is attached to the certification of these larger urban entities. However, as this chapter shows, the existing assessment system is applied, but a scientific debate on certification as a tool for urban development rarely exists. The most prominent system, the certification seal of the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) gains increasing attention, but has emerged in the absence of the required cooperation between the government, the municipalities and civil society. Also, this mainly addresses new developments since assessment of the existing building stock, the most challenging task in the move towards sustainable development, has only recently become part of the system. This discourse shows that research is required to address the methodologies of certification systems, their potentials and shortcomings as a marketing tool and their steering potential for urban development. The chapter follows these three lines and develops a recommendation for a fuller, more effective approach to neighbourhood certification in Germany.

Neighbourhood certification in Germany: the beginnings In Germany’s scientific and professional community there is a growing interest in the certification of buildings and neighbourhoods. Starting around 2009, a number of conferences and a broad range of scientific publications have addressed this approach. One can also observe a growing number of actual

THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY

39

certifications that underline this trend. Thus, to date, about 20 neighbourhoods have been certified by the German Sustainable Building Council (DNGB).1 The first project certified under the urban districts certificate in Germany was Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz in 2011 (Plates 2a and 2b). The meaning of ‘neighbourhood’ in terms of its size, number of inhabitants, existing building structures and land use mix has not yet been clearly defined but, generally speaking, it refers to a spatial entity that is smaller than a city district but bigger than a building block. The neighbourhood level has become increasingly important in municipal development, enabling improvements to be realised quite quickly while also having an impact at a scale well beyond that of the individual building. As a consequence, research at this spatial scale has been intensified in the last five years.2 However, despite the growing number of assessed neighbourhoods there is, as yet, no certification system for neighbourhoods in Germany that has been developed and commonly agreed at the political level – that of the federal government, the 16 federal states and the municipalities – on the one hand, and by the stakeholders of civil society on the other. Also lacking is any substantial scientific discourse on methodologies, indicators and processes of neighbourhood certification. Thus, neighbourhood certification in Germany still has a limited relevance in the urban development debate, though it has undoubtedly gained growing prominence as a marketing tool for larger development projects.

Five approaches and initiatives From the progress made so far, one can identify five main approaches or initiatives. The initial approach leading to the certification of individual buildings was by the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR).3 For that purpose, the BBSR established in 2001 a ‘Round Table on Sustainability’, which addressed the certification of offices and schools and, later, residential buildings, based on scientifically accepted methods (Figure 2.1).4 Second, the certification of entire neighbourhoods was considered for the first time in 2009, when the former ministry BMVBS commissioned the German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development (DV)5 to examine the possibilities for the certification of larger entities. The study was elaborated by a commission representing the federal government, the federal states and the municipalities, the scientific and financial sectors and the real estate industry, working together with the scientific consultancy of the Technische Universitaet Berlin.6 A key input to the commission’s

40

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 2.1 BBSR’s criteria for the certification of single buildings. Source: authors’ illustration, based on www.nachhaltigesbauen.de.

study was a report of the BBSR published in 2004 on the ‘Cities of the Future’; this formulates criteria (and associated indicators) for sustainable development, providing an important input for the eventual certification of neighbourhoods. The commission’s study was based on a pilot programme in 60 German municipalities, in which these indicators were tested in practice.7 Third, there has been the best practice project conducted by one of the biggest German housing companies, THS (based in Gelsenkirchen, North Rhine Westphalia), in cooperation with the German technical ¨ V assessed inspection association (TU¨V).8 From 2007 to 2009 THS and TU the quality of their building stock, leading to the development of a TU¨Vcertificate.9 Fourth, there has been the neighbourhood certification tool developed by the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) on behalf of BMVBS and BBSR. Initially the DGNB developed a certification label for individual buildings. In 2011 the system was extended to entire neighbourhoods10 and has since been further differentiated to cover, for example, the certification of industrial quarters; the tool has been increasingly applied outside Germany, for example in Russia and India. Finally, there has been the initiative of the German Institute for Standardisation (DIN);11 in 2012, this body established a working group on

THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY

41

developing regulatory criteria for sustainable urban development, followed in 2014 by one on smart city indicators. Both relate to EU initiatives, mainly taken by France.

A critical assessment of the existing tools Both the DV report and the best practice initiative by THS and TUV (initiatives 2 and 3 above) highlight the need to include the existing building stock in the certification process. However, neither of these initiatives were followed up. The first and fourth initiatives, especially that of DGNB, primarily approach the certification of newly constructed buildings and neighbourhoods. The final one, the DIN approach relates to both existing and newly developed neighbourhoods, but it is still under development and there are no practical applications that can be referred to. Focusing on new urban developments does not adequately address Germany’s most pressing urban problems. Today most of Germany’s cities and neighbourhoods are already built and the (re) development of the existing urban fabric will be the main challenge for the future. A major driver for this process is the declining population in many areas, with an ageing population and a rising number of migrants residing in German cities. Nevertheless the spatial characteristics of these trends vary considerably: regions with shrinking populations and poor regional job markets lie next to economically flourishing, fast growing metropolitan regions. Hence, in discussing the certification of neighbourhoods one has to take into consideration the particularities of the existing building stock and infrastructure, with its specific challenges. The most important difference from newly erected buildings and neighbourhoods is that the existing quarters are inhabited. Hence the characterisation and assessment of qualities is inevitably connected to the participation of residents or a representation of their interests. But in the global debate on certification the involvement of the residents is yet to be discussed. While THS’s assessment of its building stock (mentioned above) represented an exception here, that action did not result in any follow up activities.

Certifying sustainability: assessing quality? The main element of certification is confirming the compliance of a project with defined goals and awarding this achievement by a label. Thus certification needs defined goals and common indicators that allow for an

42

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

assessment of buildings and neighbourhoods. This again requires a consensus on goals and indicators in the professional community of planners, architects, developers, governments and municipalities. Since neighbourhoods are strongly shaped by their inhabitants and the way they use the built environment, the description and definition of goals calls too for the involvement of the local community. In contrast to the US, where the LEED was initiated through a bottom-up process involving representatives from business, research, administration, political bodies and civil society, such a broad consensus does not exist in Germany.12 The existing certification approaches in Germany formulate a general framework of goals following the targets of sustainable development. This is in line with international approaches which mainly address the ecologic dimension of sustainability, formulating ‘green’ goals. ‘Green buildings’ and ‘green neighbourhoods’ are the benchmarks of international systems such as LEED (USA), BREEAM (GB), HQR (FR), Green Star (AUS), Casbee ( JP), Estidama (UAE), Minergie (CH) and the European Union’s Green Building Programme. This ecological focus ignores a potential benefit of certification that has not been discussed so far and this broadens the debate. In these times of tight public budgets, the assessment of buildings and neighbourhoods brings to the fore a question which strongly relates to the economic pillar of sustainability: the efficient use of public funds. In this context certification could play a role as a tool to measure efficiency even if this is not its main task. Today there is a growing interest in transparent information concerning public spending and its effectiveness. Governmental reform at the federal level has brought about changes to the way that urban development is funded; these have been in place since 2006. According to Section 104 of the German Constitution, a regular examination of the use of public funds by federal counties and municipalities is required. Thus investment decisions and their effects are scrutinised supporting an evidence-based urban development. This requires a transparent, comprehensible appraisal of the improvements made in respect of the defined goals. For such an impact analysis different instruments are available: monitoring, evaluation and also certification, and these have varying strengths. The three tools are paramount for the assessment of neighbourhoods and we consider them in turn. .

Monitoring. German municipalities have carried out the monitoring of sustainable urban development for more than ten years. The relevant data is at different spatial scales, from the level of the federal territory to those of the town and district (and their respective statistical areas), and this is widely available. Amongst other well known tools are the ongoing spatial

THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY

.

.

43

monitoring system of the BBSR, and the monitoring of spending by the federal urban development programme and of daily land consumption across Germany. Thus, monitoring forms an established and scientifically recognised observation tool; however, an assessment of the achievement of the goals is not an integral part of this approach.13 Evaluation. This second tool involves assessing the degree of achievement of each target and hence the effectiveness of programmes. The application of the tool in Germany has been promoted by the requirements of EU programmes and it is increasingly being used to identify demands for correction or change in urban policies. In contrast to monitoring, evaluation has a judgmental character. That judgment can include the contextualisation of results in other existing indicators or delivering reasons for the achievement or non-achievement of goals. Hence recommendations for alternative strategies and guiding principles can be derived. Together with monitoring, an accompanying evaluation provides a good basis for steering urban development.14 However, there is as yet no commonly accepted evaluation system in Germany. Certification. The third tool, certification, is a value-based procedure and instrument, which is widely known and used in quality management by companies, in environmental policies and (over the last two decades) also in the built environment. A major difference from evaluation and monitoring is its steering potential, which goes beyond the describing of spatial structures as delivered by monitoring and evaluation. Certification can play a major role in national and international investment strategies in the real estate sector as it fosters a supra-regional and international comparability of neighbourhoods. By summing up and assessing complex information, certification can mitigate the investment risk for developers. On the downside, the rising demand for ‘compromised’, partial information has led to a growing number of new labels, which are being used for marketing reasons, but which may not be based on transparent or substantial criteria.15

In all three cases the identification of the relevant characteristics – the performance factors to be measured – forms the basis for quality assessment. In this regard a number of methodological challenges have to be taken into account: .

First, no set of sustainability indicators is free of conflicts. These often occur between the economic, social or ecological ‘pillars’ of sustainability but can also occur within these pillars.

44 .

.

.

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Second, there is the complexity of the data that has to be summarised in one assessment system; this might blur individual aspects of the complex system. Third, the assessment of neighbourhoods and buildings suggests a comparability of the built environment. However, the derivation of statements based on single indicators is not always based on identical methods and, therefore, comparisons are not always possible.16 Fourth, there is the design of the indicators and criteria. The criteria are decisive for the result of the assessment and must be made public and transparent in order to make assessments comprehensible. However, we have yet to develop a process for specifying assessment criteria for neighbourhoods that is accepted by both the professional bodies and by civil society. Effort and results have to be carefully balanced. The example of the Urban Audit Programme of the EU shows that a wide range of criteria have been developed for a range of countries and cities; nevertheless the value of these indicators for strategic decision-making remains unclear.

To conclude, such methodological points need to be resolved before we can advance much further. Otherwise, certification could act more as a marketing instrument, placing priorities on specific aspects but not being a transparent, scientifically derived tool for the improvement of neighbourhoods in towns. This prospect is underlined by current practice in Europe, including in Germany.

Demand for certification: what role does marketing play? In recent years the number of certified buildings and neighbourhoods has grown at a fast pace. The most common system in Europe is the British system BREEAM, which was initiated in the UK in 1990. It has become a role model for a number of other certification systems. After a first phase of establishing the system with a small number of certified buildings, from 2005 numbers rose rapidly, with more than 30,000 certified residential units in 2007.17 In Germany certification with BREEAM also started slowly, with only four buildings certified in 2008. Likewise with the US system LEED, with only one certified project in Germany in 2008, but with another 77 projects registered for certification. By 2008 19 buildings had been certified according to the German DGNB standard, with 24 others being registered.18 In more recent years, take up has increased in Germany and by May 2011, 171 commercial buildings were certified to DGNB standard and another 140 were registered for certification.19

THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY

45

Figure 2.2 Number of commercial buildings certified and registered for certification in May 2011. Source: authors’ illustration, based on RICS.

This short overview shows that certification is widely accepted in the countries that already have a nationally established certification system. The UK is Europe’s leading country, with thousands of buildings certified, whereas in Germany and France only a few hundred units have been certified. This illustrates different national dynamics: while Germany’s certification market is still growing, the growth rate in other countries such as the UK and France has levelled off. With their certification systems in place earlier, it can be assumed that a peak of certification has been reached in those countries. Germany starts from a lower level of certified units and still has a major need to catch up. One of the reasons for the growing significance of certification is the increasing interest of Germany’s real estate industry. A survey of that sector in 2008 showed that sustainability is an important factor in the decision to buy property for 18 per cent of all interviewees. The survey also indicated that 53 per cent of the interviewed developers expect sustainability to become more important.20 A more recent survey, from 2011, shows that 70 per cent of developers are convinced that a lack of demonstrable sustainability will reduce the value of buildings.21 These surveys indicate that certification – with sustainability emphasised as a positive factor – has the potential to boost sales. This potential link provides builders with a major incentive to secure certification. However, the opportunity that certification provides to improve the quality of buildings and neighbourhoods has to be viewed alongside the risk that certification and an increase in real estate prices are linked – that very high standards will lead to high property prices. In cases where high standards cannot be met due to the need for lower prices it is to be feared that certification would yield poorer results or might not even be conducted. Other than those from the THS housing certification, all the systems so far being implemented in Germany certify mainly new buildings and

46

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 2.3 Development of costs in the building’s life cycle. Source: authors’ illustration, based on Jan Laubach.22

neighbourhoods, including those at the planning stage. In that last category, certification is accomplished by evaluating construction drawings rather than the built results. Hence it is the noble intention of creating an object with high standards that is being certified rather than the final product. A ‘re-certification’ performed after the erection of the building – and in the utilisation phase of the unit – would indicate the extent to which the intentions ‘on paper’ have been realised. Considering the life cycle of the built environment, the planning and construction phase is the shortest and the utilisation phase by far the longest. But it is the utilisation phase that needs to be monitored in order to check that the qualities attested by the certification can also be met permanently.

Certifying the sustainability of neighbourhoods: the way forward For the certification of neighbourhoods the risks described above are multiplied. First, the ‘product’ has to be clarified: in the words of Munich planner, Stephan Reiss-Schmidt, Cities are not serial products such as buildings, cars or fridges. They are more than the sum of their parts, the buildings and infrastructures. Their historic, cultural, social and geographic individuality and identity cannot be covered by standardization and reproducibility.23

THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY

47

Moreover, in Germany a neighbourhood is not a clearly defined administrative, spatial and functional entity. Hence there are no political or organisational mechanisms that can influence the living and working quality in a neighbourhood. Such mechanisms only exist on a superior scale at the level of districts, or they are limited to the spatially connected housing stock of private, co-operative or public housing companies. This phenomenon of limited organisational capacities (which is mainly caused by the absence of responsible actors in administration or multiple property owners) is reflected in the analysed certification approaches. No property in a neighbourhood that is owned by multiple stakeholders has been certified yet.24 Given the significance of the utilisation phase of a building or a neighbourhood and considering the challenges of demographic and spatial development in Germany, first and foremost existing property needs to be certified. Existing international approaches and the German DGNB system do not target this approach. If certification is applied in existing neighbourhoods, it is of major importance to consider the context of existing regulations since the planning competence at the local level and the autonomy of the municipalities is prescribed in the German Constitution. Accordingly it is in the municipalities that it is decided what, when and how a site should be developed or built up. Thus certification has a limited value as a steering instrument and needs further investigation. This is also pointed out by the recommendation of the German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development (DV): The commission advises the German Federal Government to actively and further investigate the procedures of monitoring, evaluation and certification in urban development. In the process it has to be clarified how the potentials (such as delivering transparency, efficient employment of financial and other resources etc.) can be realized without taking into account the shortcomings of the approach (such as the limitations in measurable aspects, lack of comparability etc.). It must be the aim to find ways of applying the instrument and fostering a process of sustainable development in urban neighbourhoods. This can be only achieved if cities and municipalities as well as the civil society are involved.25 An appropriate way to test these potentials would be through a pilot project, which is an instrument with a long tradition in urban development in Germany. Pilot projects in Germany are mainly conducted within the remit of the former national Ministry BMVBS, today by BMUB (the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety).

48

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Such a pilot would be an efficient way of testing whether certification is an effective tool to foster sustainability and to improve quality. It should be tested in different neighbourhoods and with several certification methods. Bridging applied research and practice such a pilot project also could fill the gap in the scientific discourse already described. To sum up, so far certification in Germany has been a voluntary tool that has fostered discussion on the elements of future sustainable urban development and on the standards to be applied to future development. In the context of the intended review by German’s Federal Government of its urban funding programmes, certification could be introduced as a spatial supplement at the neighbourhood scale. A major outcome of such a process could be a debate in society about the factors that need to be measured to determine progress and about how those factors might be assessed in a transparent way. A certification system which is supported by the public can be useful if it can cover a wide variety of neighbourhoods in respect of urban form, functions and social structures, and not be used only to award flagship projects.

Notes 1. Gregor Grassl, DGNB, Interview (Berlin, 2014). 2. O. Schnur, Demographischer Impact in sta¨dtischen Wohnquartieren. Entwicklungsszenarien und Handlungsoptionen (Wiesbaden, 2010). 3. The Bundesinstitut fu¨r Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR) is an affiliated research institute of the former German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (Bundesministerium fu¨r Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, BMVBS), now Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. 4. Bundesinstitut fu¨r Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR), Runder Tisch Nachhaltiges Bauen, www.bbsr.bund.de/cln_032/nn_463880/BBSR/DE/Bauwesen/Nachhaltiges Bauen/Geschaeftsstelle/RunderTisch/start.html, accessed 24 February 2012. 5. Deutscher Verband fu¨r Wohnungswesen, Sta¨dtebau und Raumordnung (DV). 6. Prof. Elke Pahl-Weber, Prof. Dr Harald Bodenschatz. 7. Deutscher Verband fu¨r Raumordnung, Sta¨dtebau und Wohnungswesen e.V., Zertifizierung in der Stadtentwicklung. Bericht und Perspektive (Bonn, 2009). ¨ berwachungsverein (TUV). 8. Technischer U 9. THS Wohnen (eds), Qualita¨tsmanagement bei der THS, Lebensqualita¨t in Siedlungen (Gelsenkirchen, 2009), http://www.ths.de/Qualitaetsmanagement.36.0.html?&FS¼ MFHC%3D. 10. Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Nachhaltiges Bauen, DGNB Handbuch Neubau Wohngeba¨ude, Version 2011 (Stuttgart, 2011). 11. Deutsches Institut fu¨r Normung e.V. 12. Deutscher Verband fu¨r Raumordnung, Sta¨dtebau und Wohnungswesen e.V., Zertifizierung in der Stadtentwicklung. Bericht und Perspektive. 13. Ibid.

THE CERTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GERMANY

49

14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Bundesamt fu¨r Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR), M. Fuhrich, F. Dosch, E. PahlWeber, K. Zillmann (eds), Erfolgskontrolle nachhaltiger Stadtentwicklung, Eine Orientierungshilfe fu¨r die kommunale Praxis (Bonn, 2004). 17. T. Saunders, A. Surgenor, ‘BREEAM 2008 and Beyond’ (Rome, 2008), http://www. diarambiente.it/2030/pratica/Ecobuild_BREEAM_1_Final.pdf. 18. DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Immobilienfonds mbH, ‘DEGI Research – Immobilien FOKUS, Oktober 2009’, www.gutachter-rath.de/docs/DEGI_Research_ImmoFOKUS_ 10_2009_Gruene_Immobilienfonds.pdf. 19. RICS Deutschland Ltd, Gru¨n kommt ! Europa¨ische Nachhaltigkeitsstatistik (Frankfurt a. M., 2011), http://www.joinricsineurope.eu/uploads/files/GrnkommtFINALVERSION.pdf. 20. Ernst & Young Real Estate GmbH, ‘Ist Zertifizierung ein Thema fu¨r Sie?’ (Eschborn, 2008), www.competence-site.de/downloads/2d/8b/i_file_3074/Studie_Zertifizierung_ Green%20Building_Ernst%20%26%20Young_2008.pdf. 21. Ernst & Young Real Estate GmbH, ‘Nachhaltigkeitsaspekte bei Immobilieninvestitionen’ (Eschborn, 2011), www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Real_Estate_Trends_Editi on_47/$FILE/EY_Real_Estate_Analyse%20Nachhaltigkeit%20bei%20Immobilien investitionen_2011.pdf. 22. J. Laubach, ‘Wirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Lebenszyklus von Immobilien’ in T. Gra¨n and M. Voß (eds), Architektur Immobilien Wohnen (Braunschweig, 2008), http://www.serviceseiten.info/index.php?option¼com_k2&view ¼ item&id ¼ 311:wirtschaftliche-bedeutungdes-lebenszyklus-von-immobilien&Itemid ¼ 160. 23. Stephan Reiss-Schmidt, ‘State Capital of Munich, Lecture’ (Berlin, 2009). 24. Deutscher Verband fu¨r Raumordnung, Sta¨dtebau und Wohnungswesen e.V., Zertifizierung in der Stadtentwicklung. Bericht und Perspektive. 25. Ibid.

CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT:THE EUROPEAN GREEN CAPITAL AWARD AND OTHER URBAN ASSESSMENTS Birgit Georgi

In line with an increasing awareness of the importance of cities, several initiatives aim to measure the quality of life they offer and their environmental performance. However, they name different cities as the best, but which one is right? Probably all of them. This chapter will shed some light on the reasons for this dilemma, the difficulties to be faced in assessing the performance of cities, ideas to overcome the obstacles, and the potential merits of such assessment activity. For a better understanding of the differences, it explores the focus and intention of the different indices, their underlying selection of data and indicators, assessment criteria and methodology: some indices measure achievements, others ongoing actions; some are based on data – others on interviews and perceptions; some aggregate the indicators following a mathematical algorithm – others use expert panels. In addition, the selection of the information used influences the results. It might cover all areas equally or might be biased towards one area. Despite all these differences, the indices can be useful. Even if a concrete benchmarking can be put in question, they can inspire cities to learn from good practice and encourage the taking of action aimed at improving their performance.

Why assess the urban environment? The world is becoming more and more urbanised; already in Europe, more than three-quarters of the population live in cities and towns. Therefore, cities and towns are the places where the quality of life is felt most in everyday life

ASSESSING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

51

and a healthy environment is an indispensable part of it. Cities and towns are also the motors of the economy producing wealth in the form of jobs, products and services – for people living in but also outside cities. Thereby, the level of socio-economic and cultural activities is such as to result in environmental pressures and impacts which go far beyond the territory of cities and towns, reaching remote regions in Europe and other parts of the world. Thus air pollution is transported over hundreds and thousands of kilometres, water needs have to be met from a much broader catchment than the urban area, and greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate globally. Assessing the urban environment must therefore be a twofold approach – first, assessing the environmental quality inside the cities and towns and, second, their impacts – their ecological footprint – on regions beyond their jurisdiction. Wellperforming cities will not only help city residents but will also make an important difference for Europe and for the world as a whole.1

Some attempts to assess the urban environment The best city is Stockholm. Or is it Copenhagen or Vienna? There is an everrising number of city rankings, but it seems that the more one spots, the more winners one will get (Plate 3). Hamburg became the European Green Capital 2011 and many people wondered, why Hamburg? The city is known for its heavy industry and its associated significant environmental impacts. By contrast, the Siemens’2 European Green City Index put Copenhagen on top,3 which achieved only place 8 in the European Green Capital Award 2010/2011,4 place 2 in Mercer’s Ecocity 2010, place 8 in Mercer’s Quality of Life Index 2010,5 and a second place among Monocle’s most liveable cities in 2010.6 In 2012, Copenhagen became the European Green Capital 2014 and achieved together with Malmo¨ a Special Mention in the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize awards7 as the only cited European cities. This exercise could easily be repeated with other cities as the selection of indexes and rankings in Plate 3 shows.8 The comparison provokes the question: Which one is the correct assessment? Also, what do the rankings tell us about the overall impact of cities on the European environment?

Reasons for the diversity of results Context and targets of the assessments The different assessments and rankings follow different purposes. The European Green Capital Award (EGCA) is initiated by a public body, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment,9 and aims to promote and reward the most active and progressive cities in terms of the environment.

52

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Beyond that, EGCA seeks to stimulate the debate and a move towards more sustainable urban development in Europe. The award is based on three evaluation criteria for each of the 12 indicator areas: the current performance of the city; the implementation of measures over the previous five years and future commitments. Furthermore, the selected cities should be able to act as a role model and inspire other cities to boost their own efforts.10 With its substantial documentation of the whole process and of the shortlisted cities, the EGCA goes beyond a simple ranking. It is a tool to motivate other cities across Europe and enable them to learn from the frontrunners. With cities having to apply themselves by presenting their performance and activity across a broad range of areas, the application process forces internal communication and co-operation, even in areas where this did not happen before. The Singapore-based Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize11 also aims to inspire other cities and focuses on governance and leadership. It is thematically broader than the EGCA by honouring a holistic approach to sustainable development towards liveable, vibrant cities with a healthy environment. It differs from the EGCA in that cities cannot apply but are nominated by independent experts. Siemens’ European Green City Index (2009) applies an indicator system to measure and rank the environmental performance of cities. It increases the understanding of the reasons behind differences and the comparisons with other cities can highlight where there is potential to improve performance.12 For that purpose, it ranked 30 European capitals; the selection of those is a systematic choice. Other assessments build on the voluntary contribution or direct participation of cities in the assessment process, or cities are selected on the basis of good data availability. This leads to ‘more accidental’ lists which may comprise only those cities which are already ahead. Examples are the already mentioned EGCA or the Urban Ecosystem Europe.13 Other indexes like from Mercer or Monocle14 rank cities according to their performance in terms of the environment or sustainability or quality of life. Their regular rankings are much welcomed by the cities, which are listed on top and are used as a marketing instrument to promote themselves around the world. The Urban Ecosystem Europe provided an integrated urban assessment of cities and focuses on their local response capacity and needs. It had a strong focus on action – less on the performance of cities. Rather than providing a ranking, the aim was to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the main European cities in order to discuss urban policy priorities at European, national and local level.15 The European Environment Agency (EEA) is following a different approach – this provides a conceptual framework to capture the urban

ASSESSING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

53

metabolism of Europe. It seeks to adequately describe the functionalities of cities, assess the environmental impacts caused by urban activities and analyse the ongoing urbanisation processes across Europe. Related tasks are to show the inter-linkages and mutual impacts among urban areas and between urban and rural areas, and to identify the drivers and successful response measures.16 The methodology for this has been developed and this is currently being tested through the preparation of a European urban assessment report. Selection of indicators Depending on the intentions of the respective assessment, every initiative chooses its own ‘ideal’ mix of indicators (Table 3.1).17 Thus, while the EGCA and Urban Ecosystems Europe18 try to cover nearly all environmental areas, others tend to have a stronger focus on one area with more indicators clustering around it. For example, Siemens’ Green Cities Index (2009)19 puts more weight on climate-related indicators. Two out of eight indicators – CO2 and energy – are directly linked to climate change mitigation, but also the indicator for buildings describes nearly exclusively energy efficiency. The EGCA20 lists one indicator for green urban areas and a separate one for nature and biodiversity. Both are, on the one hand, strongly interrelated – plants and animals live in green areas and major ecosystem services such as flood water retention or cooling during hot days are generated there. On the other hand, each of the two indicators has also exclusive areas. For example, the ecosystem service ‘recreation’ is relevant for the green areas indicator but not for the ‘biodiversity’ indicator; meanwhile ‘species numbers’ definitely belong to the biodiversity indicator. It requires a careful selection of sub-indicators to ensure the right balance and avoid double counting. This chapter does not intend to criticise such selection, but to make readers aware of the results of such choices. KPMG finds that in an analysis of 14 benchmarks with 100 indicators only 30 of these appear in more than one benchmarking leaving 70 indicators unique.21 Besides indicators, the sub-indicators can differ widely too. Some just describe air quality; others consider trends like the percentage decrease of air pollution over time; and again others look at cities’ action towards cleaner air. The example in Table 3.2 shows the different assessment results deriving from the chosen indicator for cycling. Cycling infrastructure is definitely a precondition for encouraging cycling, but such an indicator does not indicate whether people actually cycle or not. Here, the share of cycling compared to overall urban transport would provide a better indicator. There is neither an agreement on the best sub-indicator nor an algorithm to aggregate them into one indicator. On the other hand, setting out all

Transport

Energy / climate

Table 3.1

Local transport

Transport

Planning, design and better mobility

Energy

Energy performance

Urban Ecosystem Europe (Berrini and Bono, 2007)

CO2 emissions Energy and climate change

European Green City Index (Siemens, 2009)

Climate change

European Green Capital Award (EGCA)

Registered cars

Public transport network length

Energy efficiency of transport

Efficiency of residential energy use

Per capita CO2 emissions from energy consumption

Urban Metabolism headline indicators (Minx, et al., 2011)

Indicator areas used in different indexes and assessment approaches. Mercer Quality of Life Index (Mercer, 2010) EIU Liveability Index (EIU, 2011)

Globe Sustainable City Award (Globe Award, 2010)

Transportation and ICT

Infrastructure Technical and Traffic Public infrastructure congestion services and capital transportation

Mercer Eco-city (Mercer, 2010)

Air

Health

Land use and nature

Quality of the acoustic environment

Air quality

Buildings

Nature and biodiversity

Ambient air quality

Waste and land use

Green urban areas and sustainable land use

Local action for health and natural common goods

Local action for health and natural common goods

NO2 Air concentrations; pollution PM10 concentrations

Land use efficiency

Urban land take

Green space access

Recreation

Health and sanitation

Natural environment

Housing

Healthcare

Culture and environment

Infrastructure Environmental capital – natural resources preservation

Waste production and management

Consumption and waste

Waste and land use

Water

European Green City Index (Siemens, 2009) Efficiency of urban water use

Urban Metabolism headline indicators (Minx, et al., 2011)

Water portability

Water availability

Mercer Eco-city (Mercer, 2010)

Recycling

Sewage

Responsible Waste intensity Waste removal consumption and lifestyle choices

Urban Ecosystem Europe (Berrini and Bono, 2007)

Environmental Integrated Environmental Local management environmental governance management management towards sustainability and governance

Waste water treatment

Water management

European Green Capital Award (EGCA)

Continued

Water

Table 3.1

Mercer Quality of Life Index (Mercer, 2010) EIU Liveability Index (EIU, 2011)

Globe Sustainable City Award (Globe Award, 2010)

Source: the author.

Socialculture

Economy

Ecoinnovation and sustainable employment

Social equity, justice and cohesion

Vibrant, sustainable local economy Consumer goods

GDP per capita

Schools and education

Financial capital – assets and financial management

Education

Culture and leisure capital – experience

Human and intellectual capital – innovation and social intelligence

Social capital – well being and social relations

Culture and Political capital environment – confidence and public trust

Socio-cultural Stability environment

Political and social environment

Economic environment

Unemployment rate

58 Table 3.2

SUSTAINABLE CITIES Different indicators for cycling.

Oslo Munich Amsterdam Helsinki Stockholm Malmo¨ Copenhagen Berlin Bratislava

Length of cycling paths (km)

Cycling paths and lanes per inhabitant (m/inh)

Cycling paths and lanes per area (km/km2)

Share of journeys by bicycle to work (%)

1,004 907 850 830 750 385 342 107 85

1.92 0.73 1.15 1.48 0.98 1.44 0.68 0.03 0.20

2.36 2.92 5.12 4.46 3.99 2.47 3.84 0.12 0.23

6.0 8.2 22.0 6.0 7.0 24.0 36.1 7.4 0.3

Source: EUROSTAT, ‘Urban Audit Database’ (2004), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/cities/ overview.

the different sub-indicators instead of one aggregated value offers the opportunity for decision-makers to analyse the different results and the effectiveness of their policy. Indicators themselves need to be developed in a meaningful way. The use of the indicator ‘soil sealing’, used in the EGCA 2012–13,22 illustrates this well. Taking the value of the mean soil sealing per city, Reykjavik would rank best and Barcelona last in the six presented cities (Figure 3.1). This implies that Reykjavik would offer a better soil function, for example in respect of water infiltration or ‘green area’ available for wildlife across its territory. But were we to take soil sealing per inhabitant as an indicator, this would reverse the order, placing Barcelona far ahead. On that measure, it uses its built-up land far more efficiently and keeps space open at other places and available for the abovementioned ecosystem services (Figure 3.1).23 Data availability and quality Even if we could agree on an ideal indicator it might be very difficult to compare a broader number and systematic selection of European cities. The availability of underlying data is patchy except in a few areas where urban data reporting is obligatory across the EU. Such cases are the EU air quality directives or the environmental noise directive. Other services, such as the Urban Atlas24 or the EEA Fast Track Service Precursor on Land Monitoring – Degree of soil sealing 100m25 and the Urban Audit database (EUROSTAT)26 generate urban data centrally.

VitoriaGasteiz

186

Nuremberg

38.0 138

Nantes

20.4 185

Malmö

18.4

98

Barcelona

56.3

34

Soil sealing per inhabitant in m2

8.2

Mean soil sealing in %

Reykjavik

10.2 117

Figure 3.1 Soil sealing in the six finalist cities of the EGCA 2012/13. Source: European Environment Agency, ‘Fast Track Service Precursor on Land Monitoring – Degree of Soil Sealing’, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/ eeafast-track-service-precursor-on-land-monitoring-degree-of-soil-sealing.

60

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 3.2 CO2 emission of cities in the UK. Based on: a) a production-based approach (direct emissions by the city, e.g. emissions from transport, heating, production in the city) versus, b) a consumption-based approach (emissions are caused by the city’s consumption of goods and services, no matter if they are produced in the city and related CO2 is emitted there directly or if they are produced in other countries of the world and the CO2 is emitted in those countries – both would count in a consumption-based approach. However the emissions stemming from exported goods would be subtracted). Source: Minx et al. 2011.27

Besides different reporting times and units, data provided by the various cities or countries can actually contain different information. What is often named ‘water consumption’ can in fact be ‘water abstraction’ data; waste data can include municipal waste only or, in other cases, municipal and industrial waste. Although climate change is one of the highest topics on the political agenda, greenhouse gas emissions data for cities are not available Europe-wide in a comparable way. The Covenant of Mayors initiative28 will support filling this gap. However, as the cities are not obliged to apply the same methodologies, results might be hard to compare. Also, it will be difficult to calculate, on this basis, the overall urban greenhouse gas emissions in Europe (Figure 3.2). The most comprehensive city database in Europe is the Urban Audit database (EUROSTAT).29 It covers around 370 cities for the 2009 collection – all cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and a few smaller ones. It embraces roughly 150 million citizens within cities of the EU 28, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. Given that the share of urban population in Europe is something around 75 per cent, assessments based on Urban Audit or other data comprise, at best, 30 per cent of the urban population in Europe. The fact that only the urban population share of the bigger cities is considered needs to be made transparent. Only then can the right conclusions be drawn and the results not overestimated.

ASSESSING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

61

Figure 3.3 Example of different urban delineations and land use. Source: EEA 2006.30

Comparability of cities Does it make sense to compare Malmo¨ in Sweden with Barcelona in Spain? Both cities are among the densest in their country; but while Malmo¨ accommodates an average of 100 people per hectare of the built-up area, there are three times more people per hectare in Barcelona. Considering Nordic culture, it seems unrealistic that Malmo¨ will ever reach such an urban density. Also, the economic structure of cities differs. How can, for example, a strongly industrialised city like Hamburg be compared with other cities, whose economy is based on service and knowledge industries, like Mu¨nster? That was one of the challenges in the EGCA 2010–11.31 Such differences in urban design, socio-economic structure and culture have consequences for the whole metabolism of a city and its environmental performance. Nevertheless, all these cities perform very well in environmental assessments, although they are hardly directly comparable. Another challenge is the different definition and delineation of cities in the European countries. While the administrative cities like Paris, Copenhagen or Barcelona comprise only the dense core city and not the suburbs, other cities, like Sofia, reach far beyond the urban fringe and comprise suburban areas and extensive agricultural, forest and natural areas as well (Figure 3.3). This puts some question marks on the use of indicators like the share of green urban areas or average soil sealing in any European comparison.

Managing the challenges Facing all the described difficulties, is it justified and possible to assess urban development in Europe and compare cities? Given the enormous impact of cities on the environment, there is, however, no alternative. We need to try assessing urban development and improve the assessments stepwise in order

62

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 3.4 Extended urban metabolism concept including drivers like land use planning and infrastructure decisions, patterns like different urban shapes, designs, urban land use intensities, and lifestyles of people as expressed in different forms of mobility, shelter, food consumption. Source: Minx et al. 2011.32

to measure state and progress, e.g. towards greater resource efficiency as one of the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy.33 Possible solutions can be: .

.

.

Defining clearly the purpose of the particular assessment and the target group. It will make the indicators meaningful and relevant and answer the relevant (policy) questions. Considering the indicator selection and assessment in the context of the whole urban system. Cities are complex and questions, like the source of air pollution, its distribution, the effects on human health and biodiversity, and the best actions to tackle the problem, can only be answered through a broad system approach. That approach needs to consider the interlinkages between air quality, transport, economic activity, heating, climate, synergies or conflicts with other health factors like noise and lifestyles etc. The urban metabolism is such a concept which tries to describe the whole city as a living system (Figure 3.4). Accepting that European-wide urban data is not perfect and developing pragmatic approaches to deal with the gaps and inconsistencies. Placing them in an overarching urban metabolism system should still allow meaningful assessments.

ASSESSING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT . .

.

63

Supplementing the quantitative data with qualitative information to bridge data gaps. Making the selection of indicators and the assessment approach transparent – including their limitations – to ensure quality and demonstrate the level of credibility of an assessment and its legitimacy. Making conflicts between different development lines visible. The question ‘Is a green roof intended for better building insulation, cooling during the summer and green space for recreation and nature better for the environment than a roof with solar cells to produce CO2 emission-free energy?’ does not find a simple answer. Cities show plenty of such contradictions. Making them visible at least supports decision-makers seeking to set the focus and priorities for their city’s development. Box 3.1 Qualitative information in the European Green Capital Award. Acknowledging that available data is hardly ever sufficient, the evaluation team of the European Green Capital Award (EGCA) not only compared the values of different indicators but asked the cities to provide additional qualitative information and maps to put their quantitative information into context. Moreover, the city representatives were invited to face-to-face interviews in order to complete their presentation. This procedure enables also a proper comparison of different cities or ‘apples with oranges’ in a fairer way. It makes this award different from many other benchmarks for it includes also qualitative information and considers the local context. In addition, the broad documentation provides information on opportunities to improve the situation in the future in the respective city, while also being a source of inspiration for other cities.34

One way out of this data and methodological dilemma could be to take existing European-wide urban data collections as a starting point. Then, instead of requesting comprehensive new data from hundreds or thousands of cities and towns, the aim would be an ‘intelligent integration’ of the different types of available data. The focus would then be on developing tools to enable the integration of data sets having a specific urban delineation, like population data available for the city based on its administrative borders, with data related to the morphological city delineation like urban land use.

Conclusions It can hardly be decided what the greenest city in Europe is. The gaps in data and methodology and the different perspectives and contexts do not allow the identification of just one winner. In addition, the characteristics of cities and their cultural and political backgrounds are diverse. Therefore, it is crucial for every urban assessment or ranking to make its specific context, purpose and target as well as its limitations transparent. Diversity needs to be accepted but requires also transparency over the whole assessment process.

64

Box 3.2

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Is there any ideal sustainable city?

It could be as M. Berrini and L. Bono (2007)35 express it: † Air quality standards are respected, as in Gothenburg (and Helsinki). † Water consumption is less than 100 litres/inhabitant as in Dresden (and Heidelberg) and 100 per cent of the inhabitants are served by water treatment plants (as in most European cities, but not all). † Waste production is maintained under 334 kg/inhabitant/year as in Dresden, or at least waste not differentiated is under 250 kg/inhabitant/year as in Munich and Antwerp, thanks to separate collection – up to 62 per cent as in Aalborg or up to 50 per cent as in Helsinki. † Public procurements are extensively green as in Copenhagen and electricity consumption in the last five years is declining (minus 26 per cent, as in Oslo). Numerous other targets are listed in the report, including the use of public transport, cycle trips and car use, the amount of green area available, solar panels established and energy efficiency of public buildings, but also social targets such as child-friendliness, educational levels, promotion of women or participation in elections.36

Ongoing initiatives to harmonise data and to fill gaps will improve the data situation; however, the situation will never be perfect. Urban data across Europe will remain patchy and inconsistent to a certain extent. This multiplicity needs to be managed. Hence, initiatives providing a broad and systematic overview about available data and indicators including information on their quality and context, together with guidance on how and where to use them, are urgently needed. Tools which integrate or translate inconsistent data can further improve the situation. Initiatives like the Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities (RFSC)37 are about to create such a systematic overview. Instead of determining a definitive list of indicators or indices, they provide links to data sources, lists of possible indicators to choose from and integration tools.

Notes 1. European Environment Agency (EEA), ‘The European Environment – State and Outlook 2010: Urban Environment’ (2010)’, http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/ urban-environment. 2. Siemens, ‘European Green City Index – Assessing the environmental impact of Europe’s major cities’, a research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens (Munich, 2009). 3. Siemens, ‘European Green City Index: Assessing the Environmental Impact of Europe’s Major Cities’, a research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens (Munich, 2009). 4. European Green Capital Award (EGCA), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/european greencapital/about-the-award/index.html.

ASSESSING THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

65

5. Mercer, ‘Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings 2010 – Mercer Survey’ (2010), https://www.imercer.com/content/quality-of-living.aspx. 6. Monocle, ‘Quality of Life Survey 2010’ (2010), http://www.monocle.com/. 7. Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize, http://www.leekuanyewworldcityprize.com.sg/ index.htm. 8. KPMG, ‘City Typology as the Basis for Policy: Towards a Tailor-made Approach to the Benchmarking and Monitoring of the Energy and Climate Policy of Cities’ (Amstelveen, 2010); Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview (London, 2011); Globe Award, ‘Nominees – Sustainable City Award 2010’ (2010), http://www.globeaward.org/(2010). 9. European Green Capital Award (EGCA). 10. M. Berrini and L. Bono, ‘Measuring Urban Sustainability – Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 Application Round. EGCA, 2010’ (2010), http://ec. europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/egc_analysis 2010– 2011.pdf European Green Capital Award (EGCA). 11. Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize. 12. Siemens, ‘European Green City Index’. 13. M. Berrini and L. Bono, ‘Urban Ecosystem Europe – An Integrated Assessment of the Sustainability of 32 European Cities’ (Milan, 2007). 14. Mercer, ‘Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings’; Monocle, ‘Quality of Life Survey 2010’. 15. M. Berrini, Maria and L. Bono ‘Urban Ecosystem Europe’. 16. J. C. Minx et al., ‘Developing a Pragmatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe – A Report to the Environment Agency prepared by Technische Universita¨t Berlin and Stockholm Environment Institute’. Climatecon Working Paper Series, 1 (2011), http://ideas. climatecon.tu-berlin.de/documents/wpaper/CLIMATECON-2011-01.pdf; European Environment Agency (EEA). ‘Urban Sustainability Issues – What is a Resource-efficient City?’. EEA Technical Report, 23 (2015), http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/resourceefficient-cities. 17. KPMG, ‘City Typology as the Basis for Policy’ (2010). 18. Berrini and Bono ‘Urban Ecosystem Europe’. 19. Siemens, ‘European Green City Index’. 20. European Green Capital Award (EGCA). 21. KPMG, ‘City Typology as the Basis for Policy’. 22. European Green Capital Award (EGCA). 23. European Environment Agency (EEA), ‘Urban Soil Sealing in Europe’ (2011), http://www. eea.europa.eu/articles/urban-soil-sealing-in-europe. 24. European Environment Agency (EEA), ‘Urban Atlas’ (2010), http://www.eea.europa.eu/ data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas. 25. European Environment Agency (EEA), ‘Fast Track Service Precursor’. 26. EUROSTAT, Urban Audit Database. 27. Minx et al., ‘Developing a Pragmatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe’ (2011); European Environment Agency (EEA), ‘Urban Sustainability Issues – What is a Resourceefficient City?’. 28. Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, http://www.eumayors.eu/index_en.html. 29. EUROSTAT, Urban Audit Database. 30. European Environment Agency (EEA), ‘Urban Atlas’. 31. European Green Capital Award (EGCA). 32. Minx et al., ‘Developing a Pragmatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe’.

66

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

33. European Commission (EC), ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Resource-Efficient Europe – Flagship Initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy’, COM, 21 (2011). 34. European Green Capital Award homepage (EGCA). 35. Berrini and Bono, ‘Urban Ecosystem Europe’. 36. Ibid. 37. RFSC, ‘Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities’, http://www.rfsc.eu/.

CHAPTER 4 BILBAO, NEW YORK AND SUZHOU — A TALE OF THREE CITIES: ASSESSING THE LEE KUAN YEW WORLD CITY PRIZE Mark Dwyer and Calvin Chua

The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize is a biennial award which honours outstanding contributions to the creation of vibrant, liveable and sustainable urban communities around the world. Inspired by the successful sustainable urban transformation of Singapore, this award was created as a platform to share current best practices and spur further innovation in the area of sustainable urban development. Since the inception of the prize in 2010, three cities have been recognised for their outstanding achievement in urban transformation. As this chapter describes, Bilbao took honours in the first edition for its integrated transformation process from an obsolete industrial city into a flourishing service sector oriented city. Two years later, New York City was the award winner for its innovative and inclusive solutions in tackling issues of affordable housing, aging infrastructure, economic competitiveness and climate change. Finally, Suzhou, which most recently won the prize, was lauded for its successful transformation from an agricultural, manufacturing economy to an innovative, service-oriented economy, together with its inclusionary policies on social integration and cultural conservation.

Introduction While the Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) World City Prize is still very recent, this remarkable recognition is already considered by leading urban experts as the ‘Nobel Prize of Cities’. This biennial prize which recognises the development of vibrant, liveable and sustainable urban communities around the world was created in the spirit of Singapore’s own successful urban transformation. Since

68

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

the inception of the prize in 2010, three cities have been honoured. In its first edition, the city of Bilbao was recognised for its integrated transformation process which consisted of 25 projects developed over 25 years. Bilbao had achieved a comprehensive ‘urban revolution’ connected with the challenge of transforming itself from an obsolete industrial city into a flourishing service

Figure 4.1 Bilbao’s transformed riverside. Source: Ayuntamiento de Bilbao.

BILBAO, NEW YORK

AND

SUZHOU – A TALE OF THREE CITIES

69

sector oriented city (Figure 4.1). New York City took honours in 2012 through its innovative solutions in tackling issues of affordable housing, aging infrastructure, economic competitiveness and climate change. In particular, the city’s administration was lauded for its strong political will and inclusive bottom-up approach in driving change together with civic groups, communities and business groups, which led to the development of high-impact public spaces such as the High Line. Finally, the latest prize was awarded to the city of Suzhou for its successful transformation from an agricultural, manufacturing economy to an innovative, high-value, serviceoriented economy. In addition, the city was recognised for its effort in cultural conservation and its inclusionary policies in the treatment of migrant workers in the process of modernisation.

Singapore: leading urban solutions Singapore represents the ideal sponsor for a prestigious international award recognising the success of sustainable urban achievement in cities. In its relatively brief history, having gained full independence in 1965, Singapore has made the most of its very limited land area and natural resources to become a global leader in urban solutions and urban management. This small city-state is strategically well positioned in Southeast Asia and it has developed the capacity to respond in an agile manner to global economic trends. Initially, the Singapore economy had evolved from logistic and trading activities to an emphasis on manufacturing. In the 1980s, this diversified towards value-added, high technology and services. Today, Singapore is committed to reinvent itself to compete in the knowledge economy and to excel in the creative economy. The process involves not only new economic, education and social policies, but also a vision for the city-state as a sustainable place to live, work, play and learn. This latest transformation accommodates the most advanced economic activities with higher education while rescuing the cultural heritage of Singapore. The success of Singapore’s urban programmes has led to its role in ‘exporting urbanism’ in both regional and international contexts and the citystate continues to participate in developing new cities in China. The Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) World City Prize is named after Singapore’s first prime minister, who in May 2011 stepped down from his position as Minister Mentor, after an extraordinary 52 years in government, including 31 years as prime minister. Mr Lee was instrumental in developing Singapore into a distinctive, clean and green ‘garden city’. Under his leadership, the adoption of strategic land use, transport and environmental policies and programmes have helped Singapore to develop into a liveable city with a high quality environment, in tandem with rapid economic growth.

70

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

This combination of Singapore’s extraordinary success and the symbol of Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the country’s founder and urban leader have set a very high standard for international cities to follow. Future prize winners will continue to build on this success, as established by Singapore as the ‘giver’ of the prize, and by Bilbao as its inaugural recipient.

The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize: structure and selection process (transcribed from the LKY World City Prize description) The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize is a biennial international award that honours outstanding achievements and contributions to the creation of liveable, vibrant and sustainable urban communities around the world. The prize is awarded to cities and recognises their key leaders and organisations for displaying foresight, good governance and innovation in tackling the many urban challenges faced, to bring about social, economic and environmental benefits in a holistic way to their communities. To facilitate the sharing of best practices in urban solutions that are easily replicable across cities, the prize will place an emphasis on practical and cost effective solutions and ideas, for the benefit of cities around the world. Through this prize, Singapore hopes to promote exemplary thought-leadership and exchange of ideas among cities, so as to spur further innovation in the area of sustainable urban development. Eligibility Nominations for the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize can only be initiated by independent third parties who are leading academics, government officials and heads of international organisations in the fields of urban planning, housing, transport management, urban design and architecture, energy conservation, urban policy and management and any other relevant fields. Nominations for the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize are also accepted from organisations in the public or private sector, as well as non-government organisations and academic institutions. In the nomination, the nominator may also identify the key leader(s) and / or partnerorganisations which have contributed significantly to the urban transformation of the city. Selection process All eligible nominations submitted will be reviewed through a rigorous two-tier selection process made up of both the Prize Council and Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee will review and examine all submitted nominations and recommend potential Laureates to the Prize Council. The Prize Council will then review and select the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize Laureate based on the recommendations. Both panels consist of prominent practitioners, policy makers, academics and experts from a wide range of disciplines in the public and private sectors.

BILBAO, NEW YORK

AND

SUZHOU – A TALE OF THREE CITIES

71

Judging criteria The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize emphasises the creation of liveable, vibrant and sustainable urban communities within a quality built environment that incorporates the principles of sustainable development. Beyond good planning principles and processes, a holistic approach to sustainable development is also about creating and maintaining a cohesive and involved community, and bringing about tangible economic benefits to the city, region or nation. At a strategic level, good governance and able leadership play a vital role in a city’s development. By setting clear visions and targets, policies and key projects can achieve both beneficial and catalytic effects for the city as a whole, thereby benefiting a large sector of the population. All nominations received will be evaluated on the following criteria: (i) Demonstration of strong leadership and governance through vision, foresight and commitment to achieve the objectives of the urban transformation and desired urban solution; (ii) Creativity and innovation in the overall master-planning / strategy and implementation approach, to establish new models and benchmarks; (iii) Good and applicable practices and ideas that can be adopted for the benefit of other cities; and (iv) Successful implementation, taking into account the scale and sustainability of the transformation’s long-term impact. The submitted demonstration projects must be completed (e.g. occupied and operational). In the case of phased developments, the completed phase(s) should sufficiently demonstrate the efficacy of the project.1

Bilbao: 2010 prize winner Bilbao City Hall was named the inaugural LKY World City Prize Laureate for 2010 in recognition of its integrated and holistic approach in urban transformation. Bilbao City Hall has demonstrated that urban regeneration can be a powerful social and economic driver to catalyse change, strengthen the urban fabric, inject vibrancy and improve the quality of life for its citizens. Jury Citation The following text is an excerpt from the LKY Jury citation on the City of Bilbao. Bilbao City Hall has been instrumental in regenerating and transforming the city of Bilbao from an obsolete and dilapidated

72

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

industrial city into a knowledge-based economy. The success of Bilbao is largely attributed to its integrated and holistic approach to achieve economic, social and physical transformations. Its emphasis on environmental cleanup, use of culture, internationalisation and design, major improvements to its infrastructure, as well as the restoration of its historic areas over some 25 years have successfully rejuvenated the city. More significantly, the city was able to connect investment in infrastructure with social integration. The river, which was once a physical and social barrier, is now a hub for social and cultural integration and a centre for innovation and creativity. The jury is particularly impressed with the establishment of Bilbao Ria 2000 as an effective framework to align government, business and the community towards a shared vision for the city. Bilbao Ria 2000 is a testimony to the importance of strong leadership and institutionalised processes in key decision-making and sustained implementation. Bilbao is also an exemplary city that continually re-invents and evolves itself amidst dynamic changes, and will serve as an inspiration to cities worldwide. The experience of Bilbao as a comprehensive ‘city project’, incrementally executed through 25 urban projects over 25 years, has achieved a profound transformation of the city. The city has improved its environment and quality of life significantly, strengthened its social cohesiveness and cultural vibrancy and also increased its economic competitiveness. It is noted that the key factors underlying the success of Bilbao’s transformation is more than the ‘Guggenheim Effect’. It is not about achieving urban transformation and economic and social vibrancy through a few iconic buildings. Rather, Bilbao has shown that strong leadership and a commitment to a systematic and long-term plan, based on solid processes and supporting infrastructure, are key factors to the success of a city’s transformation.2

Authors’ evaluation Over the past 25 years Bilbao has achieved a remarkable urban transformation, moving from its formation in the ‘industrial age’ to its ‘urban age’. This has been marked by the introduction of many high quality internationally recognised cultural institutions, the restoration of public spaces and historic centres, art in the city, increased mobility, a transparent model of governance, social inclusion and outstanding attention to environmental renovation. Today, Bilbao readies itself for a further transformation to a future knowledge-based economy built on creativity, innovation, talent and design.

BILBAO, NEW YORK

AND

SUZHOU – A TALE OF THREE CITIES

73

This next phase economy will be built on the design of cities theme with a heavily reliance on institutional support. Bilbao presents an extraordinary urban laboratory in which to design, test, innovate, demonstrate and create a more sustainable future. The metropolitan area of Bilbao contains nearly half of the population and economic activity of the Basque Country. To a great extent, the success or failure of the Basque Country therefore depends on the success or failure of this area. The Basque community has a strong tradition of co-operation to achieve common goals and to come together as a city-region. The ‘knowledge, creation and sharing’ philosophy in Bilbao provides the motor to be competitive in the world. The Basque Country is itself one of the fastest growing Atlantic European regions and it is strategically positioned on several important growth axes. The region seeks to capitalise upon this competitive location by adopting an intelligent territorial strategy and promoting its main capitals together. The three largest cities, Bilbao, San Sebastia´n and Vitoria, are distributed almost perfectly within the territory. The distances between them are short, and each city has its own distinct profile and personality. This system of complementary capital cities gives the Basque Country a naturally strategic role in Europe. The region’s medium-sized cities themselves have complementary roles, as nodes necessary for the integration of the urban and the rural. They also help maintain social balance through the strong feeling of ownership of the citizens and in the balance among places of residence, work and leisure. Bilbao itself has experienced an ongoing social, economic, and aesthetic revitalisation process, since the 1990s. The main priority was the renovation and the rehabilitation of the Nervio´n River and its surroundings. The principal challenge was to transform the river into an axis for social and urban re-integration (Figure 4.1), to replace heavy industry by an emerging sector built on a network of design, first-class technology and innovation centres. The process started through the establishment of the symbolic Bilbao Guggenheim Museum (Plate 4a), and continued through infrastructure investments, such as the airport terminal, the rapid transit system (Figure 4.2), the tram line, La Alho´ndiga centre and the currently under development Abandoibarra and Zorrozaurre renewal projects. The real political will and co-operation between the different levels of administration, from town halls and provincial governments through to the Basque Government resulted in a quantum leap in the quality of urban living. Every municipality in the metropolitan area has taken measures to improve and organise urban space and the success is now recognised in Bilbao and internationally.

74

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 4.2 Bilbao’s Metro System. Source: Ayuntamiento de Bilbao.

The functional area of Bilbao’s environment mostly corresponds to the provincial boundary of Bizkaia. It includes municipalities and areas located within a radius of 45 minutes driving distance from the centre of Bilbao. Within this area, there are 23 historical sites, 200 km of coastline, diverse natural areas of outstanding landscape value and a population of just over 1.5 million citizens. Ultimately, it is the acknowledgment of this ‘new scale of planning’ for metropolitan Bilbao that holds the key to the city’s economic success in the future and its inclusion within the global knowledge-based economy.

New York City: 2012 prize winner In July 2012, the second LKY World City Prize was awarded to the city of New York during the World Cities Summit in Singapore. The administration of New York City was lauded for its innovative and inclusive solutions in tackling issues on housing, infrastructure, economic development and climate change. Jury Citation The following text is an excerpt from the LKY Jury citation on New York City (NYC). New York City’s successful reinvention and rejuvenation is framed by the effective and efficient implementation of the actions set out in PlaNYC 2030 – a holistic and interdisciplinary blueprint for a greater

BILBAO, NEW YORK

AND

SUZHOU – A TALE OF THREE CITIES

75

and greener New York. This forward-looking set of interdependent strategies charts the city’s future to 2030 by integrating disciplines such as land use planning, transportation investment, environmental stewardship, and public health in one document. It addresses the challenges of accommodating another one million residents and new 21st century jobs to the city’s population and workforce, renewing the city’s physical infrastructure, and preparing for climate change. PlaNYC’s comprehensive set of strategies, while focused on outcomes for the year 2030, also sets specific short-term milestones for intended progress on a variety of metrics ranging from numbers of trees planted to hectares of contaminated land remediated, to benchmarking for energy efficiency, to improvements in air and water quality. Many of these initiatives cumulatively contribute toward the overarching goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. Progress on all initiatives including this overall goal is measured and published each year. [. . .] By demonstrating a high level of commitment and capital investment, business confidence has been boosted and has in turn restored citizens’ faith in their city. The decision to legislate PlaNYC for review every four years to chart the city’s future further displays exemplary foresight. Institutionalising key processes and mandating their continual measurement ensures longevity of the plan and that strategic objectives will be met over the long-run. The [NYC] administration is highly commended for the strong political will that is spearheading change in the city and in the mindset of its residents. The capacity for dialogue between government and civic groups also synergises efforts and allows creative ideas to take root. This is exemplified in bottom-up, high-impact initiatives such as the High Line, where neighbourhoods are renewed and beneficial effects stimulate the city’s economy. Underutilised spaces and roads have also been carefully transformed with limited funds into plazas for the public’s enjoyment. Partnerships with community and business groups not only help to maintain the spaces, but foster a sense of ownership. This has significantly lifted the quality of life in an urban environment.3

Authors’ evaluation For the inaugural prize, Bilbao had demonstrated, through effective and innovative governance combined with a clear postindustrial urban vision, that even small-scale cities are worthy of global recognition in their demonstrations of urban leadership. In the case of New York, the city has never suffered from a lack of international recognition and has always been considered

76

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 4.3 New York’s High Line Park. Source: InSapphoWeTrust licensed under CC BY 2.0.

a ‘global city’ with the expectation of setting good examples for urban development. However, the second LKY World City Prize revealed that even global cities must find new models to maintain their resilience, and increase their competitiveness, while providing for the basic needs of their citizens together with tackling the challenges of the environment. In addressing a growing urban population, aging infrastructures, increasingly limited access to affordable housing and open spaces and economic competitiveness, and through

BILBAO, NEW YORK

AND

SUZHOU – A TALE OF THREE CITIES

77

the specific attention given to the issues of climate change, NYC has presented an innovative and replicable case for the prize, leading by example. Over the last decade and building on the accomplishments of previous administrations (Mayors Giuliani and Koch specifically), Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his administration have methodically addressed many of these key urban challenges by establishing a structure plan and review process (first released in 2007), and by strategically integrating the plan into each of the different city departments. Those city departments (planning, parks and recreation, transportation, environmental protection, etc.) were given the mandate and the confidence to produce projects and procedures, consistent with the plan for how best to transform the aging metropolis. By proposing a maximum ten-minute walking distance to a public park for all citizens, the planting of one million new trees (over 600,000 have been planted to date) and mandating affordable housing requirements for new developments, the city has provided an operational framework for achieving many of the ambitious long-term objectives with short-term results.

Suzhou: 2014 prize winner Suzhou was recently announced as the 2014 winner of the third LKY World City Prize for its impressive urban transformation from an agricultural and manufacturing economy to an innovative, service-oriented economy. It addition, it was noted for its inclusive social and environmental policy while pursuing its developmental goals. Jury Citation The following text is an excerpt from the LKY Jury citation on the City of Suzhou. Suzhou has undergone remarkable transformation over the past two decades. The significance of its transformation lies in the city’s success: in meeting the multiple challenges of achieving economic growth in order to create jobs and a better standard of living for its people; balancing rapid urban growth with the need to protect its cultural and built heritage; and coping with a large influx of migrant workers while maintaining social stability. Firstly, it has successfully transited from an agricultural, manufacturing, export-oriented economy to an innovative, highvalue, service-oriented economy. The city carried out proper planning and made deliberate efforts to invest in physical infrastructure to

78

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 4.4 Suzhou’s historical centre. Source: Pingjiang Historic District Preservation and Restoration Co Ltd.

support its economic objectives. [. . .] Secondly, Suzhou recognised the importance of cultural conservation at the city-wide level, even as the drive for modernisation gained momentum. [. . .] Thirdly, a significant achievement of Suzhou is its inclusionary policies in the treatment of migrant workers. Faced with a surge of migrant workers flocking to the city for jobs, Suzhou’s economic growth is complemented by innovative social policies that advance community integration. [. . .] Throughout the period of continuing rapid growth, Suzhou has maintained its specific and distinctive local identity and culture, creating a high quality of life for its residents and workers and attracting tourists to share in its past and future. [. . .] On the whole, the city leaders of Suzhou have demonstrated strong leadership and commitment to develop the city, guided by good governance and structured processes. The clearly articulated long-term vision and planning approach that Suzhou has put in place, combined with competent leadership and strong political support, have enabled the city to tackle urban challenges effectively. Suzhou provides many good lessons for the many rapidly urbanising cities in China as well as in other developing nations.4

Authors’ evaluation Compared to previous laureates, which focused on urban regeneration as a tool to stay competitive amongst highly developed global cities, Suzhou is in

BILBAO, NEW YORK

AND

SUZHOU – A TALE OF THREE CITIES

79

many ways a role model for cities facing rapid urbanisation. The pursuit of economic growth and managing social and environmental development – in particular rural –urban migration and preservation of historical sites – is always a tough balancing act for emerging cities. However, in the case of Suzhou, it was very successful in achieving all aspects of development harmoniously through good urban and social management practices (Plate 4b, Figure 4.4). The city’s high-level planning and implementation of policies through a comprehensive Master Plan with strong leadership and good governance, has enabled the administration to see through a progressive development of their city. In addition, Suzhou also boasted some innovative social policies in housing resettlement and rural – urban migration. In the Stone Lake Scenic District project, rural farmers were resettled to urban areas in order to protect the natural landscape as pig farming activities were polluting the lake. The farmers were resettled within a short time period of four months through a ‘1-for-3’ relocation housing policy, where three units of urban housing were offered in exchange for one unit of farm residence. As for managing massive rural – urban migration, the city promoted social security by increasing social welfare benefits, providing equal access to education and healthcare benefits and increasing job opportunities. These inclusive social policies have integrated non-native residents into the city and brought about greater social stability. In short, Suzhou’s LKY World City Prize is a testament that it is possible for other rapidly urbanising cities to achieve sustainable social, economic and environmental development through innovative policies and practices.

Figure 4.5 Suzhou’s Jinji Lake with the city’s central business district in the background. Source: Department of Publicity of Suzhou Industrial Park.

80

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Conclusion All the LKY World City Prize winners have demonstrated exceptional vision and innovative urban solutions to achieve the award and, by doing so, have quickly elevated the prize’s status in its short history. While Bilbao, NYC and Suzhou represent very diverse scales, histories, economies and transformations, they should not be considered as isolated individual examples but as paradigms of urban development today. Challenges facing the regeneration of Bilbao’s industrial past, the maintenance of NYC’s global economic competitiveness and the management of Suzhou’s rapid urbanisation can also be found in many other cities. Therefore, the best practices of the prize winners are very applicable to other cities facing similar conditions. In addition, a common success factor that is shared by all three cities is their commitment to strong leadership with a long-term perspective. Each of these cities has a progressive project period of from 20 to 25 years, with Bilbao focusing on a holistic approach towards progressive regeneration through 25 strategic projects in 25 years, with NYC concentrating on housing, infrastructure and climate change through its PlaNYC 2030 and with Suzhou managing rural– urban migration and environmental rehabilitation through innovative social policies over two decades. Perhaps, the most important attribute of the LKY World City Prize is the focus on a multidisciplinary approach towards planning, which can be seen from its diverse evaluation criteria and panel of nominees and judges. With cities constantly facing evolving local and global conditions, the approach to urban planning and development can no longer be one dimensional; it requires contributions from various disciplines in order to secure a better living and working environment for its residents. In a world of cities, human health and safety, respect for the environment, good governance, innovation and creativity must be objectives shared by all and the prize is the emblem of such a holistic development.

Notes 1. Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize Guidelines, http://www.leekuanyewworldcityprize.com.sg/ guidelines.htm. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid.

PART II METHODOLOGIES/WAYS OF THINKING

CHAPTER 5 ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN EUROPEAN MEDIUM AND LARGE CITIES: METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Peter J. Marcotullio, Andrea Sarzynski, Jochen Albrecht, Niels Schulz and Jake Garcia

The world’s cities are responsible for a large and growing share of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions widely believed to underlie observed climate change. We need to locate and quantify those emissions if we are to mitigate them; however, the development of consistent and reliable emissions inventories has proved challenging. This chapter examines selected methods to determine greenhouse gas emissions at the urban scale. We describe the various criteria considered when constructing an urban greenhouse gas protocol including the definition of urban, the gases that are measured, the source they come from, the scope of analysis and how the measurements are undertaken. We then present results for European medium and large-sized cities derived from alternative methodologies to demonstrate the range of results. Finally, we briefly discuss the policy implications of the various approaches.

Introduction Policy-makers need clear, consistent, and reliable information about the location of greenhouse gases (GHG) and drivers of emitting activity in order to design appropriate mitigating strategies. Until recently, the most consistent and reliable information on GHG emissions has been for countries, following data collection protocols designed for the Intergovernmental Panel

84

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

on Climate Change (IPCC). Focus has more recently shifted towards developing GHG emissions estimates at sub-national levels, especially for cities, where the majority of the global population and economic activity is now concentrated.1 Existing research suggests that cities in aggregate are responsible for somewhere between 40 per cent and 80 per cent of global GHG emissions.2 Considerable debate remains over appropriate methodologies for preparing city-level estimates of anthropogenic GHG emissions. Such debate has evolved because GHGs are typically not directly measured but estimated by extrapolating from activities that produce GHGs, such as fossil-fuel combustion. The goal of this chapter is to overview some of the methods used to create urban GHG inventories and discuss the benefits and pitfalls of each using European medium and large-sized cities. In the next section, we overview selected criteria for creating an inventory. This is followed by a presentation of urban GHG emissions results for European cities from different types of analyses. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for the use of different methods.

Criteria to consider As early as the 1980s, municipalities were preparing action plans for GHG emissions reductions based upon inventories.3 Over time the methods for estimating urban GHGs have increased in complexity and depth. As will be discussed below, the debate over appropriate methodologies for generating comparable urban-emission inventories has yet to be resolved.45 Generally concerns come under three categories: what geography should be included; what should be measured; and, how should it be measured.6 What is urban? Defining the exact spatial and functional urban boundaries for measurement is of particular importance in generating accounts that represent conceptually comparable spheres of economic and social activity. Researchers use a number of different criteria to define urban areas and these differences have important implications.7 GHG measurements are sometimes restricted to the political borders of a municipality to reflect the legitimate scope of government and help in the development of climate change action plans,8 such as for Toronto,9 Vancouver,10 New York City,11 and Sydney.12 Some researchers argue for even finer-scale inventories. For example, analysts have suggested that the county level in the USA is the best definition for urban, as it matches policy-maker needs and is the smallest unit for which energy data are readily available.13

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

85

The urban sphere of influence extends well beyond the city’s primary jurisdiction and immediate suburbs into outer suburbs and peri-urban lands. ‘Upstream’, urban residents depend on the production of emission-intensive consumption items (i.e. agricultural goods, construction materials like steel and concrete). ‘Downstream’, they require the steady disposal of waste products (e.g. in landfills and effluent from wastewater treatment plants). Urban areas are also hubs of regional and international transport, from which emissions are generated well beyond any urban-related boundary. Some urban GHG studies therefore include local jurisdictions surrounding a central city, such as its immediate suburbs. For example, while the City of Chicago performed a municipal inventory of GHG emissions, they also estimated one for the metropolitan region.14 While GHG emissions estimates from wider urban agglomeration boundaries are rare, some are being developed through spatial global and regional fossil fuel emissions estimates.15 Other studies have estimated partial carbon footprints, including those of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the USA in 2000 and 2005.16 Finally, some researchers apply methods which systematically account for cross-boundary contributions of GHG emissions through consumption of key materials.17 This issue of scope definition, to which we return below, further extends the boundaries of urban areas to those ‘distant elsewheres’ covered by ecological footprint analysis,18 and the newer concept of urban land teleconnections.19 Amongst the cities that have been studied there is an emphasis on the large urban centres, including New York City, Tokyo, London, Paris, Delhi, and Sao Paulo. This may be due to data availability, the political visibility of these larger cities and their importance in terms of share of urban GHG emissions.20 Certainly, the field needs additional study of small- to mid-sized cities with a representative range of economic structure as most of the world’s urban population lives in smaller urban centres,21 and these centres might still be less constrained in expanding their existing infrastructure than very large settlements. Awareness about the implications of boundaries chosen for urban GHG emission inventories is critical for comparative studies and policy analysis. The sectoral and per capita GHG emissions of metropolitan regions arguably are different from those of core municipalities or even smaller units. Comparative studies would ideally encompass consistently defined urban realms. For international studies, this is challenging, as countries define urban areas differently22 and obtaining comparable data may be difficult. What is measured? Methodologies for urban GHG inventories need to be explicit about, at least, three interdependent questions: (1) Which GHGs are included? (2) What

86

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

resolution of activities by sectors is considered? and (3) What is the ‘scope’ of the analysis? We examine each of these related issues separately. First, researchers have a number of greenhouse gases to include in analyses. The most important anthropogenic GHG emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). For inventory development, however, most studies focus on CO2 and CH4 emissions. One reviewer suggests that GHGs other than CO2 are still unknown for urban areas.23 There are two reasons for this outcome. First, CO2 accounts globally for approximately 77 per cent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions and is therefore the most important GHG to consider.24 Second, non-CO2 GHGs research findings are typically extrapolated from activity data, such as consumption of GHG precursors (e.g. fertiliser use) or output from industrial processes or waste generated. Such data or specific conversion factors are often not available at the urban level. This focus on CO2 may be increasingly problematic as high impact GHGs could gain in their share of total GHGs in the coming years.2526 The second aspect of ‘what is measured’ focuses on the detail of GHGemitting activity sectors or end-uses included in the study. Important end-use sectors include waste and wastewater, energy supply, transport, commercial and residential buildings, industry, agriculture and forestry.2728 Kennedy et al. (2009),29 following the IPCC, suggest that methodologies for urban GHG emissions should include energy conversion and utilisation (e.g. power production, vehicles, oil and gas production and ‘fugitive emissions’ including emission leakage from natural gas and coal mining and gas flaring), waste, industrial processes and product use, and Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Uses (AFOLU). Not all studies include these sources and GHG emission inventories vary greatly in this regard. The third aspect of what to measure includes considerations for the allocation of emissions responsibility that exceed spatial system definitions, but occur at other locations. Local inventories often only include emissions from the activities of businesses and residents located within the study area, known as ‘direct’ emissions. Alternatively, measurements may also include emissions from activities located outside the local jurisdiction but induced through economic activities that are conducted within the jurisdiction, known as ‘indirect’ or ‘deemed’ emissions.30 For instance, power production and waste disposal may be conducted outside cities but relate to the energy and waste disposal needs of urban residents and businesses. ‘Traditional’ narrowly defined emissions inventories count only emissions that are produced within the study area, regardless of where the related good or service

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

87

is ultimately consumed, thus placing the responsibility for emissions reduction with the production location.31 The World Resources Institute together with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) prepared a reporting protocol for corporations,32 which is increasingly used by researchers examining urban GHG emissions.33 The protocol addresses this issue by distinguishing among three ‘scopes’ of emissions. Scope 1 emissions are those from sources under the direct control of the organisation, such as factories or vehicles. They are typically emissions produced in the geographical boundary of the city. Scope 2 emissions are from energy carriers (e.g. electricity, steam, heat, petroleum products) consumed by the organisation, although emissions for their generation/energy conversion are produced elsewhere. If applied to urban areas, Scope 2 emissions include releases outside the geographical boundary of the city that enable energy carrier production for the city. Scope 3 emissions, also called embodied emissions (up- and downstream), are associated with the extraction, production and transportation of products or services used by the residents of a city. These embodied emissions include those from food production, building material, waste treatment, and also from international aviation and marine transport, as far as it is necessary to sustain urban populations and economic activity. The concept of Scope 3 emission responsibility addresses the notion that all economic activity ultimately is driven by demand for products from consumers. Consequently some researchers argue that consumers should accept the responsibility for all emissions occurring along the entire value chain. In this case, inventories are called consumption-based and allow for the generation of product and service prices to reflect emission related externalities. For equity reasons, it is important to allocate emissions where items are consumed and life-cycle, and consumption-based inventories, which consider cross-scale interactions through trade, are used to calculate these urban emissions ‘footprints’.34 Among the advantages of consumption-based inventories at the national level are that they account for externalisation of emissions through trade, cover emissions from international sea and air transport, increase mitigation options, and encourage cleaner production globally.35 However, consumption-based inventories also suffer key disadvantages. First, they require more data, particularly about trade, complex calculations, and assumptions that increase data uncertainty. Second, consumption-based methods increase the risk of double-counting and incomparability of inventories across cities. Third, the methods shift the burden of mitigation from production to consumption, neither of which is optimal. For example, if the GHG emissions from a thermal power plant supplying energy to a city and located outside the city boundaries are allocated to the urban area, then the burden for reduction is

88

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

placed upon the consumers. This approach alleviates responsibility for mitigation by the producer.36 Given current practices and these weaknesses, scholars and practitioners are now calling for a shared responsibility between consumers and producers.37 How is it measured? There are a variety of ways in which GHG emissions inventories can be compiled and these also vary by gas.38 The most accurate measurements are sensed or measured directly, but the most common are estimates based upon activity-based extrapolations using emission factors. Two general approaches have been developed to estimate urban GHG emissions. The ‘bottom-up’ approach begins with defining the study area boundary and relevant activities. Often, bottom-up studies are conducted by local governments using ‘in-house’ officials, or services provided by consultancies or other outside bodies. A primary benefit of bottom-up measurement is its attention to local context, specific activity levels, and data availability. The bottom-up approach is often relatively comprehensive in scope and accurate in measurement. Various tools have been developed to assist cities in conducting such measurements (Box 5.1), but the use of measurement tools Box 5.1

Tools for preparing local GHG emissions inventories.39

Over the last few years a number of different protocols for estimating local GHG emissions have been developed for use by municipalities, researchers and individuals. Nikolas Bader and Raimund Bleischwitz (2009) reviewed six tools that have been used in Europe including: Project 2 Degrees (developed by ICLEI, Microsoft, and the Clinton Climate Foundation – in English, used by some C40 cities, see www.c40.org); GRIP (developed by University of Manchester, UK -in English, used by several European regions); CO2 Grobbilanz (developed by Austria’s energy agency – in German only); Eco2Regio (developed by Ecospeed – in German, French, and Italian, used by several Climate Alliance cities); Bilan Carbone (developed by French energy agency – in French); and the CO2 Calculator (developed by the Danish National Environmental Research Institute – in Dutch). One of the major findings of this study was that the six tools vary substantially according to the GHGs included (CO2 vs other GHGs), the global warming potential (GWP) values used to calculate CO2 equivalents of other GHGs, the scope of measurement (direct vs indirect), the definitions of sectors, how emissions were quantified (top-down vs bottom-up), how closely the tool follows the IPCC guidelines, and usability of the tool (e.g. simplicity of use, available languages). Given these differences, Bader and Bleischwitz conclude that the tools, developed in isolation from each other, make their resulting measurements ‘hardly comparable’ across cities or regions. The authors recommend the development of a common tool for conducting local inventories that include all six of the major GHGs covered by the IPCC guidelines, use the most recent GWP values, a complete or at least consistent set of emissions sources, consistent sectoral definitions, and both direct and indirect emissions following a consistent protocol (reporting embedded or life-cycle emissions separately). The authors of this chapter add that the common tool also needs to include a conceptually-consistent definition of the ‘urban’ or ‘region’ geography for measurement, as described below.

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

89

allows considerable discretion regarding geographic boundaries, scope of included activities, and data sources.40 An alternative measurement approach is to construct local emissions profiles from national, regional or global-level emissions measurements, using a consistent methodology for downscaling. This top-down approach can range from simple to more complex, ‘hybrid’ methodologies. For instance, a simple top-down analysis could estimate local emissions using only the number of people living or working in the local area and the average annual GHG emissions per person across all source categories, according to national statistics. While easy to calculate, these simple estimations can be misleading, particularly since they do not reflect urban-scale variation in economic structure and activity patterns. In addition, simple approaches do not provide much insight when comparing across cities, as any apparent variation reflects only the population size of the cities rather than any meaningful differences in the actual location or source activities of emissions. Other top-down approaches tailor their inventories somewhat to local circumstances and data availability, even if relying heavily on national, regional or global statistics. For instance, local emissions from electricity production could be estimated by multiplying the amount of electricity produced locally in megawatt-hours (using production data from the power plant) by the regional or national average GHG emissions released per unit of electricity. Similar estimates could be made for other activities, where outcome estimates and relevant ‘multipliers’ are available. A more complex top-down method has been developed by Marcotullio et al. (2010).41 For GHG emissions, they used the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), version 4.42 EDGAR includes GHG emissions from fourteen source categories in global grids at 0.18 spatial resolution. For identifying urban geographies and their populations, they used the Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP) data.43 Emissions estimates for European cities are presented in the next section, using this approach. Top-down approaches have several advantages over bottom-up approaches, including universally comparable definitions of urban areas, the potential to include all major GHG compounds in the analysis for urban centres (including some aviation and navigation emissions), avoidance of doublecounting issues, a large number of standardised sources to examine the influences of emissions, and a uniform and replicable methodology to map and analyse emissions. Indeed, top-down methods may be applied at various temporal and spatial scales depending on the location and frequency of measurements, providing useful information about processes and patterns of emissions.44

90

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Continuum

What is urban? Urban boundary

Political boundary

What is measured? GHG measured

Only CO2

GWP values Scope Sectors

Values from 2nd IPCC report Only direct emissions Limited sectors, different definitions

How is it measured? Method

Top down (default emission factors)

l

Variable

All urban GHGemitting activities

l l l l

Summary of coverage in urban GHG inventories.

All 6 GHGs in Kyoto Protocol Values from 4th IPCC report Direct, indirect and life-cycle emissions All sectors with IPCC definitions

l

Table 5.1

Bottom up (regional/ local emission factors)

Source: after Bader and Bleischwitz 2009.45

Summary Urban emissions measurements vary considerably in their operational details. Several issues can be conceptualised as a set of continuums within which researchers choose to build their inventories (Table 5.1). While complex, these topics are a sub-set of a comprehensive range of source activities and estimating techniques. As Kates et al. suggest, ‘there is no end to the minutiae of detailed information that is necessary to fully characterize greenhouse gas emissions and emission reduction opportunities’.46 In principle, comprehensive measurements would include all major GHGs (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other hydrocarbons) and at least all of the major source activities required to be included in national-level emissions inventories according to the IPCC’s protocol. Obtaining such comprehensive emissions data for cities is difficult under the best of circumstances. Most often, urban inventories are limited by available data at the appropriate scale, requiring either a limitation in scope or sector that excludes some relevant activities, or top-down methods to estimate local emissions.

Assessment of GHG emissions from European cities Estimates of GHG emissions for individual cities vary considerably within the literature. For example, estimates of annual GHG emissions per person in London range from 1.2 metric tons47 to 6.2 tons48 to 9.6 tons.49

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

91

Given the variety of techniques used in urban GHG inventories, we compare results from three estimation efforts that aimed to produce comparable figures across cities. The first two efforts follow a bottom-up approach. The first examined GHG emissions in 44 cities around the world, including 20 cities from across Europe, using data from around 2005. The estimation methodology was standardised across each of these cities and reflects a consumption-based approach.50 The second effort, conducted for the European Commission, examined a large number of cities in eastern, northern, and southern Europe with data mostly from 1998 – 2001. The protocol was not as rigorously standardised as the first effort, but it has been used as the basis for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy development in Europe.51 The third effort reflects our own ‘topdown’ research, described briefly above. We used spatially disaggregated global datasets to estimate GHG emissions from urban centres worldwide, using data for 2000. This approach contains Scope 1 and 2 GHG-related activities, as well as some airline and navigation emissions associated with urban activities. More details of the methods are presented in other publications.52 Bottom-up GHG emissions estimates vary widely across the sample of 42 European cities covered by at least two of the reports (Table 5.2). Estimates in the European Commission (2003) study ranged from 2.5 metric tons per person in Oslo to 11.9 metric tons per person in Pori (Finland), for an average of 6.9 metric tons per person across 25 cities. Kennedy et al. (2009) found slightly higher estimates, ranging from a low of 3.5 metric tons per person in Oslo to 16.0 tons per person in Stuttgart (Germany), for an average of 8.25 metric tons per person across 20 cities. Our estimates ranged from a low of 0.7 metric tons in Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) to 16.8 metric tons per person in Pori (Finland), for an average of 6.4 metric tons per person across 42 cities.53 The higher average values from Kennedy et al. (2009) likely result from their consumption-based approach, which includes some indirect emission sources such as waste treatment not included in the other two studies. On the other hand, the differences between the top-down and bottom-up approaches may largely be due to the differences in data resolution, definition of urban, gases and sources included and the year of study. It is important to point out that we do not expect the top-down approach to be useful at the urban scale, as differences in the quality of infrastructure and intra-urban ranges cannot be captured. On the other hand, the top-down approach is helpful in generating data for a larger number of urban areas and at the regional and global scales the differences between the bottom-up and top-down estimates largely disappear.54,55 Hence, while the top-down approach might be useful for policy at the

Southern Europe Athens Ancona Bologna Catania Ferrara Naples Nord Milano Parma Pavia Provincia Torino Veneto Verbania Porto Ljubljana Maribor A Corun˜a Barcelona Barcelona Burgos

Greece Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Portugal Slovenia Slovenia Spain Spain Spain Spain

Country 2005 1998 – 2001 2005 1995 1997 2005 1998 – 2001 1998 – 2001 1998 – 2001 1998 – 2001 2005 1998 – 2001 2005 2005 1998 – 2001 1998 – 2001 1998 – 2001 2006 1998 – 2001

Study date Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators,

Source

2003

2003 2003 2003

2003

2003 2003 2003 2003

2003 2003

2003

10.4 7.0 11.1 5.0 9.2 4.0 8.8 8.4 6.0 7.6 10.0 8.6 7.3 9.5 8.7 7.1 3.6 4.2 8.0

Total GHG emissions per capita 3.9 5.1 4.3 5.4 1.6 5.5 8.1 4.4 2.9 8.4 10.2 2.2 4.3 6.1 4.7 5.9 4.9 4.9 5.3

This study EDGARTotal GHG emissions per capita

Comparison of selected previous GHG results to our approach results for European urban areas (tons CO2 equivalents).

Region/urban area

Table 5.2

Spain Spain Spain

Bulgaria Czech Republic Poland

Denmark Finland Finland Finland Finland Norway Norway Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

Madrid Pamplona Victoria-Gasteiz

Eastern Europe Blagoevgrad Prague Gdansk

Northern Europe Aarhus Helsinki Pori Tampere Turku Oslo Oslo Malmoe Stockholm Stockholm Vaxjoe Bristol London Glasgow 1998 –2001 2005 1998 –2001 1998 –2001 1998 –2001 1998 –2001 2005 1998 –2001 2005 1998 –2001 1998 –2001 1998 –2001 2003 2004

1998 –2001 2005 NA

2005 1998 –2001 1998 –2001

European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, European Common Indicators, Kennedy et al. 2009 Kennedy et al. 2009 2003 2003 2003

2003

2003 2003 2003 2003

2003

European Common Indicators, 2003 Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, 2003

Kennedy et al. 2009 European Common Indicators, 2003 European Common Indicators, 2003

7.7 7.0 11.9 8.6 10.7 2.5 3.5 4.8 3.6 3.9 3.8 9.4 9.6 8.8

3.6 9.3 6.9

6.9 3.5 7.2

6.8 9.8 16.8 7.0 10.4 7.6 7.6 7.9 7.7 7.7 1.9 6.6 7.1 11.6

0.7 9.0 6.1

5.8 5.4 4.0

Continued

Belgium France Germany Germany Germany Switzerland

Country 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005

Study date Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy

al. al. al. al. al. al.

56

et et et et et et

Source: Kennedy et al. 2009, European Common Indicators 2003, this study.

Average

Western Europe Brussels Paris Frankfurt Hamburg Stuttgart Geneva

Region/urban area

Table 5.2

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Source

10.0

7.5 5.2 13.7 9.7 16.0 7.8

Total GHG emissions per capita

7.2

15.2 7.6 2.5 6.7 8.0 3.1

This study EDGARTotal GHG emissions per capita

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

95

regional scale, it is not a substitute for intensive bottom-up studies upon which to base specific urban policy. When compared to selected cities elsewhere,57 the GHG emissions from urban areas in Europe demonstrate general patterns. Urban GHG emissions estimates for cities in North America are typically higher than those of Europe, with a regional average approximately double that found in Europe (Table 5.3). Indeed, only a few cities in Germany have estimated emissions levels falling within the range seen in the selected North American cities. Moreover, the GHG emissions estimates for European cities are considerably higher than for South American cities. Of the selected Asian urban areas, GHG emissions are typically higher than those in European urban centres with the exception of Tokyo, which falls within the range of estimates for European cities. Comparison of our results with the other two efforts illustrates the difficulty of comparing individual city estimates calculated with different methodologies. For instance, only five of our city estimates fell within 10 per cent of published values from the other two reports: Catania (Italy), Milano (Italy), Prague (Czech Republic), Turku (Finland), and Veneto (Italy). The majority of city estimates in our sample fell within 50 per cent of the values published by the other reports, with a slight tendency to fall Table 5.3 GHG emissions per capita from non-European Cities (tons CO2 equivalents). Urban area Denver Los Angeles New York City Toronto Average Rio de Janeiro Sao Paulo Average Bangkok Beijing Shanghai Tianjin Tokyo Average Cape Town

Country

Study date

United States of America United States of America United States of America Canada

2005 2000 2005 2005

Brazil Brazil

1998 2000

Thailand China China China Japan

2005 2006 2006 1998 2006

South Africa

2006

Source: Kennedy et al. 2009.58

Total GHG emissions per capita 19.4 13.0 10.5 11.6 13.6 2.1 1.4 1.8 10.7 10.1 11.7 11.1 4.9 9.7 7.6

96

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

below the estimates published elsewhere. Yet three of our city estimates are more than double those found in the literature, for Brussels (Belgium), Oslo (Norway), and Stockholm (Sweden). A significant amount of the discrepancy among the studies cited can be traced back to variations in study design (Kennedy et al. 2009, for example, is in itself a compilation of studies)59 and inconsistencies with respect to the geographic boundaries studied and sources/gases included. The authors of this chapter examined the effect of different spatial definitions of ‘urban’ from high-density areas within the confines of legal boundaries and urbanised areas based on GRUMP boundaries60 to extensive periurban inclusion areas with high intensity agriculture (especially Germany and Greece) and the majority of energy production (Plate 5b). Table 5.4 indicates the Europe-wide variation of the contribution of different emissions sources in three different definitions of the term ‘urban’. Some emission sources, such as industrial production and transportation, are distributed in an intuitively understandable manner. Others, such as land use change, or agriculture and waste,

Figure 5.1 Extent of urban versus non-urban areas in Europe. Source: the authors.

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

97

Table 5.4 Percentage of European GHG emissions by source in different definitions of urban areas. Source Energy use in manufacturing and construction Energy use in transportation Energy use from other sources and fugitive emissions Industrial processes Agriculture Land use change Waste Other anthropogenic sources Total, Europe-wide

City Core

Urbanised

Periurban

Rural

14.6

49.9

31.6

3.9

16.0 12.9

42.2 31.2

34.5 44.0

7.4 11.9

9.8 1.0 1.6 11.4 1.3 7.9

47.8 12.1 10.2 37.6 12.0 27.7

38.1 63.2 69.1 40.8 58.1 49.5

4.0 23.7 19.2 10.1 28.6 14.8

Source: this study.

have a surprisingly large impact in both the traditional metropolitan area and periurban context. These summary figures oscillate again widely when broken down into different countries/regions. Periurban land use change is the source of between 40 per cent and 78 per cent of all GHGs in that zone. In Slovenia, over 90 per cent of its industrial emissions originate outside metropolitan areas. Slovakia’s urbanised areas contribute only 16 per cent of total GHG emissions in that country. It is therefore not surprising that the literature cited in this section seems so contradictory; the choices made with respect to geographic boundaries and included sources can have dramatic effects on final GHG estimates for urban areas.61

Discussion Urban researchers have striven to develop rigorous protocols for standardising GHG emission estimates for policy and theoretical work. While there has been much progress, several drawbacks continue to plague this work and result in a general lack of comparability of findings across studies.62,63 It is therefore not surprising that different inventory schemes produce disparate results. More importantly, the differences in results reflect differences in the purposes for which the studies are produced. As noted by others, there are two types of studies on CO2 emissions. One type of study inventories local emissions in single areas to directly support local policy objectives. They define detailed baselines that municipalities can use to judge performance. They are also awareness raising, educational, and participatory tools to

98

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

facilitate increased understanding of and participation in lowering GHG emissions. The results from individual case studies reflect such detailed local context and knowledge, and are difficult to generalise to other urban areas. At the same time, the top-down approach is limited in that the resolution of the data is not fine enough to be of use at the urban scale. Another type of study analyses a cross-section of localities to derive general relationships between energy use and patterns of urban development.64 As such, these types of studies are useful for generating policy priorities at higher levels of governance (nations, regional international agreements). It is at this level that top-down analyses might be most useful. Regionally comparable studies of urban GHG emissions can identify ‘outliers’ for further examination with respect to policy decisions. They could point to those urban areas that may have policy or other actions that are lowering or increasing emissions. They also could be used to identify other influences on GHG emissions, including urban form, socio-economic characteristics, and biophysical context. Given the different purposes for development of bottom-up individual case studies and top-down regional studies, we suggest that the findings from both types of analyses must be used together to support local and regional actions.65 We also advise the continued development of rigorous protocols for estimating comparable GHG emissions from urban areas worldwide, which would both advance our scientific knowledge as well as aid in identification of mitigation potentials and priorities.

Acknowledgements We thank the editors for their suggestions and comments and O. Douglas Price for helping to format the document. All errors are the responsibility of the authors.

Notes 1. UNFPA, ‘State of the World Population: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth’ (New York, 2007). 2. D. Satterthwaite, ‘Cities’ contribution to global warming: notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions’, Environment and Urbanization, 20/2 (2008): 539 – 49. 3. L. D. D. Harvey, ‘Tackling urban CO2 emissions in Toronto’, Environment, 37/7 (1993): 16 – 20 and 33– 44. 4. For review, see S. Dhakal, ‘GHG emission from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2/4: 277 – 83. 5. See, also C. A. Kennedy, A. Ramaswami, S. Carney and S. Dhakal, ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions’, Proceeding from Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda, 28– 30 June (Marseille, 2009).

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

99

6. N. Bader and R. Bleischwitz, ‘Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions: the challenge of comparability’, Survey and Perspectives Integrating Environment & Society, 2/3 (2009): 7–21. 7. P. J. Marcotullio and W. Solecki, ‘What is a city? Old debate, new implications’, Urbanization and Global Environmental Change Newsletter (2010), 7 – 11. 8. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, ‘Tokyo Climate Change Strategy: A Basic Policy for the 10-year Project for a Carbon-Minus Tokyo’ (Tokyo, 2007). 9. ICF International, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, and T. E. Office, ‘Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollutantsin the City of Toronto: Toward a Harmonized Strategy for Reducing Emissions’ (Toronto, 2007). 10. S. Pander, ‘Climate Protection Progress Report – 2007’, ed. Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment, 31 (2007) City of Vancouver. 11. J. Dickinson and R. Desai, ‘Inventory of New York City Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (New York, 2010). 12. City of Sydney, ‘Local Government Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (2008), http://www. cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/environment/GreenhouseAndAirQuality/CurrentStatus/ GreenhouseGasEmissions.asp. 13. L. Parshall, K. Gurney, S. A. Hammer, D. Mendoza, Y. Zhou and S. Geethakumar, ‘Modeling energy consumption and CO 2 emissions at the urban scale: Methodological challenges and insights from the United States’, Energy Policy, 38/9 (2010): 4765– 82. 14. Chicago Climate Task Force, ‘Climate Change and Chicago’ (Chicago, 2008). 15. K. R. Gurney, D. L. Mendoza, Y. Zhou, M. L. Fischer, C. C. Miller, S. Geethakumar and S. De La Rue Du Can, ‘High resolution fossil fuel combustion CO2 emission fluxes for the United States’, Environmental Science & Technology, 43/14 (2009): 5535– 41; M. R. Raupach, P. J. Rayner and M. Paget, ‘Regional variations in spatial structure of nightlights, population density and fossil-fuel CO2 emissions’. Energy Policy, 38/9 (2010): 4756– 64. 16. M. A. Brown, F. Southworth and A. Sarzynski, ‘Shrinking the carbon footprint of metropolitan America’ (Washington DC, 2008). 17. T. Hillman and A. Ramaswami, ‘Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for eight U.S. cities’, Environmental Science and Technology, 44/6 (2010): 1902–10. 18. W. E. Rees and M. Wackernagel, ‘Urban ecology footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable – and why they a key to sustainablility’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16 (1996): 223– 48. 19. K. C. Seto, A. Reenberg, C. G. Boone, M. Fragkias, D. Haase, T. Langanke, P. Marcotullio, Darla K. Munroe, B. Olah and D. Simon, ‘Urban Land Teleconnections and Sustainability’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 109/20 (2012): 7687– 92. 20. S. Dhakal, ‘Urban energy use and carbon emissions from cities in China and policy implications’, Energy Policy, 37/11 (2009): 4208– 19. 21. D. Satterthwaite, ‘The transition to a predominantly urban world and its underpinnings’, IIED Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series (2007), 91. 22. For example, see United Nations, ‘World Urbanization Prospects: 2009 Revisions’ (New York, 2010). 23. Dhakal, ‘GHG emission from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation’, pp. 277– 83. 24. IPCC, ‘Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report’ (Geneva, 2007). 25. US EPA, ‘Summary Report: Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990– 2030’ (Washington, 2012).

100

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

26. M. Amann, L. Isaksson, W. Winiwarter, A. Tohka, F. Wagner, W. Scho¨pp, I. Bertok and C. Heyes, ‘Emission Scenarios for non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases in the EU-27: Mitigation Potentials and Costs in 2020’ (Laxenburg, 2008). 27. D. Dodman, ‘Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories’, Environment and Urbanization, 21/1 (2009): 185 – 201. 28. H. Weisz and J. K. Steinberger, ‘Reducing Energy and Material Flows in Cities’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2/3 (2010): 185 – 92. 29. Kennedy et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan regions’. 30. Bader and Bleischwitz, ‘Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions: The challenge of comparability’, pp. 7 – 21; L. Lebel, P. Garden, M. R. N. Banaticla, R. D. Lasco, A. Contreras, A. P. Mitra, C. Sharma, H. T. Nguyen, G. L. Ooi and A. Sari., ‘Integrating carbon management into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia: Implications of urban function, form, and role’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11/2 (2007): 61 – 81. 31. Dodman, ‘Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories’, pp. 185–201. 32. WBCSD and WRI, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Conches-Geneva and Washington, DC, 2004). 33. Kennedy et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions’. 34. Bader and Bleischwitz, ‘Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions: The challenge of comparability’, pp. 7 – 21; Dhakal, ‘GHG emission from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation’, pp. 277 – 83; N. B. Schulz, ‘Delving into the carbon footprint of Singapore – comparing direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions of a small and open economic system’, Energy Policy, 38/9 (2010): 4848– 55. 35. Y. Kondo, Y. Moriguchi and H. Shimizu, ‘CO2 emissions in Japan: Influences of imports and exports’, Applied Energy, 59/2– 3 (1998): 163– 74; J. Munksgaard and K. A. Pedersen, ‘CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility?’, Energy Policy, 29/4 (2001): 327– 34; G. P. Peters and E. G. Hertwich, ‘CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy’, Environmental Science & Technology, 42/5 (2008): 1401 – 7. 36. G. P. Peters, ‘From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories’, Ecological Economics, 65/1 (2008): 13– 23. 37. M. J. Murray, F. Sack and T. Wiedmann, ‘Shared producer and consumer responsibility – Theory and practice’, Ecological Economics, 61/1 (2007): 27 – 42; Glen P. Peters, ‘Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2/4 (2010): 245–50. 38. WRI, Designing a Customized Greenhouse Gas Calculation Tool (Washington DC, 2002). 39. Bader and Bleischwitz (2009). 40. Bader and Bleischwitz, ‘Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions: The challenge of comparability’, pp. 7 – 21. 41. P. J. Marcotullio, A. Sarzynski, J. Albrecht, N. Schulz and J. Garcia, ‘The geography of global urban greenhouse gas emissions: An exploratory analysis’, Climatic Change, 121/4 (2013): 621 – 34. 42. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), ‘Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)’, release version 4.0, ed. (2009), http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

ASSESSING URBAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

101

43. Earth Institute, Columbia University, ‘The Growing Urbanization of the World’ (2005), available at www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-07-05.html. 44. D. E. Pataki, R. J. Alig, A. S. Fung, N. E. Golubiewski, C. A. Kennedy, E. G. McPherson, D. J. Nowak, R. V. Pouyat and P. Romero-Lankao, ‘Urban ecosystems and the North American carbon cycle’, Global Change Biology, 12/11 (2006): 2092–2102. 45. Bader and Bleischwitz, ‘Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions’. 46. R. W. Kates, M. W. Mayfield, R. D. Torrie and B. Witcher, ‘Methods for estimating greenhouse gases from local places’, Local Environment, 3/2 (1998): 279 – 97. 47. B. K. Sovacool and M. A. Brown, ‘Twelve metropolitan carbon footprints: A preliminary comparative global assessment’, Energy Policy, 38/9 (2010): 4856–69. 48. Greater London Authority, ‘Delivering London’s Energy Future’ (London, 2010). 49. Kennedy et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions’. 50. Ibid. This study, however, includes various definitions of urban including ‘city’, ‘metropolitan region’, ‘province’ and ‘region’. Those from the Greenhouse Gas Regional Inventory Protocol (GRIP) project included in this study typically use larger urban area definitions (see http://www.grip.org.uk/Home.html). 51. European Commission, ‘European Common Indicators: Towards a Local Sustainability Profile’ (Milan, 2003). 52. Marcotullio et al., ‘The geography of global urban greenhouse gas emissions, pp. 621 – 34. 53. P. J. Marcotullio, A. Sarzynski, J. Albrecht and N. Schulz, ‘A top-down regional assessment of urban greenhouse gas emissions in Europe’, Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 43/7 (2013): 957– 68. 54. Ibid. 55. Marcotullio et al., ‘The geography of global urban greenhouse gas emissions, pp. 621 – 34. 56. Kennedy et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions’; European Commission, ‘European Common Indicators’. 57. Kennedy et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global cities and Metropolitan Regions’. 58. Kennedy et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Baselines for Global Cities and Metropolitan Regions’. 59. Ibid. 60. D. Balk, ‘More than a name: Why is global urban population mapping a GRUMPy proposition?’, in Global Mapping of Human Settlement: Experiences, Datasets and Prospects, edited by P. Gamba and M. Herold (Boca Raton, 2009), pp. 145 – 61. 61. J. Albrecht, P. Marcotullio, A. Sarzynski, A. and N. Schulz, ‘The role of suburbia in the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions,’ Proceedings of the Joint AESOP/ACSP Congress, Dublin, Ireland, 15– 19 July 2013. 62. Bader and Bleischwitz, ‘Measuring urban greenhouse gas emissions: The challenge of comparability’, pp. 7 – 21. 63. A. Ramaswami, T. Hillman, B. Janson, M. Reiner and G. Thomas, ‘A demand-centered methodology for city-scale greenhouse gas inventories’, Environmental Science & Technology, 42/17 (2008): 6455– 61. 64. Parshall et al., ‘Modeling energy consumption and CO2 emissions at the urban scale: Methodological challenges and insights from the United States’, pp. 4765– 82. 65. A. Stohl, J. Kim, S. O’Doherty, J. Muhle, P. K. Salameh, T. Saito, M. K. Vollmer, D. Wan, R. F.,Weiss, B., Yao, Y. Yokouchi and L. X. Zhou, ‘Hydrocholorofluorocarbon and hydrofluorocarbon emission in East Asia determined by inverse modeling’, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10/8 (2010): 3545–60.

CHAPTER 6 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS:ASSESSING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY William E. Rees

Half the human family already lives in cities and the United Nations projects that urban populations will increase by an additional 2.9 billion in the next four decades.1 This increase alone is equivalent to the total accumulation of people on Earth in the entire history of Homo sapiens up until 1957! This greatest of all human migrations underscores the fact that there can be no global sustainability without urban sustainability. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to suggest a framework to examine prospects for urban sustainability. In particular, the author explores ecological footprint analysis as an essential tool for assessing the sustainability of cities. His main focus is unapologetically on the biophysical dimensions of urban futures for two reasons. First, until relatively recently, most urban scholarship dealt with cities solely as cultural, social, economic or engineered environments. The fact that cities are also complex biophysical systems subject to natural laws has been all but ignored. Second, despite this scholarly vacuum, biophysical sustainability is essential for, and arguably prerequisite to, social, cultural and economic sustainability. It is possible to envisage fully functional ecosystems without cities but there can be no cities in the absence of functional ecosystems2

Biophysical sustainability: not that difficult a concept Despite the endless debate on the definition and meaning of sustainability, on one level the concept is quite simple. Something (e.g. an individual, a city, an ecosystem, the entire human enterprise) is sustainable if it can continue to function in its present state and existing configuration indefinitely.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

103

From this perspective, the human enterprise, as presently configured, is clearly unsustainable. Agriculture depletes arable lands 10 –30 times faster than soils regenerate; fishers are overharvesting 75 per cent of the world’s fish stocks; the oceans are acidifying; agricultural and urban run-off have created large ocean dead-zones that are expanding in number and area; climate change is upon us and greenhouse gases continue to accumulate – the list goes on. What all such data indicate is that the growth of the human economy is currently being funded, in part, through the liquidation of so-called ‘natural capital’, the self-producing, replenishable and non-renewable natural resources that constitute the material basis of human existence. Because of the sheer volume of the original endowment of natural capital, humanity can remain in an unsustainable state of overshoot for a considerable period of time. But there are limits. Humans are depleting in decades various natural capital stocks, ranging from tropical forest to petroleum, which required thousands or millions of years to accumulate in the ecosphere. Since reliable supplies of natural capital are pre-requisite to the growth and maintenance of the human enterprise, it is clear that the latter cannot continue ‘to function in its present state and configuration indefinitely’. Ominously, while the biophysical and material basis of civilisation is in decline, both the human population and per capita material demands are increasing. Let’s be clear. From the biophysical perspective the proximate driver of unsustainability is energy and material consumption. Of course, some consumption is necessary. As biological entities, all people are ‘obligate consumers’ – a minimal amount of material throughput is necessary merely to maintain any complex system. The problem is that we have ‘socially constructed’ a global, capitalist, economic system that assumes continuous manufactured capital accumulation and is therefore dependent on continuous material growth. The resultant resource scarcity (depletion) and pollution are therefore merely the symptoms of a greater malaise – gross human ecological dysfunction exercised through the economic process. Material demands stemming from the sheer scale of the human enterprise threaten permanently to undermine the functional integrity of the ecosphere. This is the context from which we must consider prospects for urban sustainability.

Cities as dissipative structures Both cities and the economic process are subject to natural laws, the most critical of which is the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that any process occurring in an isolated system (one unable to import energy or matter from its environment) increases the entropy of that system. By this we mean that each successive change in an isolated system depletes its

104

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

resources, reduces internal gradients, simplifies its structure and otherwise increases the ‘randomness’ of that system. In effect, isolated systems cannibalise themselves – they slide inexorably toward a homogenous state of thermodynamic equilibrium, a state of maximum entropy in which nothing further can happen. By contrast, complex living systems, from individual body cells to entire cities, are self-organising open systems that maintain themselves and thrive in a far-from-(thermodynamic)-equilibrium, dynamic, steady-state. Living systems are able to ‘defend’ themselves against the second law by importing available energy and matter from their environments and using these resources to reproduce themselves and grow. Moreover, systems ecologists now recognise that all living systems exist in overlapping nested hierarchies in which each component subsystem (‘holon’) is contained by the next level up and itself comprises a chain of linked subsystems at lower levels (think ‘Russian nesting dolls’). This organisational form is the basis for ‘SOHO’ (self-organising holarchic open) systems theory.3 Every sub-system (or holon) in the hierarchy grows and develops by extracting usable energy and material (negentropy) from its host ‘environment’ one level up and by ejecting its wastes back into its host. In short, living entities maintain their local organisation at the expense of increased global entropy, particularly the entropy of their immediate host system.4 Because all self-organising systems maintain themselves far-from-equilibrium by continuously degrading and dissipating available energy and matter, they are called ‘dissipative structures’.5 SOHO theory has critical implications for urban sustainability. Both cities and ecosystems are self-organising far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures. However, while the ecosphere evolves and maintains itself by ‘feeding’ on an extra-terrestrial source of energy (the sun) and by continuously recycling matter, cities grow and maintain themselves by feeding on the rest of the ecosphere and ejecting their wastes back into it. In short, cities (indeed, the entire human enterprise) are open, growing, dependent sub-systems of the materially closed, non-growing finite ecosphere – they can grow and increase their internal order (negentropy) only by ‘disordering’ the ecosphere and increasing global entropy. This relationship is not necessarily problematic. Ecosystems self-produce and maintain themselves far-from-equilibrium indefinitely empowered by solar energy. They constantly recycle critical nutrients and dissipate their entropic waste heat back into space. Production marginally exceeds respiration and consumption in the non-humanised ecosphere, so biomass slowly accumulates. Indeed, throughout the whole of evolutionary history, net primary production by producer species (mostly green plants) has been more

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

105

than adequate to sustain the world’s entire complement of consumer organisms, including pre-industrial humans, and to evolve new species. The sustainability conundrum has emerged largely because of the sheer scale of the human enterprise. Our increasingly urban global culture is thermodynamically positioned to consume the ecosphere from within and the accelerating pace of global ecological change suggests that humanity has, in fact, grown to become maliciously parasitic on its planetary host.6 Certainly the burgeoning human demand for self-producing resources already exceeds annual production and natural waste sinks are filled to over-flowing (e.g. eutrophication of fresh waters, greenhouse gas accumulation).1

Quantifying sustainability using ecological footprint analysis If humanity is serious about sustainability, the world community must begin to scale its material demands to the supply of productive biocapacity. Ecological footprint analysis (EFA) provides a well-developed tool to approach this issue.7 EFA provides a partial answer to what should be the first question of human ecology (or ecological economics): ‘How much of the earth’s productive biocapacity is required to support any specified human population at a defined material standard of living with prevailing technology.’ EFA acknowledges that whether we acknowledge it or not, modern human beings are integral components of the ecosystems that support them and that they are therefore still very much dependent on ‘the land’. The method also recognises: (a) that whether we consume locally produced products or trade goods, the land connection remains intact, however far removed from the point of consumption some of the productive ecosystems may lie; and (b) that no matter how sophisticated our technology, the production/consumption process requires some land-and water-based ecosystems services. Ecofootprint analysis thus incorporates trade and technology factors simply by inverting the standard carrying capacity ratio: rather than asking what population can be supported by a given area, ecofootprinting estimates how much productive area is needed to support a given population, regardless of the location of the land or the state of technology. As implied above, EFA is based on two critical premises: most human impacts on ecosystems are associated with energy and material extraction/consumption and many energy and material flows can be converted to corresponding productive or assimilative ecosystems areas. A typical ecofootprinting study therefore begins by quantifying all the material and energy associated with final consumption by the study population. Analysts then convert these data to the corresponding ecosystem areas required to produce the goods/services and assimilate critical wastes (usually carbon dioxide). Summed up, this total

106

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

ecosystem area represents the biocapacity effectively ‘appropriated’ by the study population to support itself. We therefore formally define the ecological footprint of a specified population as: the area of productive land and water ecosystems that the population requires, on a continuous basis, to produce the resources it consumes and to assimilate its carbon wastes, wherever on earth the relevant land/water may be located. A complete ecofootprint analysis therefore includes the population’s demand on domestic ecosystems, plus any area it effectively ‘imports’ through net commodity trade, plus its demands on the global common pool for free land- and water-based services (e.g. fish stocks and the carbon-sink function). The area of a population’s eco-footprint depends on four factors: the size of the population, the people’s average material standard of living, the productivity of the land/water base, and the technological efficiency of resource harvesting, processing and use. Regardless of how these factors interact, a population’s ecofootprint represents much of that population’s demand on global biocapacity, including ecosystems located half a planet away. It is important to acknowledge that ecofootprints represent ecologically exclusive areas. The productive capacity used by one human population is not available for use by another. Since there is a measurable, finite area of productive land and water ecosystems on Earth, all human populations are in competition for the available biocapacity of the planet. We obtain production, productivity and trade data for ecofootprint estimates from national statistical agencies and such international data sources as the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT). To facilitate comparisons among populations and countries, the results of population EFAs are usually normalised and published in terms of global hectares (hectares of global average productivity or gha). For fuller details of the method see WWF8 and the Global Footprint Network on-line by following the links at http://www.footprintnetwork.org.

Urban biophysical reality To some analysts, accelerating urbanisation implies that people are becoming less connected to the land. For example, many economists believe that, because of a declining GDP to resource use ratio, the economy is decoupling from ‘the environment’, that the human enterprise is dematerialising. These beliefs are illusion. As consumer organisms, not only do humans remain an integral part of the ecosystems that sustain them but, because of higher incomes and purchasing power, urbanites make significantly greater demands on the ecosphere than do typical rural dwellers, particularly impoverished peasants. In other words, despite being spatially separated from

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

107

‘the land’, urbanites’ functional relationship to ecosystems remains intact (albeit extended and corrupted). City dwellers necessarily continue to satisfy their biometabolisms by consuming the products of natural and managed ecosystems and by disposing of their wastes back into surrounding ecosystems. There is a further consideration. In addition to their human bio-metabolism, cities have an enormous ‘industrial metabolism’ based largely on the use of fossil fuels. The construction, operation, and maintenance of buildings and urban infrastructure account for 40 per cent of the materials used by the world economy;9 in the US, almost 39 per cent of total energy consumption and 38 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be traced to buildings.10 Indeed, Levin et al. and Levin (1997)11 show that buildings in the US account for between 15 per cent and 45 per cent of the total environmental burden in each of eight major categories of impact used for life-cycle assessment. Much of the remaining 55–85 per cent of urban consumption can be attributed to urbanites’ personal consumption. The migration of people to cities has major eco-functional consequences. Global urbanisation has converted local, vertically integrated, nutrientrecycling human ecosystems into global, horizontally disintegrated, selfconsuming unidirectional throughput systems. For example, instead of being re-deposited on farmland, Vancouver’s daily appropriations of mineral nutrients in food from as far away as Saskatchewan, Ecuador and Thailand are flushed straight out to sea. Ecological result? Arable lands are being depleted, critical nutrients dissipated and the oceans over-fertilised. Urbanites like to think of their cities as cultural incubators, centres of intense economic activities and producers of wealth. All true, but the forgoing data emphasise that, in strictly biophysical terms, cities are also massive ‘dissipative structures’. All cities great and small are necessarily nodes of intense energy/material consumption and waste production; they are also dependent subsystems of the planetary SOHO hierarchy. Cities’ everincreasing scale and complexity (distance from equilibrium) therefore inevitably imposes an ever-greater entropic load on the ecosphere.

The ecological footprints of cities Production is a prerequisite for consumption and production must take place somewhere. For every urbanised consuming ‘node’ there is a corresponding – but vastly larger and increasingly global – network of ecosystems that generates bio-resources (negentropy) and life-support functions essential for the survival and sustainability of the city. This is where ecological footprint analysis comes in – we can use it to estimate the area of any city’s productive hinterland. Recent EF studies reveal

108

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

that the average residents of high-income, mainly urban countries such as the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, and Japan each require the biophysical output of 4 to 10 global average hectares (10 – 25 average acres) per capita of productive land and water to support their consumer lifestyles. Wealthy urban elites throughout the developed world therefore boast oversized ecofootprints. Note, for contrast, that the citizens of the poorest, mostly rural, nations get by on the productivity and sink capacities of as little as half a gha.12 Some of the world’s great cities have population densities of several tens to hundreds of people per hectare. However, EFA shows that each city dweller is functionally ‘attached’ by trade, commerce and waste flows (economic production and consumption) to several hectares of productive land and water scattered around the world. We should therefore not be surprised to learn that the EFs of high-income cities typically exceed their geographic or political areas by two to three orders of magnitude.13 For example: .

.

.

.

.

With a per capita EF of approximately 7.0 gha (based on the Canadian national average), the 600,000 citizens of the author’s home town, Vancouver, effectively occupy an ecosystem area 368 times larger than the city’s 114 km2 (11,400 ha). Even the metropolitan population of 2.2 million, living at lower average densities, has an extraterritorial eco-footprint 55 times larger than the metropolitan region’s 2,787 km2 (Rees 2010,14 but see also note 5). Folke et al.15 estimated that the 29 largest cities of Europe’s Baltic region require the biocapacity of forest, agricultural, marine, and wetland ecosystems 565 – 1,130 times larger than the area of the cities themselves; Warren-Rhodes and Koenig16 estimated that the almost 7 million people of Hong Kong (EF ¼ 5.0-7.2 gha/capita) have a total eco-footprint of 332,150 to 478,300 km2. Thus, the residents of Hong Kong ecologically ‘occupy’ a space on the planet at least 3,020 times the built-up area of the city (110 km2) or about 303 times the total land area of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (1,097 km2). At 6.6 gha/capita, London’s ecological footprint in 2000 was almost 49 million global hectares (gha) – 42 times its biocapacity and 293 times its geographical area.17 If cut off from global supply chains, the UK could not support even its capital city on the country’s domestic biocapacity. Similarly, assuming the Japanese average per capita EF of 4.7gha, metropolitan Tokyo, the world’s largest city (population: 33 million) has a total eco-footprint of 155,100,000 gha. Since the entire domestic biocapacity of Japan is only about 89,000,000 gha,18 Tokyo, with only

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

109

26% of Japan’s population, lives on an area of productive ecosystems 1.7 times larger than that nation’s terrestrial biocapacity!19 The Global Rural Urban Mapping Project reported in 2005 that ‘roughly 3% of the Earth’s land surface is occupied by urban areas’ and that this represents an increase of ‘at least 50% over previous estimates that urban areas occupied 1 – 2% of the Earth’s total land area’20. As impressive as this apparent increase may seem, the foregoing shows that it is ecologically meaningless. Three per cent represents only the area of Earth ‘occupied’ by urbanised land, what planners call the ‘built environment’. By contrast, EFA confirms that 100 per cent of the bioproductive land and water area on Earth has been functionally ‘occupied’ in support of human, mainly urban populations. Indeed, global biocapacity is being severely overused. There are only 1.8 gha of ecologically productive land and water per capita on the planet, yet the average human ecofootprint is 2.7 gha. The human enterprise has exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of Earth by 50 per cent. We are in overshoot, currently using an entire years’ worth of bioproduction in about eight months.21

(Re)assessing urban sustainability EFA results suggest several properties of cities that should be central to urban sustainability assessment and planning. First, in biophysical and thermodynamic terms, contemporary cities are entropic black holes sweeping up the productivity of a vastly larger and increasingly global resource hinterland and (necessarily) spewing an equivalent quantity of waste back into it.22 From this perspective, cities have become as much the engines of global entropic decay as they are the ‘engines of national economic growth’. Second, cities per se are incomplete human ecosystems. As previously noted, what most people think of as ‘the city’ is merely the resourceconsuming and waste-generating core of the total human urban ecosystem. The latter also comprises a productive/assimilative hinterland that may be several hundred times larger than the core and is increasingly dispersed all over the earth. (In this singular respect, cities are ecologically analogous to livestock feedlots – both are intense concentrations of a single macroconsumer species spatially segregated from their supportive ecosystems.) The critical point is that both the built-up core and the more extensive supportive countryside are essential components of the complete urbancentred human ecosystem. It is virtually meaningless to plan for urban sustainability without ‘hinterland sustainability’.23

110

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Third, no individual city, region or country within the global SOHO hierarchy can be sustainable if its host system(s) higher in the hierarchy are decaying unsustainably. Vancouver or Tokyo – any modern city – could become an exemplar of local sustainability planning in conventional terms but this would be to no avail if its supportive ecosystems fail due to climate change or other form of eco-degradation (or, for that matter, if the city is simply cut off from its sources of supply). Fourth, it follows that virtually all modern cities are currently unsustainable. Cities are subsystems of the human enterprise and, as previously established, the entire human enterprise is in an unsustainable state of overshoot. In the event of increasingly probable large-scale climate change, significant food or other resource shortages, and any resultant geopolitical turmoil, even wealthy cities are at risk – the first class suites on the Titanic sank just as quickly as the third class steerage cabins. Fifth, from the perspective of EFA, most contemporary efforts toward urban sustainability or ‘greening’ the city may increase urban ‘liveability’, but they are too narrowly focused to be effective in achieving sustainability. The new urbanism, smart growth, green buildings, living roofs, hybrid vehicles, improved public transit and similar approaches to more efficient urban design make only marginal contributions to reducing cities’ ecological footprints. The science is clear – if your development project or urban sustainability plan does not produce a substantial reduction in per capita energy and material throughput (up to 80 per cent in North American and other high-income cities) it is part of the problem.

Toward resolution None of this means that human urban culture cannot, in theory, become sustainable. However, true sustainability requires that policy analysts and planners both think in ‘whole systems’ terms and consider the global context. In fact, it should be apparent that in today’s interdependent world, sustainability is a collective problem requiring unprecedented international cooperation and globally coordinated solutions. Regrettably, it does not seem likely that these policy conditions will be met in the foreseeable future. Individual cities can, in theory, go it alone, but in the absence of global sustainability planning, the best any city can achieve in isolation is a state of quasi-sustainability. A city would be ‘quasisustainable’ if its residents were living at a level of energy/material consumption per capita which, if extended to the entire human family, would result in global sustainability (Rees 2009).24 This assumes general equity as a moral prerequisite and starting point for sustainability planning as there is no

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

111

prima facie reason why some people merit a greater share of the world’s ecological output than others. As noted, there are presently only about 1.8 gha of productive land and water ecosystems per capita on Earth.25 This 1.8 gha represents each person’s equitable share of global biocapacity. Equitable global sustainability therefore implies that the eco-footprints of rich and poor alike should converge on 1.8 gha. If the basic science is correct, failure to achieve an average human ecofootprint within global biocapacity implies the collapse of major ecosystems and life-support functions and, with them, prospects for global civilisation. Equitable sustainability on a finite planet requires large reductions in the material demands of rich consumers simply to create the ecological space required for justifiable growth in developing countries.26 The quasi-sustainable or ‘one planet’ criterion obviously has enormous implications for urban sustainability planning. Using Vancouver as an example, ‘Vancouverites’ would have to take steps to reduce their average ecofootprints by 74 per cent (from 7.0 to 1.8 gha per capita) to meet the one planet standard under prevailing conditions.27 This is fairly typical for highincome cities. On the assumption that available biocapacity will decline to only 1.4 gha, by mid-century, the Greater London Authority reported that Londoners will have to reduce their ecofootprints by 80 per cent to become (quasi)sustainable by 2050.28 Material contraction by the rich may be necessary, but there is a problem. In today’s competitively individualistic growth-oriented global economy, policies to encourage significant reductions in material throughput (e.g. significant carbon taxes or other approaches to true-cost pricing) remain politically unfeasible. Certainly there is little evidence that any wealthy city or country is yet prepared to implement measures to achieve a state of quasi-sustainability. One major barrier to needed action is the so-called public good/free-rider problem. According to conventional wisdom, any city working toward quasi-sustainability (a ‘public good’) on its own would lose out in today’s economy and would eventually succumb to global collapse anyway if other cities (the ‘free-riders’) did not follow. This conundrum is regrettable since an 80 per cent reduction of high-income ecofootprints seems achievable with no loss of living standards using existing technologies and anticipated increases in resource productivity.29 Political inaction by individual states while solutions are at hand underscores the fact that sustainability is a collective problem requiring collective solutions (and helps to explain why a policy paralysed global community is collectively tempting climate chaos and geopolitical turmoil).

112

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Epilogue Approximately 70 per cent of global energy and material throughput can be attributed to consumption and waste production in support of urban populations, particularly the populations of high-income cities. The production of anything – an email message, your cell phone, an ocean liner, our own bodies – requires the extraction and dissipation of useful energy and material and the ejection of useless waste. These are irreversible processes. The energy consumed is almost immediately permanently radiated off the planet and, while the material may remain in the system, it is often chemically transformed and widely dispersed into the air soils and water. Recapturing such dissipated material is economically impossible. The excessive scale of human economic activity is literally consuming and dissipating the biophysical basis of our own existence. The ‘hard science’ of sustainability is well-developed. There is no serious dispute about any assertion in the previous paragraph, for example. Countless scientific studies have helped to scale the problem; climate change analyses, ecofootprinting and related studies agree on the reductions in material throughput needed to create a sustainable steady-state. Yet there is no evidence of the political or popular will necessary for policies that will actually make a difference. Instead, society deludes itself into thinking that minor reform is all that is necessary, that improved efficiency or new technologies can preserve the status quo. Indeed, those with vested interests in the status quo are spending vast sums on disinformation campaigns to ensure the public remains deluded! We now have an economic sector dedicated to the social construction of denial. It does not help that urbanites are both spatially and psychologically isolated from the ecosystems that support them and thus doubly blind to the distant land degradation, pollution and social costs incurred to serve their demands. Globalisation and trade further delay signals of imminent danger by providing urban consumers access to remaining pockets of productive natural capital all over the earth. Thus while wealthy urbanites experience a world of glittering lights, techno-gadgetry and expanding economies their consumer lifestyles are creating a parallel world of, degraded landscapes, climate change and depleted resources. Humans claim to be intelligent, uniquely capable of logical analysis and forward planning, and able to exercise moral judgment. These are precisely the qualities necessary to ensure a smooth transition from contemporary overshoot to an ecologically stable, economically secure and socially more equitable world. Yet the mainstream world seems focused almost exclusively on policies to fuel the growth economy and the root of the sustainability

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS

113

crisis. It is no small irony that when those qualities that make us truly human are most in demand, they seem to be in least supply.

Notes 1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division, ‘UN World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision’ (New York, 2009). 2. W. E. Rees, ‘Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability: Eco-Footprints and the Vulnerability of 21st Century Cities’, in T. Bunting, P. Filion and R. Walker (eds), Canadian Cities in Transition: New Directions in the 21st Century (Toronto, 2010). 3. J. Kay and H. Regier, ‘Uncertainty, complexity, and ecological integrity’, in P. Crabbe´, A. Holland, L. Ryszkowski, L. Westra (eds), Implementing Ecological Integrity: Restoring Regional and Global Environment and Human Health, (NATO Science Series IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences Vol 1, pp. 121– 156) (Dordrecht, 2001). 4. E. D. Schneider and J. J. Kay, ‘Complexity and Thermodynamics: Toward a New Ecology’, Futures, 26 (1994): 626– 47. 5. I. Prigogine, The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature (New York, 1997). 6. W. E. Rees, ‘Consuming the Earth: The Biophysics of Sustainability’, Ecological Economics, 29 (1999), pp. 23– 7. 7. W. E. Rees, ‘Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out’, Environment and Urbanization, 4 (1992): 120 – 30; W. E. Rees, ‘The ecological crisis and self-delusion: implications for the building sector’, Building Research and Information, 37/3 (2009): 300 – 11; W. E. Rees, ‘Ecological Footprint, Concept of’, in Simon Levin (ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (2nd edn) (2013); M. Wackernagel and W. E. Rees. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Gabriola Island, B.C., 1996); WWF., ‘Living Planet Report 2010’ (Gland, 2010); WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2012’ (Gland, 2012). 8. WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2008’ (Gland, 2008); WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2010’. 9. Worldwatch Institute, ‘State of the World 1995’ (Washington, 1995). 10. DOE, ‘Buildings Energy Data Book’, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, by D&R International (Washington, 2008). 11. H. Levin, ‘Systematic Evaluation and Assessment of Building Environmental Performance (SEABEP)’, paper presented to ‘Buildings and Environment’, Paris, 9 – 12 June 1997 (Santa Cruz, CA, 1997). 12. WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2010’; WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2012’. 13. This holds true despite methodological and data-quality differences. National EFs are based on data routinely collected by government statistical agencies and international (e.g. UN) organisations, but no such agencies monitor trade across municipal boundaries. Some urban EFs are based on original local data-gathering capacity; others use national per capita EF estimates adjusted for local variations in income, energy sources, lifestyles, etc. 14. Rees, ‘Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability’. 15. C. Folke, A. Jansson, J. Larsson and R. Costanza, ‘Ecosystem appropriation by cities’, Ambio, 26 (1997): 167– 72. 16. K. Warren-Rhodes and A. Koenig, ‘Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development’, Ecological Economics, 39 (2001): 347 – 59. 17. GLA, ‘London’s Ecological Footprint: A Review’ (London, 2003).

114

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

18. The terrestrial area of Japan is actually only 37,770,000 ha but Japan’s terrestrial ecosystems are considerably more productive than the world average. This increases the country’s biocapacity to about 89,000,000 gha. 19. Rees, ‘Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability’. 20. Earth Institute, Columbia University, ‘The Growing Urbanization of the World’, www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-07-05.html. 21. WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2010’; WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2014’ (Gland, 2014). 22. Rees, ‘Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability’. 23. Ibid. 24. I.e., quasi-sustainability implies a ‘one planet lifestyle’ or ‘one planet living’. 25. WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2010’; WWF, ‘Living Planet Report 2012’. 26. Contemplating economic contraction in the face of global change is no longer a taboo subject. Consider the global ‘degrowth’ movement and such studies as Managing without Growth (Victor 2008) and Prosperity without Growth (Jackson 2009) by prominent economists. 27. Rees, ‘Getting Serious about Urban Sustainability’. A more recent study using local data estimates Vancouver’s per capita ecofootprint to be about 5 gha (Moore and Rees 2013). This is less than the Canadian average of about 7 gha largely because the city is blessed by abundant hydro-electricity and thus has a smaller carbon footprint than the rest of Canada. Even so, Moore and Rees show that to achieve quasi-sustainability (‘one planet living’), the city’s inhabitants should be striving to reduce their energy and material throughput by 66 per cent. 28. GLA, ‘London’s Ecological Footprint’. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people who live below the quasi-sustainability criterion would be able to grow their ecofootprints. Average Bangladeshis, for example, could increase their material consumption by 200 per cent before exceeding their 2010 fair Earth-share. 29. E. von Weizsa¨cker, K. Hargroves, M.H. Smith, C. Desha and P. Stasinopoulos, Factor Five: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity (London, 2010).

CHAPTER 7 THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY Ulrich Heink

Urban growth and development, as well as ‘shrinking cities’ in some areas, pose major challenges for the conservation of urban biodiversity. On the one hand, the adverse effects of urbanisation have to be mitigated, on the other hand concepts for a careful development of urban biodiversity on wasteland are needed. The evaluation of biodiversity is a premise for effectively addressing these issues. This chapter focuses first on general biodiversity values, from which evaluation criteria can be derived. It turns next to the specific features of urban biodiversity and then explores in detail which biodiversity components and processes may be important for biodiversity conservation according to relevant evaluation criteria. Finally the chapter discusses the use of these criteria as applied by an evaluation procedure at the overall urban level (the City Biodiversity Index) and in a case study – the former railyard ‘Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde’ in Berlin.

Introduction: why should urban biodiversity be protected? In Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD1) biodiversity is defined as ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’. In the urban setting there are many land uses which exert a pressure on urban estates. But even if it is agreed to use the land for biodiversity conservation there may be competing interests between different conservation goals. Those goals are mainly the conservation of inherent biodiversity components and the provision of social functions, for example educational or recreational ones, and other associated ‘ecosystem services’ as identified below

116

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

under ‘Inherent Value’.2 Evaluation criteria serve to clarify the importance of biodiversity conservation in comparison to other demands on land use, and to determine which biodiversity goal should be implemented. Biodiversity can be protected for different purposes. It can be protected as an end in itself or for different aspects of human well-being. These purposes reflect underlying values attributed to biodiversity from which concrete evaluation criteria can be derived. We can distinguish instrumental (use) value, inherent value and intrinsic (existence) value of biodiversity.

Instrumental (use) value Biodiversity provides a range of goods, from agricultural crops to medicines and fibres, to which a use value (for example, in terms of monetary costs and benefits) can be assigned. From the use point of view, any component of biodiversity is substitutable as long as there are other products which provide the same service. For example, forest ecosystems as a source of firewood are substitutable by other sources for fuels.

Inherent value Humans do not only use biodiversity, but are psychologically – and sometimes quite inscrutably – related to biodiversity. Such a value, which is based on the cultural or individual relationship towards biodiversity is called inherent value. As with instrumental values, inherent values contribute to human well-being. If an apple tree is too old to produce fruit any more, it may lose its instrumental value. However, there may be also an emotional relationship between a person and the apple tree. In that case, the felling of the apple tree gives this person a feeling of loss. In this respect, the value cannot be substituted. Over the last decade or so, use values and inherent values have become a hot topic in the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ which include provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. Ecosystem services are specified as follows in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment3: . .

.

Provisioning services are the products people obtain from ecosystems, such as food, fuel, fibre, fresh water, and genetic resources. Regulating services are the benefits people obtain from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including air quality maintenance, climate regulation, erosion control, regulation of human diseases, and water purification. Cultural services are the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences.

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY .

117

Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, such as primary production, production of oxygen, and soil formation.

For people in densely populated urban regions cultural services play a major role. First, there is a huge body of evidence that the experience of nature contributes considerably to the psychological and physical health of a city’s people.4 Second, singular elements of biodiversity or landscape configurations shape the identity of urban spaces5 and possess a symbolic function as part of people’s homes. In cities as places of rapid change such symbolic functions are very important.6

Intrinsic (existence) value An intrinsic value7 manifests itself in a worth of its own regardless of the utility to humans. This value can be assigned by humans; however it is unconditioned. As for inherent values, there is no substitute for intrinsic values. But in contrast to inherent value, there is a direct moral obligation for the conservation of components of biodiversity, e.g. species or habitats. For inherent values, there is only a moral obligation to consider the interests of people who cherish biodiversity. While there is no doubt about taking into account use values and inherent values, the existence of intrinsic values is often contested.8 The remainder of this chapter focuses predominantly on inherent values and intrinsic values of biodiversity. This is mainly because the use-related evaluation of ecosystem services does not seem of prior interest in the urban context for several reasons. First, it has to be specified, if cities are in principle regarded as suitable to provide certain ecosystem services. As de Groot et al.9 note, all landscapes are multifunctional but only some functions will supply enough services to be of interest for decision making (for example, the amount CO2 captured by desert vegetation can be neglected compared to other locations). It is still a point of discussion how great the share of cities should be for example for food production, carbon sequestration or pollination. Rees and Wackernagel10 argue that cities necessarily appropriate the ecosystem services of distant regions. Therefore, strictly speaking, no city or urban region can achieve sustainability on its own. Sustainable cities thus depend on the sustainable use of ecosystem services from a vast and increasingly global hinterland. Second, as each use value can in principle be replaced, biodiversity loss is mainly relevant, when services cannot be provided or restored any more. However, this is rarely the case. For example, local climate and air quality

118

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

regulation can in theory be restored by establishing urban green spaces or planting trees. Certainly, there will be competing land uses that may hinder the establishment of ecosystem services, but their establishment is in principle possible. By contrast, it is very hard to re-establish populations of species and individual habitats once they are lost, and there is a huge body of evidence that both are declining rapidly.11 Therefore, the development of evaluation procedures for the sustainable use of urban biodiversity does not seem to be such an urgent task. Third, many ecosystem services in urban regions simply depend on a few species but not on the ‘diversity’ aspect of biodiversity, i.e. genetic differences between populations, species richness and the variety and composition of ecosystems. For example, carbon sequestration is mainly a function of the biomass of a few species.12 Moreover, an enhancement of ecosystem services often contributes only partially to the solution of some environmental problem. For example, carbon management in cities is more efficient if it addresses emissions rather than carbon sequestration.13 Finally, the methodology for assessing ecosystem services is still not very well developed.14 Therefore, a set of widely acknowledged evaluation criteria does not exist.

The role of biodiversity in urban areas Urbanisation displays a complex of environmental conditions connected with specific types of land use. In this context, two important measures for urbanisation are building density and the proportion of ‘sealed land’ (or ‘soil sealing’, see below). Subject to such factors and the particular land use, urban development is associated with considerable changes in climate, soils and water balance. These changes are reflected by the biodiversity, for example in the distribution of species along a rural– urban gradient (Figure 7.1).15 Among the important drivers of urban biodiversity are ‘urban heat’, soil sealing, the dynamics of habitats and species introductions. Regarding urban heat, the built-up areas of cities display much higher temperatures than do their greener surroundings or major open spaces. In summer this is mainly due to the absorption of radiation by walls and road surfaces. So, on warm summer nights, the temperature in Berlin’s Tiergarten, its central wooded park, is more than four degrees lower than amongst the building blocks of the adjacent city.16 In winter, the artificial heat sources provided by buildings and other structures are a crucial factor for warming. These built elements reduce the number of days recording winter frost and extend the growing period. Therefore, for the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere at least, the numbers of species that prefer a warm climate are higher in the cities than in

Figure 7.1 Distribution of Holosteum umbellatum and Dysphania botrys in Berlin. While Holosteum umbellatum is an urbanophobous species, i.e. a species which rarely grows in city centres, Dysphania botrys is more urbanophilous, i.e. species whose occurrence is closely correlated with city centres.17 These distribution types are well illustrated by the example of Berlin. Holosteum umbellatum has its largest populations at the city limits of Berlin. These are rather rural areas which politically belong to Berlin but are not urban in terms of population density, infrastructure, soil sealing etc. In contrast, Dysphania botrys has a distinctive preference for city centres. It is a pioneer plant of young, barely vegetated, urban brownfields. Source: Seitz et al. 2012.18

120

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

their surroundings and it is in those cities that many such species reach their northern distribution limits. In respect of the other three drivers, a frequent change of the type and intensity of land uses causes the prevalence of highly dynamic ecosystems in cities. Mobile species and species which are able to establish pioneer populations on raw soils profit from these environmental conditions whereas species which need a long continuity of habitat retreat. However, a general obstacle to most species is the ‘sealed land’ associated with much urbanisation, i.e. the land becomes covered with practically impermeable materials. This primarily concerns buildings, roads, energy-supply facilities (e.g. dams) and landfills and leads to the loss of many ecological functions of the soil as a storage and filter medium, notably the absorption of rainfall, production of biomass and binding of CO2. These drivers, and the underlying development of our cities, have a great impact on biodiversity. Urban spread in general is regarded as a crucial factor, affecting biodiversity at different levels, i.e. genetic, species and habitat level.19 These are now addressed in turn and this section then reaches some initial conclusions on the effect of urbanisation upon biodiversity. Genetic diversity: Plants from nonindigenous populations can hybridise with local populations and thus lead to genetic homogenisation, i.e. an increasing similarity of the gene pool of a taxon (a rank according to the biological classification system) between different regions.20 Further, locally adapted taxa can simply be outcompeted by nonindigenous ones. Moreover, the typically smaller habitat sizes and fragmentation present in urban areas reduce gene flow and thus cause loss of genetic variability. This can lead to inbreeding depression and reduced fitness of individuals which may end in the extinction of populations. Species diversity: Typically, cities have a greater species richness than sites of the same size in the surrounding countryside.21 One reason for this is that they attract a great number of neophytic species,22 outnumbering the loss of other species.23 Second, cities are very heterogeneous in land use.24 Third, settlements were often founded in geologically diverse regions and therefore are naturally species rich.25 In addition to the species imported from other parts of the world, there are various examples documented of genetic changes and the evolution of new taxa (anecophytes), events which have occurred especially on man-made sites.26 Habitat level: Although urbanisation leads to higher species richness in urban regions themselves, it adversely affects species already threatened at higher geographical levels (e.g. at national level). This is due to the fact that a large proportion of species within city boundaries are threatened, typically those from near natural habitats like woodlands and wetlands, and these are

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY

121

species which are also threatened more generally. By contrast, those species which are common in cities are often widely distributed at large geographical scales. Because of species loss and the introduction of the same species in different cities the floras of different cities can become very similar.27 However, there are urban habitats with populations of rare and threatened species. Here old parks, gardens and cemeteries and urban brownfields can play an exemplary role. To bring these findings together, urbanisation processes in Europe mainly lead to the destruction of two types of habitat: those which were previously little influenced by human activity or those formed by historical agricultural land use. For example, in prospering areas around Frankfurt, Germany, there is evidence for an extreme loss of extensively cultivated, species-rich grassland.28 Typical urban habitats are mainly of quite young origin. Some of these, like the habitats of building sites and traffic zones, are intensively used by humans. However, there are also historically young habitats on urban sites which are presently little affected by humans, for example urban brownfields or woodlands on urban-industrial sites, and occasionally parks and gardens. From the foregoing we can draw some initial conclusions. First, urbanisation on the one hand leads to a threat, but in other ways to an enrichment of biodiversity. Second, cities are exceptional types of landscapes, providing very special conditions for biodiversity. Third, human interference in biodiversity has quite a long history in cities which is reflected by their biodiversity (seen for example in the plant species found in ancient parks and gardens). However, to ascertain, if it is the case, that cities possess high biodiversity, that their biodiversity is quite distinct from their rural surroundings, or that there is an ongoing history of the development of biodiversity, does not automatically lead to ascribing a high value to urban biodiversity. For this, biodiversity goals and evaluation criteria have to be determined.

Goals and criteria for the assessment of species and habitats So far, this chapter has discussed underlying societal values for biodiversity conservation and the effects of urbanisation on biodiversity. But how can these values and the specificity of urban biodiversity be linked in an evaluation of urban biodiversity? The meaning of evaluation is tackled first. Evaluation is the determination of the degree of compliance with objectives. Evaluation in biodiversity conservation is based on a comparison between a given (actual or predicted) state or change of biodiversity and a

122

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

conservation goal. Thus, for evaluation the description of biodiversity states and changes is connected with norms derived from value systems (e.g. laws or moral values such as the above cited instrumental, inherent or intrinsic values) and derived tangible conservation goals (for example, the aim to protect each species in viable populations). The evaluation of species and habitats is closely related to environmental management or policy. The following questions are often relevant to urban planning: . .

. .

Protection: which species and habitats should be preserved? Impact assessment: which actions with an impact on biodiversity can be permitted, which should be prevented and how can detrimental effects be compensated for? Restoration: which manifestations of biodiversity deterioration should be reversed? Planning: How should biodiversity be developed at different spatial scales?

For all these questions an evaluation of the components of biodiversity is necessary. Such an evaluation is based on different criteria, the most important of these being ‘rarity’ together with ‘threat’ and ‘species richness’, ‘naturalness’ and ‘cultural value’. These are now addressed in turn.

Rarity, threat and species richness The criteria ‘rarity’, ‘threat’ and ‘species richness’ can be subsumed under an approach which O’Neill et al.29 call the ‘itemizing approach’. Here, a list of goods is offered that correspond to different valued features of biodiversity, and increasing value is taken to be a question of maximising one’s score on different items of the list or at least of reaching some satisfactory score on each. As the aim of the CBD is the conservation of biodiversity, there is a conservation focus on rare and threatened species and habitats as those are most likely to be extinguished, thereby reducing biodiversity. Thus, the criteria ‘rarity’ and ‘threat’ can directly be derived from the aims of the CBD. They are widely applied in European conservation practice. Species and habitats are threatened, if locations of their occurrence decline in number or distribution and their survival on a defined scale is not assured any more. Threat is estimated by rarity, rate of decline and different risk factors. Species and habitats are rare if they have only a few occurrences on a defined geographical scale. The importance for conservation rises with the geographical range, at which a species or habitat is rare or threatened. There are species nearly

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY

123

extinct in cities which are common in their surroundings (for example, those able to survive even in quite intensively used agricultural landscapes, like the skylark in Central Europe). That species may have a high inherent value for experience of biodiversity by urban residents (particularly because of its enchanting bird song) and as a cultural component of agrarian landscapes; however, as it is relatively plentiful elsewhere it seems problematic to argue for the management of that species in cities from a threat perspective. Next to rarity and threat, species richness is one of the most popular criteria in conservation evaluation. However, this criterion should be carefully used. At a small scale, such as at site level, species richness has a reduced significance for biodiversity conservation. In some situations, pursuing it could have undesirable consequences; for example, the enhancement of species richness by elevating the nutrient supply in nutrient-poor raised bogs would risk causing detrimental effects on rare and threatened species. Therefore, this criterion should mainly be used at larger geographical scales and in landscapes where rare and threatened species cannot be found.

Naturalness Naturalness is one of the fundamental motives in biodiversity conservation. The goal of Article 8 d) of the CBD is to promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings. Also, the European Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) serves ‘the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora’. In general, naturalness can be defined as the absence of human influence.30 The concept of naturalness is ambiguous, however, as different measures for the absence of human influence can be used. There are two main perspectives of naturalness: 1. Conservative naturalness concept:31 In this concept, naturalness of present biodiversity is determined by a comparison to a former state of biodiversity considered not to be influenced by human culture. The criterion which is encompassed by historical naturalness concepts is here called ‘pristineness’ or naturalness in a strict sense. 2. Natural processes concept: Process-oriented nature conservation wishes to enable a free development of nature without the influence of humans and does not address preserving the remnants of history. Naturalness is determined by the magnitude of effects of past and

124

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

present human activities acting on the biodiversity of a given site.32 The criterion which is encompassed by historical naturalness concepts is here called ‘wildness’. These two concepts of naturalness take into account that both the outcome (a natural state of biodiversity) and the processes which lead to such an outcome are important for evaluating biodiversity.33 For example, a forest can possess a natural composition of tree species, but it makes a difference for its biodiversity value if these trees were planted or if they grow there because of natural dispersal.

Cultural, recreational and aesthetic values In the preamble to the CBD the ‘. . .cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components’ is highlighted. Cultural value, however, is quite underrepresented in the actual text of the CBD. It is worth mentioning, though, that domesticated and cultivated species are explicitly addressed in the CBD. Moreover, cultural services have become very important in the assessment of ecosystem services. The importance of species and habitats for cultural history depends on two criteria: their connection to a bygone time period and their distinctiveness. The historical connection is given, when species or habitats appeared or developed under former socio-economic conditions which nowadays do not exist anymore. Distinctiveness is a measure of how much species or habitats contribute to the character, identity and uniqueness of a landscape.34 Loss of distinctiveness brings about a loss of identification with a formerly familiar surroundings and a deprivation of home without moving from the residence. Landscapes which balance economic, ecological, aesthetic and cultural features (cultural landscapes in a strict sense) can have cultural importance as well as can devastated landscapes, which serve for the demonstration of either historical conditions or regeneration from previous impacts (landscapes of cultural heritage). As for naturalness, criteria for cultural importance can be differentiated into state-oriented and process-oriented criteria. .

Conservative cultural value concept: Here the state of biodiversity is measured against the reference of the original historical state. Biodiversity of a certain location is regarded as a cultural heritage site or a monument.

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY .

125

Cultural processes concept: This concept focuses on processes induced by humans. Not any human-induced process is regarded as valuable, but only those based on a balanced consideration of societal concerns. Sustainable use, i.e. socially acceptable, economically sound, environmentally compatible and historically sensitive treatment of ecosystems is therefore a good benchmark for the evaluation of the cultural process value of biodiversity which can be measured with the aid of ecosystem service approaches.

According to O’Neill et al. as with the natural world, human culture is part of our history and our context, both explaining and giving significance to our lives.35 As a part of urban cultural history, non-native species play a major role. Urban nature is substantially determined by the dynamic urban biodiversity of uses and the colonisation of non-native species is typical for this. They are accepted in the urban context as an expression of contemporary change. It is important to note that objects of urban biodiversity can be valued at the same time for their cultural importance and for their naturalness. For example, on brownfields there may still be layers of urban-industrial use which interact with a natural development. This chapter has shown that there are different approaches for the evaluation of urban biodiversity. All have their own legitimacy. There may be conflicts between them on a particular conservation site. For example, it may be impossible to protect threatened species by natural processes, but only with human management. Or a historically natural state of a site can be impaired by natural processes like the immigration of non-native species from nearby areas. It is the task of urban planning and environmental management to account for the tradeoff between different biodiversity values and thereby to solve these problems.

The assessment of overall biodiversity in cities: the City Biodiversity Index At the ninth meeting of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity the establishment of an index to measure biodiversity in cities was proposed.36 The key objectives to develop the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) were to assist national governments and local authorities in benchmarking biodiversity conservation efforts in the urban context and to help evaluate progress in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems.

126

Box 7.1

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Indicators of the City Biodiversity Index.40

Native Biodiversity in the City † † † †

Proportion of natural areas in city Connectivity measures or ecological networks to counter fragmentation Native biodiversity in built-up areas Number of native species (five indicators – number of native species of plants, birds, butterflies, and two further species groups selected by each city), † Proportion of protected natural areas † Proportion of native species (as opposed to invasive alien species) Ecosystem Services Provided by Native Biodiversity in the City † Regulation of quantity of water † Climate regulation: carbon storage and cooling effect of vegetation † Recreational and educational services (two indicators) a) Area of parks with natural areas and protected or secured natural areas)/ 1,000 Persons b) Number of formal educational visits per child below 16 years to parks with natural areas or protected or secured natural areas per year Governance and Management of Native Biodiversity in the City † † † †

Budget allocated to biodiversity projects Number of biodiversity projects implemented by the city annually Rules, regulations and policy – existence of local biodiversity strategy and action plan Institutional capacity (two indicators) a) Number of essential biodiversity-related functions (biodiversity centre, botanical garden, herbarium, zoological garden or museum, insectarium, etc.) b) Number of city or local government agencies involved in inter-agency cooperation pertaining to biodiversity matters † Participation and Partnership (two indicators) a) Existence and state of formal or informal public consultation process pertaining to biodiversity related matter b) Number of agencies/ private companies/ NGOs/ academic institutions/ international organisations with which the city is partnering in biodiversity activities, projects and programmes † Education and awareness (two indicators) a) Biodiversity or nature awareness is included in the school curriculum (e.g. biology, geography, etc.) b) Number of outreach or public awareness events held in the city per year

The CBI is calculated using 23 indicators (Box 7.1). Ten of these address ‘native biodiversity’ directly, four reflect ‘ecosystem services provided by native biodiversity’ and nine focus on ‘governance and management of native biodiversity’. The CBI is calculated by simply summing up the scores for the individual indicators. Since a maximum score of four is allocated for each indicator, the maximum attainable is 92. The CBI is an index which can be easily calculated and condenses information into a singular measure. It refers both to biodiversity

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY

127

components and processes. Further, the various indicators are applied to pressures on biodiversity (e.g. fragmentation), states of biodiversity (e.g. proportion of natural and semi-natural biodiversity) and to societal responses to the loss of biodiversity (e.g. budget allocated to biodiversity projects). Hence, it is comprehensive according to the Pressure-State-Response model for environmental indicators developed by the OECD.37 However, there are some major shortcomings in the CBI. These mainly refer to the goals and values underlying the indicators and the explanatory power of those indicators. First, it is striking that there is an overt disesteem of non-native species. This is in sharp contrast to the fact that many nonnative species contribute much to the cultural importance of biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services in cities. Some non-native species may certainly bear some risks to ecosystems, but this is not valid for the whole group of non-native species.38 Instead of a general rejection of non-native species, I would rather advise that these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Second, the explanatory power of the criterion ‘native species richness’ is low, as native species richness naturally differs widely in different biogeographic regions. But also from a normative point of view, species richness at the urban scale has limited relevance for conservation issues39 as it is not generally a conservation goal to maximise species richness at small geographical scales. A more interesting indicator would be, to what extent the assembly of urban species contributes to biodiversity on a higher geographical scale, notably for biogeographical regions or at the national scale. Third, along the rural– urban gradient, there is typically an increase of non-native species, a decrease of native species and increased fragmentation towards the city centre. Thus, the values for these indicators for the urban area in total depend very much on the political demarcation of city limits. The area of Berlin, for example, includes large parts of near-natural and semi-natural landscapes at the outskirts and therefore has a higher richness of native species than cities with comparable biogeographic conditions which are heavily urbanised to the city edge. Fourth, it is doubtful if the indicators reflect the goals and realities of spatial planning adequately. For example, housing and transport are vital requirements in urban agglomerations which cannot be achieved without some fragmentation of natural and semi-natural habitats. Therefore, while fragmentation is certainly a good quality indicator in rural areas it is questionable if this also holds for urbanised regions. Similarly for ecosystem services assessments are needed of which ecosystem services ought to be

128

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 7.2a The old water tower, a relic of former urban industrial use and today a widely visible landmark. Source: Birgit Seitz.

provided in urban agglomerations and which are more efficiently provided outside cities.

A practical case study of biodiversity evaluation: the former railyard ‘Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde’ in Berlin The ‘Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde’ is part of a former freight railyard on the southern edge of Berlin’s inner city.41 Railway use ceased in 1952 and nature then took over. In 1999 parts of the site became legally protected according to nature conservation law. In terms of conservation management, there is a range of attributes that are important on this site. Importantly, it brings together rare and threatened species and habitats, wildness areas and former railyard structures, all of which contribute to cultural and aesthetic values (Figures 7.2a –7.2c). According to the item conservation approach, a special conservation focus is placed here on insects of open habitats and on several rare hawkweed (Hieracium) species of dry grasslands.42 Without human intervention the

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY

129

Figure 7.2b Combination of former and present use: the old railway tracks determine the location of footpaths. In the background, a tunnel as an arts installation. Source: Birgit Seitz.

Su¨dgela¨nde would develop entirely into woodland in quite a short time. Indeed, woody vegetation – mainly the birch and non-native black locust nearly doubled in its extent between 1981 and 1991 and now covers some 70 per cent of the overall area.43 This process of wildness development at the Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde is regarded as valuable for two main reasons. First, experiencing the dynamics of nature and recapture of a former urban-industrial site is valued for its aesthetic quality. Second, these natural processes have also enhanced the site’s historical value, which is not only linked to its original (pre-industrial) condition, but also to the period of its use as a railyard which are manifest in its traces of age (‘ageing value’). Remnants of that railway history are still visible at the Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde and selected railway relics such as a signal and a locomotive turntable have been restored. Beyond that, art works have been added, presenting a ‘creative tension’ with the developing wildness as well as with the relics of the railway.44 Alongside the consideration of different biodiversity values, the Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde is an extraordinary example of biodiversity and cultural qualities in an urban context.

130

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 7.2c A forest of black locust trees, an example of wildness on a heavily human-altered site. Source: Birgit Seitz.

Conclusions This chapter has shown how the human influence in cities is reflected in their particular biodiversity, which differs significantly from that of surrounding landscapes. Beside typical urban biodiversity, in most cities there are remnants of historical natural and cultural landscapes. Goals regarding urban biodiversity conservation should focus on the conservation of typical urban ecosystems as an expression of urban history and actual sustainable use and on the protection of remnants of near-pristine and historical cultural parts of the landscape. Moreover, urban biodiversity should contribute to genetic diversity, and species and habitat richness beyond the local urban scales. A focus on ‘native biodiversity’ as expressed in the City Biodiversity Index risks ignoring the complete spectrum of environmental values. For example, the value of urban nature emerging on profoundly altered sites or on sites shaped by horticulture would not adequately be addressed.45 Instead, the author advocates an approach based on human-shaped biodiversity for the urban context. Thus, the whole range

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY

131

of urban nature should be recognised in evaluations. This is clearly in line with underlying conservation values and would strengthen the acceptance and applicability of evaluation procedures.

Acknowledgements I thank Chris Gossop for commenting on an earlier version of the chapter and carefully editing the manuscript. Many thanks to Birgit Seitz for providing the figures of the distribution of Holosteum umbellatum and Dysphania botrys in Berlin.

Notes 1. United Nations, ‘Convention on biological diversity (CBD)’ (1992), http://www.cbd.int/ doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf, accessed 12 June 2013. 2. E.g., J. J. Miller and R. J. Hobbs, ‘Conservation where people live and work’, Conservation Biology, 16 (2002): 330– 7; M. A. Goddard, A. J. Dougill and T. G. Benton, ‘Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25 (2010): 90–8. 3. R. Hassan, R. Scholes and N. Ash (eds), Ecosystems and Human Well-being (Washington, 2005). 4. R. A. Fuller, K. N. Irvine, P. Devine-Wright, P. H. Warren and K. J. Gaston, ‘Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity’, Biology Letters, 3 (2007): 390 – 4; R. Mitchell and F. Popham, ‘Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61 (2007): 681– 3. 5. W. J. V. Neill, Urban Planning and Cultural Identity (London, 2004). 6. A. Jorgensen and M. Tylecote, ‘Ambivalent landscapes – Wilderness in the urban interstices’, Landscape Research, 32 (2007): 443– 62. 7. Some definitions of the term ‘intrinsic value’ imply that there are absolute values independent of human cognition. For our purposes this understanding is too restrictive. 8. E.g., B. G. Norton, ‘Why I am not a nonanthropocentrist – Callicott and the failure of monistic inherentism’, Environmental Ethics, 17 (1995): 341 – 58, K. McShane, ‘Why environmental ethics shouldn’t give up on intrinsic value’, Environmental Ethics, 29 (2007): 43 – 61. 9. R. S. de Groot, R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein and L. Willemen, ‘Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making’, Ecological Complexity 7 (2010): 260 – 72. 10. W. Rees and M. Wackernagel, ‘Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable – And why they are a key to sustainability’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16 (1996): 223– 48. 11. A. Balmford, P. Crane, A. Dobson, R. E. Green and G. M. Mace, ‘The 2010 challenge: Data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360 (2005): 221 – 8.

132

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

12. P. Balvanera, C. Kremen and M. Martı´nez-Ramos, ‘Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem function: Examples from pollination and carbon storage’, Ecological Applications, 15 (2005): 360– 75. 13. L. Lebel, P. Garden, R. N. Banaticla, et al., ‘Integrating carbon management into the development strategies of urbanizing regions in Asia – Implications of urban function, form, and role’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11 (2007): 61 –81. 14. Balmford et al., ‘The 2010 challenge’: 221– 8; de Groot, ‘Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services’: 260– 72. 15. P. Pysˇek, Z. Chocholousˇkova´, A. Pysˇek, V. Jarosˇı´k, M. Chytry´ and L. Tichy´, ‘Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades’, Journal of Vegetation Science, 15 (2004): 781– 8. 16. H. Sukopp, W. Kunick, M. Runge and F. Zacharias, ‘O¨kologische Charakteristik von Großsta¨dten, dargestellt am Beispiel Berlins’, Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fu¨r O¨kologie, 2 (1973): 383 – 403. 17. R. Wittig, D. Diesing and M. Go¨dde, ‘Urbanophob – Urbanoneutral – Urbanophil. Das Verhalten der Arten gegenu¨ber dem Lebensraum Stadt’, Flora, 177 (1985): 265–82. 18. B. Seitz, M. Ristow, R. Prasse, B. Machatzi, G. Klemm, R. Bo¨cker and H. Sukopp, ‘Der Berliner Florenatlas’, Verh. Bot. Ver. Berlin Brandenburg, Beiheft, 7 (2012). 19. E. A. Forys and C. R. Allen, ‘The impacts of sprawl on biodiversity: the ant fauna of the lower Florida Keys’, Ecology and Society, 10 (2005), Article Number: 25; K. Beardsley, J. H. Thorne, N. E. Roth, S. Gao and M. C. Mccoy, ‘Assessing the influence of rapid urban growth and regional policies on biological resources’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 93 (2009): 172 – 83. 20. J. D. Olden and T. P. Rooney, ‘On defining and quantifying biotic homogenization’, Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15 (2006): 113– 20. 21. H. Sukopp, ‘Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68 (2004): 347– 55. 22. Neophytic species are non-native species, introduced after 1492 (when Columbus landed in the Americas). 23. S. Zerbe, U. Maurer, S. Schmitz and H. Sukopp, ‘Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 62 (2003): 139 – 48. 24. Sukopp, ‘Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation’: 347 – 55; Pysˇek, ‘Trends in species diversity’: 781– 8. 25. I. Ku¨hn, R. Brandl and S. Klotz, ‘The flora of German cities is naturally species rich’, Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6 (2004): 749– 64. 26. Zerbe, ‘Biodiversity in Berlin’: 139– 48. 27. M. L. McKinney, ‘Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization’, Biological Conservation, 127 (2006): 247– 60. 28. R. Wittig, U. Becker and S. Nawrath, ‘Grassland loss in the vicinity of a highly prospering metropolitan area from 1867/68 to 2000 – The example of the Taunus (Hesse, Germany) and its Vorland’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 95 (2010): 175 – 80. 29. J. O’ Neill, A. Holland and A. Light, Environmental Values (Abingdon, 2008). 30. G. F. McIsaac and M. Bru¨n, ‘Natural Environments and Human Culture: Defining Terms and Understanding Worldviews’, Journal of Environmental Quality, 28 (1999): 1 – 10. 31. This nature conservation approach is sometimes called ‘preservationism’ (B. A. Minteer and E. A. Corley, ‘Conservation or preservation? A qualitative study of the conceptual foundations of natural resource management’, Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 20 (2007): 307– 33.

THE EVALUATION OF URBAN BIODIVERSITY

133

32. The concept is related to the concept of hemeroby which is defined as an ‘integral expression of the sum of those effects of past and present human activities on the current site conditions or vegetation, which prevent the development to a final stage’ (I. Kowarik, ‘Some responses of flora and vegetation to urbanization in Central Europe’, in H. Sukopp, S. Hejny and I. Kowarik (eds), Plants and Plant Communities in the Urban Environment (The Hague, 1990), p 58). Hence, this definition determines naturalness as the ability of a system’s self-regulation (cf. I. Kowarik, ‘Natu¨rlichkeit, Naturna¨he und Hemerobie als Bewertungskriterien’, in W. Konold, R. Bo¨cker and U. Hampicke, U. (eds), Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. (Landsberg, 1999), pp. 1 – 18). But self-regulation (without human interference) is only one aspect of natural processes. It does not consider processes leading to this state of self-regulation. For example, tree plantations can reach more quickly a state of self-regulation than ecosystems developing by natural succession. Further, the paradigm of natural processes assumes that a final stage of ecosystem does not exist, as those processes keep the ecosystem in flux. 33. O’Neill et al., Environmental Values. 34. Ulrich Heink, ‘Representativeness – An appropriate criterion for evaluation in nature conservation?’, Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 18 (2009), pp. 322 – 30. 35. O’Neill et al., Environmental Values. 36. Following up on this proposal an index on cities’ biodiversity was developed which was subsequently called ‘The Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity’ by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity because of the leadership of Singapore in its development. 37. OECD, ‘Core Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use’ (Paris, 2003). 38. See the many examples of risks and benefits of non-native species in I. Kowarik, ‘Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation’, Environmental Pollution, 159 (2011): 1974– 83. 39. U. Heink and I. Kowarik, ‘What criteria should be used to select biodiversity indicators?’, Biodiversity and Conservation, 19 (2010): 3769– 97. 40. The Expert Workshop on the Development of the City Biodiversity Index 2010, ‘User’s Manual for the City Biodiversity Index’, http://www.cbd.int/authorities/doc/User’s% 20Manual-for-the-City-Biodiversity-Index27Sept2010.pdf. 41. I. Kowarik and A. Langer, ‘Natur-Park Su¨dgela¨nde: Linking conservation and recreation in an abandoned railyard in Berlin’, in I. Kowarik & S. Ko¨rner (eds), Wild Urban Woodlands: New perspectives for Urban Forestry (Berlin, Heidelberg 2005), pp. 287 – 99. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid.

CHAPTER 8 TRANSFORMING THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EMISSIONS Douglas Mulhall and Michael Braungart

The main challenge of CO2 is psychological. The potential for large-scale re-use of CO2 and other climate change emissions has been known for years but regulators, industries and environmentalists are so focused on CO2 reduction schemes that they are missing one of the great opportunities of our era. No-one is to be blamed for this oversight, but rather it is time for us together to grasp the potential by transforming the psychology. For example, as early as 2007 agencies of the US Government were publishing studies showing that at least half the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel generating facilities1 could be profitably captured and re-used to grow algae for biofuel, at a cost of $28 per barrel or less than half of the then world crude oil price.2 In 2011, a study by scientists in India calculated that similar technologies would be able to capture and reuse 100 per cent of CO2 emissions by fossilfuel power plants.3 In 2013 another study concluded that algae biofuel can reduce CO2 emissions by 50– 70 per cent compared to petroleum.4 The estimates of those studies are probably conservative on the overall potential for CO2 re-use because they exclude the potential of using CO2 for a range of large-scale applications like energy storage and generation, and topsoil manufacturing. The potential for CO2 re-use is so great that Dr James Von Ehr, head of the nanotechnology company Zyvex, noted at a conference attended by the authors in 20085 that in the future environmentalists will complain that firms extract too much CO2 from the air to manufacture their products and that the results are likely to freeze the Earth.

TRANSFORMING

THE

PSYCHOLOGY

OF

EMISSIONS

135

Of course, this is not too popular with environmentalists. However, Dr Von Ehr was quite serious and, even if this seems to be an absurd premise and perhaps dangerous, the question makes us think, what does he mean?

The traditional challenge Our reality is the following: Countries such as China and India do not love global warming but they see economic growth as a priority and they are delaying the CO2 challenge until later, in the hope that technology will solve the problem. Countries such as Canada and Russia in truth want global warming because it opens the northern waterways for shipment and it opens the north to exploitation. For example, ships can shave more than a week from their trips to the Far East using the northern passages. Due to those inconvenient realities the traditional emissions challenge presents an impassable contradiction for environmentalists, and for Europe which is leading the emissions reduction efforts: . . .

Climate ambition: reduce emissions! Ambition of resource-rich and emerging economies: support industries which are a source of massive emissions to improve the standard of living! Conclusion: economic ambitions contradict climate ambitions.

As a result of those impasses at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, Poland in 2013, the world began to abandon the concept that it is possible to limit emissions of CO2, and began instead to prepare for adapting to climate change – an approach entrenched in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, where countries opted for non-binding reduction targets while encouraging adaptation expenditures.

The positive solution In the past decades various industries have been using CO2 profitably in ways which are not well known but which are basic chemistry. These give us new solutions if applied in other industries and scaled up. The applications currently being used in several industries are based on the reuse of CO2; not only the capture of CO2 which is already well known but the reuse for products and processes as well as the production and storage of energy.

136

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

To be clear, it is important also to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adopting renewable energy and other beneficial technologies. However, the reuse of CO2 will provide the missing ingredient; it will speed the take up and boost the efficiency of renewable energy as well as give us the margin of manoeuvre to scale up new technologies. Reuse of CO2 is not an excuse to do less, but rather a tool to make more with positive results. The potential of the approach is far-reaching: . . .

Climate ambition: reuse emissions! Ambition of emerging economies, rich in resources: reuse emissions to develop economic activity! Conclusion: economic ambitions support climate ambitions!

CO2: the potential The use of CO2 as an industrial chemical is nothing new. The following profitable practices are already in place: . . . . .

manufacture of products; agri-food production; cleaning; improving energy production; improving energy storage.

Nor is it a secret. The CO2 revolution is accelerating in a broad movement across Europe, North America and Asia. Dozens of international conferences have taken place since 2008. Hundreds of studies have been published and in 2013 a new scientific journal on the reuse of the CO2 was launched.6

Why reuse CO2? There is strong practical justification for the reuse of CO2, based on the new potential created by human technology. While comparatively rare in nature (albeit sufficiently abundant in the atmosphere to act as the main greenhouse gas), in human technology it is plentiful and concentrated. It is therefore a good industrial chemical with valuable properties: . . .

it is a safe chemical substance which replaces toxic substances; it is an agricultural nutrient; profitable uses are already possible and new technologies are accelerating

TRANSFORMING

THE

PSYCHOLOGY

OF

EMISSIONS

137

The path from CO2 capture and storage to capture and use The profitability of CO2 reuse is already established in several industries. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries captures CO2 in a cost-effective way from the flue gases at the outlets of refineries (notably in Bahrain, Vietnam and Japan) and uses it for the production of urea fertiliser. In Vietnam since 2009 the company has captured and used the CO2 to produce tens of thousands of tonnes of urea per year.7 Other profitable areas for CO2 reuse include air conditioning, as dry ice for cooling, for caffeine extraction by coffee and tea manufacturers, and in the production of the multi-use chemical, sodium carbonate.

Supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) The supercritical state is a state which is neither liquid nor gas at a pressure greater than 74 bar and a temperature above 31˚C. At this level, S-CO2 has special properties, the ecological strengths of which are undeniable: . . . . . . . .

S-CO2 is chemically inert, natural and non-toxic. It thus replaces many solvents subject to increasingly severe regulations; it has a low temperature of use; it extracts and refines other materials without residual solvents; its power as a solvent is adjustable depending on the pressure and temperature; it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect when it is used in a closed circuit, and it is extractable in a closed circuit; it has the power of penetration of a gas and the extraction capacity of a liquid; it leaves no trace residual on treated materials; it has a large diffusive potential and a high density that makes it transportable.

Specific applications One example of use in the business to consumer (B2C) marketplace is the Dualwashw dishwasher. When the wash cycle begins, the cycle of carbon dioxide is activated, and S-CO2 is pumped to the cleaning chamber. S-CO2 has a low surface tension which means it spreads quickly, broadly covering all surfaces.8 At present in the textile industry, to dye a kilo of textile needs 100–150 litres of water depending on the type of fabric. According to some estimates,

Biobased Feedstock

Nutrients for biomass to be processed into biobased feedstock

OR

Capture of CO2 point source1 emissions. Conversion to technosphere feedstock for manufacturing, energy generaon & storage

Point Source Emissions from Diverse Sources

CO2 Chemical Leasing for Solvents, Lubricants & Energy

CO2 Technical Cycle is a Carbon Sink

CO2 & Biobased Feedstock for Recyclable Materials

CO2 for Energy Generaon & Storage4

TECHNOSPHERE

Biobased feedstock used to manufacture technical cycle materials

Capture of dispersed CO2 emissions with agriculture, algae3, & forestry then processed into biobased feedstock

Dispersed Emissions from Diverse Sources

CO2 Bio-Cycle is a Carbon Sink & Carbon Exchange

Biobased Fuels

Biobased Biodegradable Products2

Consumpon & Dispersion

Residues rebuild topsoil for agriculture & slow CO2 release

BIOSPHERE

------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

CO 2 AS A RESOURCE FOR THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Figure 8.1 CO2 as a chemical is adaptable for biological or technical cycles in the circular economy. In the biological cycle it is used as a nutrient for growing biomass. In the technical cycle it is used in closed loops as a solvent and for energy storage and generation. Commercially it is suitable for leasing schemes like rent-a-solvent which is commonplace today, based on the Cradle to Cradle Design Protocol. NOTES (see also colour version at Plate 5b): 1. Point source capture utilises industrial and agro-industrial processes. Atmospheric capture utilises natural & agro-industrial processes. Synthetic photosynthesis might lead to large-scale industrial capture without those intermediary processes. 2. Biodegradable products are designed to be consumed then the residues used as topsoil components which sequester CO2, or conversely are dispersed into the environment where they decompose & release CO2 as part of the carbon exchange bio-cycle. 3. Studies by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Pienkos 2007) suggest algae have rapid scale-up potential for CO2 re-use when integrated with processes like wastewater purification to make them more economic. 4. CO2 replaces gas and other fuels to drive turbines which generate electricity used for industry. CO2 phase change & chemistry is used to store energy. CO2 is also being used for artificial photosynthesis. 5. Materials in the technical cycle are recyclable continously. In practice there is leakage which is often recoverable by physical or chemical capture. Source: Illustrative Diagram q 2014 Mulhall, Hansen and Braungart.

140

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

upwards of 30 billion kilos of textiles per year are dyed requiring some 4,000 billion litres of water. In addition, during the process, countless chemicals are added which have serious consequences for the environment; according to the World Bank, the textile industry is responsible for 17–20 per cent of water pollution at the global scale.9 The technology of dyeing with CO2 begins to solve these problems. Dyecoo, a Dutch company has successfully pursued the CO2 based colouring of textiles without using water and companies such as Nike have adopted the technology.10 In yet another application, central banks are starting to use supercritical CO2 to clean money without damaging security features in the banknotes.11 Supercritical CO2 can be used as a propellant to operate turbines and also to store energy from wind and solar energy. It is therefore an accelerator of renewable energies and a business model to improve their economics. The resulting turbines can be: . . .

50 per cent more efficient than power plants using steam turbines; 40 per cent more efficient than power plants using gas turbines; 3 – 5 per cent of the usual size of turbines (20MW electricity for 4m3)

The level of investment in supercritical CO2 turbines is increasing rapidly. Investment in the United State rose to $500 million in the six years to 2013.

The effective potential Critics contend that despite the many profitable uses of CO2 its capture is still too expensive and will not consume sufficient emissions to make a difference. This is an inaccurate perception because the critics do not calculate the economies of integration. For example, the earlier referenced calculation by the US Government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory showing the ability to capture CO2 with algae that would generate biofuels is based on a calculation by Energy Biosciences Institute (University of California, Berkeley) that integrating the purification of wastewater by algae with the production of biofuels is feasible at a competitive cost compared to the perbarrel price of crude oil despite the recent drop in oil price. In addition, and based on the same technologies, the earlier-referenced calculation by researchers in India shows that India could become selfsufficient in oil by using 100 per cent of emissions of CO2 from thermal electricity generators to produce bio-fuels from algae. The difference between the US and India calculations is due to the high solar intensity across India.

TRANSFORMING

THE

PSYCHOLOGY

OF

EMISSIONS

141

Figure 8.1 shows the diverse ways in which CO2 is used as a resource, and how this might develop into a systematic solution for the economy. Those estimates do not include the many examples described above for the reuse of CO2 for industrial processes and the products that are already in the market.

CO2 is a resource, not a diabolical enemy The examples presented here describe how carbon dioxide could be the basis for a CO2 economy with positive impacts on the environment, health and the overall economy, as opposed to the prevailing strategy where we just try to minimize our negative impacts. The reuse of CO2 is not the only way to solve the climate challenge, but it will give us valuable time to transform our industrial society and move it in that new direction. Using for example the ‘Cradle to Cradle’ design protocol that puts the emphasis on positive impacts, industry and governments will be able to re-use CO2 for a circular economy, instead of only capturing CO2 and perpetuating the old paradigms of energy from fossil fuels. Among the other gains are to replace toxic substances, renew agriculture, and accelerate renewable energy, as well as maximise the effectiveness of old energy technologies instead of building more plants based on fossil fuels. The fastest way to take advantage of these positive impacts is to change our perception of CO2 from that of a diabolical substance to a beneficial resource.

Notes 1. P. T. Pienkos, ‘The potential for biofuels from algae’, National Renewable Energy Laboratory National Bioenergy Center, Algae Biomass Summit San Francisco, CA, 15 November 2007. 2. T. J. Lundquist, I. C. Woertz, N. W. T. Quinn, and J. R. Beneman, ‘A realistic technology and engineering assessment of algae biofuel production’, Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California Berkeley, CA, October 2010, p. ix. 3. H. N. Chanakya, Durga Madhab Mahapatra, R. Sarada, and R. Abitha, ‘Algal biofuel production and mitigation potential in India’, Mitigation & Adaptation Stategies for Global Climate Change, 18 (2013): 113–36. 4. X. Liua, B. Saydahb, P. Erankia, L. M. Colosia, B. Greg Mitchell, J. Rhodes, A. F. Clarensa, ‘Pilot-scale data provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions profile of algae biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction’, Bioresource Technology, 148 (2013): 163– 71. 5. One of the authors was attending a presentation by Dr von Ehr at a membership meeting of the Foresight Institute for advancing beneficial nanotechnology www.foresight.org 6. The Journal of CO2 Utilisation, http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-CO2utilization/. 7. An Overview of Re-use and Application of CO2 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ronald Mitchell, Manager Business Development Environmental & Chemical Plant Project Department, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd, July 2010.

142

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

8. Earthtechling, ‘A Waterless Dishwasher You’ll Never Have to Empty’ (2010), http:// earthtechling.com/2012/09/a-waterless-dishwasher-youll-never-have-to-empty/. 9. C. Parvath et al., ‘Environmental impacts of textile industries’, Indian Textile Journal, November (2009), http://www.indiantextilejournal.com/articles/FAdetails.asp?id¼2420; V. Zaffalon, ‘Climate change, carbon mitigation and textiles’, Textile World, July/August (2010), http://www.textileworld.com/Articles/2010/July/July_August_issue/ Features/Climate_Change_Carbon_Mitigation_In_Textiles.htm. 10. Nike, ‘Nike, Inc. Announces Strategic Partnership to Scale Waterless Dyeing Technology’ (2012), http://nikeinc.com/news/nike-inc-announces-strategic-partnershi p-to-scale-waterless-dyeing-technology. 11. Central Banking, ‘Central Banks Test Dry Ice Banknote Cleaning Technology’, http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking/news/2351623/central-banks-test-dryice-banknote-cleaning-technology.

PART III URBAN SUSTAINABILITY — BEST PRACTICES

CHAPTER 9 WATER AND THE CITY:CANALS AND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AS TOOLS FOR A SUSTAINABLE POST-INDUSTRIAL CITY — ASSESSING BEST PRACTICES Ian Douglas

Summary Urban land, water and infrastructure that is no longer used for freight transport provide abundant opportunities for urban regeneration that changes the dynamics and appearance of cities, creating new opportunities of urban living, work and play. Former dock area redevelopments in England range from the re-use of old warehouses, as at Liverpool’s Albert Dock, to the creation of major financial precincts as at Canary Wharf in London. Across Europe, numerous cities have changed their image by developing striking waterfront features, such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain and the Imperial War Museum North and The Lowry arts centre, in Greater Manchester, England. As this chapter details, canalside and dockland developments succeed through a combination of: government support, such as the enterprise zone and development corporation initiatives in the UK; public and private sector partnerships, such as those leveraged by Salford City Council; municipal encouragement of developers to take up the waterfront regeneration challenge; the seizure of opportunities for the provision of leisure facilities and building a city’s image; maximising the ecosystem service benefits of canals and other waterways and; being able to benefit from rising land values and property prices. By contrast, problems have arisen: from the need to remove contamination and maintain water quality; from unsympathetic developments that fit uncomfortably into the surrounding area; from the absence of appropriate planning and financing mechanisms and; through inadequate public transport access from the outset. Nevertheless, waterfronts in Europe are now

146

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

important elements in urban redevelopment and a highly effective reuse of brownfield land and redundant water spaces.

Introduction A key element of sustainability is the reuse of resources: the notion that there is no such thing as waste, only ‘experienced resources’. In post-industrial cities there is often a large amount of used land, water and infrastructure whose original raison d’eˆtre has been lost. Prominent among these experienced resources are waterways, warehouses and wharves whose cranes and railway lines may no longer be relevant but whose water and infrastructure provide abundant opportunities for urban redevelopment and regeneration. This chapter examines how these urban resources have been re-valued and used to change the dynamics and appearance of many cities, creating new opportunities for urban living, work and play (Figure 9.1). This reformulation of the functions of rivers and canals in cities is a stepchange from their role as essentially a transport mechanism to a role as essentially a landscape and real estate asset. For the first 70 years of the UK’s Industrial Revolution after 1760, canals provided innovative bulk transport of raw materials and manufactured goods to and from industrial and commercial centres. Most of these canals continued to carry commercial traffic until the 1970s, when the advent of the standard container for domestic and international

Figure 9.1 The old commercial wharves along the Douro in Porto, Portugal, have been adapted to provide a wealth of leisure facilities for both residents and visitors.

WATER

AND THE

CITY

147

trade changed the logistics of commerce and industry. Shorter and narrower canals were abandoned, but international freight transport on the world’s major rivers, such as the Rhine and Danube in Europe, has remained important. Cities have long had their waterways as central features of their landscapes, whether it be the Seine in Paris, the East River in New York, or the Huangpu and associated Bund in Shanghai. However, changes in shipping have given rise to the abandonment of many docks and the creation of new urban landscapes, from the reuse of old warehouses, as at the Albert Dock in Liverpool, in Leith, Scotland (Figure 9.2) and at the Rocks and Darling Harbour in Sydney, Australia, to the creation of whole new commercial precincts as at Canary Wharf in London, and at Media City UK in Salford (Figure 9.3), Greater Manchester. New residential and commercial opportunities have arisen by changing the use of buildings and water, as along the Singapore River, adjacent to the commercial heart of the Lion City. From being the backdoors to cities, canal banks and river wharves have become major foci for twenty-first century urban regeneration. Throughout the world, cities have endeavoured to change their image by developing striking waterfront features, such as the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain and, in Greater Manchester, the Imperial War Museum North (Figure 9.4) and The Lowry arts centre (Figure 9.8). This architectural creation of urban spectacle contributes to city image building

Figure 9.2 The redeveloped dock waterfront at Leith, Edinburgh, Scotland, a blend of restoration and new building.

148

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 9.3 Media City, Salford Quays, Greater Manchester. Source: photo by Maureen Douglas.

and to local economic revival.1 In the Ruhr region of Germany, the New River Banks Project involves 17 towns in refurbishing their waterfronts along the industrially degraded Emscher Canal.2 In England, one of the earliest canalside cultural redevelopments was the Wigan Pier project, with the Wigan Pier Heritage Centre, the town’s colourful market, elegant shops, attractive pubs and canalside walkways providing an attractive package for visitors.3

Figure 9.4 The Imperial War Museum North on the Manchester Ship Canal, Trafford Wharf, Greater Manchester.

WATER

AND THE

CITY

149

Parts of some canals have also become fashionable residential areas. For over 100 years, Little Venice, a canal basin on the Grand Union Canal at Paddington, London, has been a desirable residential address. Today the nearby Paddington Basin, where coal and building materials were once brought in to the city, is the site of a large development of offices and apartments marketed at a premium for its waterfront location. Few people would once have thought that this and other formerly disregarded canal wharves across London could have become so sought after, or that Camden’s canalside market would become such a key visitor attraction.4 In today’s London, the property speculators have been largely replaced by real residents, and bars, shops and gyms have opened, promoting a sense of community. At Canary Wharf, where many major financial institutions have new high-rise offices, flats around London’s former West India Docks cost more than comparable properties on the river frontage. Prices vary with the nature of the apartment itself, the character of the surrounding area, distance from the city centre and the ease of commuting to major business centres. Table 9.1 compares residential prices in London with those of comparably located areas elsewhere in England. As part of an international city with high property values, London’s waterfront areas such as the Paddington Basin and Canary Wharf are much more expensive than, for example, those of the waterside suburbs of Greater Manchester (Figures 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7).

Reasons for the success of many canalside and other waterfront developments (a) Government initiatives: development corporations in England Canary Wharf was planned as a second location for the finance houses of the City of London, 5 km away. It is built around the former West India Docks, across the neck of a major meander loop of the River Thames known formerly as the Isle of Dogs. Key factors prompting the redevelopment were the loss of 18,000 dock-related jobs between 1966 and 1981, poor transport facilities and large areas of derelict land. In 1981 the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was established by the UK Government to secure the regeneration of the area. A year later the Government created an enterprise zone in the Isle of Dogs, enabling developers to enjoy rate rebates, a simplified planning regime and tax benefits. The LDDC undertook many infrastructure projects to improve road access, sewers and public transport to make the area more attractive to investors. The Docklands Light Railway was built to link the City to Canary Wharf, and to London City Airport on the former Royal Docks a further 5 km to the east;

Modern house Three bedroom duplex apartment Three bedroom apartment Two bedroom apartment One bedroom apartment Studio apartment Two bedroom apartment One bedroom apartment Three bedroom apartment Two bedroom apartment One bedroom apartment Two bedroom apartment Two bedroom apartment Two bedroom apartments

Bridge Lock Mews Granary Wharf King Edwards Wharf Waterside Court Gas Street Basin King Edwards Wharf (near Brindleyplace) Waters Edge Waterfront Plaza Timber Wharf Castlefield New Islington-Chips Building New Islington-Chips Building Marland Way, Stretford Sale, Bridgewater Canal

Source: the author.

Birmingham Birmingham Stourport Nottingham Manchester Manchester Manchester Manchester Trafford, Greater Manchester Trafford, Greater Manchester

Uxbridge (in London commuter belt) Hemel Hempstead (in London commuter belt) Widcombe, nr. Bath Leeds Birmingham

250m penthouse Two bedroom apartment One bedroom apartment Three bedroom apartment One bedroom atrium apartment Three bedroom apartment Three bedroom apartment Two bedroom apartment

Canary Wharf Canary Wharf Bow Paddington Camden Camden King’s Mill Way Nash Mills Wharf

London

2

Type of property

Location

City

385 450 565 250 155 105 140 110 475 350 115 140 130 170

3,000 1,000 330 1,250 900 1,100 600 305

Price (£,000)

Table 9.1 Prices of residential properties in various locations on canals and waterfronts in England in January 2016 (compiled from estate agents listings – UK pounds, £000).

WATER

AND THE

CITY

151

Figure 9.5 Flats overlooking the Bridgewater Canal adjoin the Metrolink tram station at Sale, Greater Manchester. In January 2016 they cost from £60,000 to £200,000 depending on size.

that airport which opened in 1987, has made business flights to mainland Europe much easier. By 1988, an initial £441 million of government funding had attracted £4,400 million of private investment.5 By the time the LDDC closed in 1998, total public expenditure had reached £5,725 million (Table 9.2), with some £7,200 million of private investment.6 Of the public money, £2,365 million was spent on the extension

Figure 9.6 Houses and apartments that in January 2016 retailed at £120,000 to £240,000 along the Bridgewater Canal at Sale, Greater Manchester.

152

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 9.7 Apartment buildings on the dockside at Salford Quays, Greater Manchester, retailing in January 2016 at £150,000 to £300,000.

of the Jubilee Line, part of the London Underground rail network, linking London’s fashionable West End to Canary Wharf and then Stratford, where it now connects with the Eurostar rail service to Brussels and Paris. In this way, Canary Wharf became even more accessible, not only to the financial world, but also to politicians and the fashionable elite. It was the financial boom decade from 1998 to 2008 that saw Canary Wharf become fully established and act as a motor for further waterfront development in other parts of London’s former docks (Plate 5a). In 2005, the 2012 Olympic Games was awarded to London, triggering a massive redevelopment of part of the Lee River Valley some 7 km north of Canary Wharf. Here advantage was taken of the waterfront to create a riverside park, carefully designed to maximise biodiversity. ‘The Fat Walk’ is now the backbone of the Lee Valley Park; this is a stretch of linear greenspace connecting the River Thames at East India Dock Basin to the Olympic Park, the former Games area. People are now able to walk or cycle 40 km from the Basin, and along the Lee Valley, as far as Ware in Hertfordshire. Some 2.5 km2 of new parklands, created from former industrial land by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), contain several thousand semi-mature trees, over 300,000 wetland plants and nectar-rich annual and perennial meadows designed and sown to flower during the London 2012 Games. More trees and plants were added to the open spaces after the Games.

WATER Table 9.2

AND THE

CITY

153

Public expenditure for London Docklands regeneration.

Expenditure Transportation Schemes: Roads to Dockland Docklands Light Railway Underground (Jubilee Line extension) Other minor transport schemes Sub-total Other Expenses: Land Acquisition Land Reclamation Utilities Environmental Social Housing Community and Industry Support Promotion and Publicity Administration and Maintenance Sub-total Total Expenditure

£ (m)

£ (m)

1,411 684 2,365 45 4,505 187 157 159 149 163 117 27 261 1,220 5,725

Source: Leung and Hui 2005.7

Regeneration of the docks and canals of Greater Manchester began in 1988 through action by the Central Manchester Urban Development Corporation (CMDC). Initially old warehouses were converted into apartments and at Castlefield where the Rochdale, Bridgewater and Manchester Ship canals join one another, new development has occurred, bringing offices, small cultural and creative businesses and restaurants to the area. By the time the remit of the CMDC ended in 1966, private investment was funding all new residential developments.8 The inner city property market took off and was highly successful until the financial crisis of 2008. From the three-and four-storey apartment buildings of the early 1990s, developments rose to ten storeys and culminated in 2006 with the completion of the 47 storey Beetham Tower; this contains a major hotel, 219 luxury apartments and 16 penthouses. Following a decline in construction activity from 2008 to 2012, new construction resumed in 2013. (b) Public and private sector partnership Three km to the west, down the Manchester Ship Canal from Castlefield, the Salford Docks closed forever in 1982, and by 1985 local unemployment had risen to 30 per cent. In this period, Salford City Council was already working

154

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

with the private sector in redeveloping old tenement flats. With the agreement of the former Department of the Environment it purchased the docks and engaged private entrepreneurs and developers in a phased programme of regeneration. Acquiring some 90 ha of docks from the Manchester Ship Canal Company the Council agreed with a developer to transfer land around Dock 6 to private ownership conditional upon £4.5 million of private development being secured. Meanwhile, derelict land funding from the Government’s Urban Programme enabled land reclamation, landscaping, road building and the provision of new services. Eventually further support for a £106 million development, including the art galleries and theatres of The Lowry (Figure 9.8) and a lifting footbridge across the ship canal, was obtained from the National Lottery, the European Regional Development Fund and other sources. Since the 1980s residential development at Salford Quays has proceeded successfully but some of the early office buildings still have vacant space after two decades of operation. Originally transport links were criticised, but a new Metrolink tram line built through the area in 2000 gave rapid access to the centre of Manchester and to residential areas in Salford and Eccles. The lesson of the need for good transport was well learnt. The new Media City UK, opened in 2010 as a centre for creative and digital businesses (Figure 9.3), had its own Metrolink station in place in time for the arrival of one key occupant, the BBC. Media City UK is part of an 81 ha site owned and managed by the Peel Group,

Figure 9.8

The Lowry arts centre, Salford Quays, Greater Manchester.

WATER

AND THE

CITY

155

but being developed in partnership with Salford City Council, the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company and a former regional development agency. Successful projects such as Media City illustrate the importance of government support in many waterfront developments in the UK. The key role of landowners should also be emphasised. For example, the Peel Group has been a leading landowner and developer along the length of the Manchester Ship Canal, from Salford to the Mersey estuary at Liverpool. Its initiatives have varied from residential and commercial development to a football stadium and a biomass-burning power station. One of its key activities was the construction of Greater Manchester’s major out-of-town shopping centre, the Trafford Centre. Focal developments like this and Media City help to attract other developments and new investment. (c) Enticing developers to take up the challenge of waterfront development Waterfront urban regeneration in Chelmsford, Essex, England began when the derelict warehouses around a canal basin on the edge of the city centre began to be replaced by apartment buildings. The basin had been obscured from view by the structures around it and few realised its potential. In spite of repeated encouragement, the planning officers had found it difficult to interest developers in the site. Eventually, in 1997, a local housebuilder decided to build at one corner of the site. This was a development based on a standard dwelling type, comprising blocks of flats with a ‘T-shape’ plan. Great efforts were made by officers to negotiate sympathetic roof shapes and building materials, in this case brick and slate, in keeping with the historic period of the canal basin. This building form would not have been permitted had it been proposed a few years later but, at the time, officers were only too glad for a developer to take on the project and to accept some measure of aesthetic control. The flats sold surprisingly quickly and this led to an offer by a local entrepreneur to build a large restaurant on the opposite bank of the canal to the flats, incorporating an existing industrial building as its banqueting facilities. The proposal made full use of its water frontage and opened up a path along the canal bank. The outstanding commercial success of the restaurant, called Waterfront Place, demonstrated what could be achieved in a canal basin location. Then, buoyed up by the success of its first development, the original builder undertook a second development, following an architect-designed scheme tailored to the site.9 Overall, the initiatives by private developers were highly successful. (d) Leisure facilities and image-building Leisure activities are a prominent feature of many of the waterfront developments in Greater Manchester, from the cinema complexes at Salford Quays and the Trafford Centre, to the Waterside Arts Centre at Sale Town

156

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Hall on the Bridgewater Canal. They provide multi-functional attractions for both local residents and visitors from other parts of the urban region. In the case of Salford Quays, the iconic buildings and amenities of The Lowry (870,000 visitors a year) and the Imperial War Museum North (375,000 visitors) are attractions for the whole of the North of England. Manchester’s Canal Street (alongside the Rochdale Canal) is the centre of the City’s ‘gay village’, and one of the most popular socialising places in the central business district (CBD). The gay village emerged in the late 1980s when cheap property in the City’s decayed warehouse zone was converted and gradually grew into a long street of gay bars.10 On the other side of the city centre runs the River Irwell, long a navigable waterway, where the large Spinningfields redevelopment has river front restaurants, across the water from The Mark Addy, long one of Manchester’s most popular waterfront pubs but severely damaged by floods on 26 December 2015. Smaller developments too require striking themes and buildings to give them character and identity. To the north of Manchester’s CBD the New Islington development combines image building with clever branding to secure a change of culture over the medium to long term. An 1831 map shows that the area then contained a large coal wharf with a series of canal arms feeding the wharves. 180 years later, this area is undergoing a second phase of canal development to make water frontages for many of the new residences. A new canal running south from the Rochdale Canal provides moorings and blue and green spaces (Figure 9.9). Through a partnership between the Government’s Homes and Communities Agency, the highly innovative regeneration company Urban Splash, the Great Places Housing Group (provider of social housing), and the European Regional Development Fund, this 12 ha site is being transformed to provide 1,700 new homes, retail and leisure space, a new primary school and a health centre alongside an eco park. Developed in collaboration with local people, its first houses are of a design never seen before in Manchester. Gaily painted, they also feature patterned brickwork and balconies. Elsewhere, an iconic building, the colourful Chips, a new nine-storey block of 142 one-, two- and three-bedroom flats (Figure 9.10) compares in scale with the area’s surviving Victorian industrial structures. In terms of sustainability and public private partnerships, this project has been ambitious. It has proceeded more slowly than anticipated, in part because of the difficulty in bringing public and private funding streams together. The goal that the area should house a mixture of people from different income groups, different backgrounds and different occupations all living together remains to be achieved, but progress is being made. Slowed by the financial crisis the New Islington public realm works, including the canal additions, were operational in 2013; also, by that date, many of the new houses to rent had been completed (Figure 9.11).

Figure 9.9 The marina on the new canal in New Islington, Manchester. The restored Ancoats Mills along the Rochdale Canal are in the left background with new apartment buildings to the right.

Figure 9.10 The Chips Building alongside the Ashton Canal at New Islington, about 1 km from Manchester City Centre (Alsop Architects).

158

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Creating a new image guided the development of Edinburgh Quay in Scotland’s capital. This is a classic example of urban regeneration, bringing a decaying, neglected area back to life, expanding the business core of the city, and acting as a catalyst for the regeneration of the entire Fountainbridge area. It is also an example of ’place making’, involving the creation of a new public space enclosed by office, housing and leisure buildings, and arranged around the restored Lochrin Basin, the terminus of the Union Canal in Edinburgh. This is another public/private partnership enterprise pursued through a joint venture company, Edinburgh Quay Ltd, set up by Miller Developments and the former British Waterways Board (BWB). Part of its success is again due to a central city location, Lochrin Basin being where goods were once brought into Edinburgh by barge. (e) Maximising the biodiversity and environmental benefits of canals and other waterways Canals and other waterways serve a number of environmental and ecological functions. Through the paths and cycleways that are often associated with them, they can serve as transportation routes for pedestrians and cyclists, providing an alternative to the use of the car. As a result, vehicular traffic and accompanying air pollution are reduced.

Figure 9.11 ‘The Guts’: a new affordable housing development under construction in New Islington, Manchester.

WATER

AND THE

CITY

159

Moreover, these waterway routes and spaces can also enable wildlife to find connections between areas of their natural habitat that are rapidly being eroded by urbanisation.11 The preservation of biological diversity is an important goal of the environmental movement and the establishment of wildlife corridors is widely recognised as a way to both counteract habitat fragmentation and to encourage species diversity. A recent study of a 7 km urban stretch of the Leeds – Liverpool Canal found a high level of biodiversity with 138 species of flower, 28 bird species, and many animals, including water voles, a protected species in the UK.12 The green spaces along canals can be key components of urban green infrastructure and this function should not be neglected in planning the buildings and public realm of waterfront development (Figure 9.12). In this respect, there is a contrast between the comparative crowding of apartment buildings in the Castlefield –St George’s Island developments along the Manchester stretch of the Bridgewater Canal and the ecopark and greenspaces around the new water bodies in New Islington. In the context of climate change, it is likely that such greenspaces will be needed to help alleviate climatic extremes, to improve urban drainage, and to foster biodiversity, bringing advantages for the whole urban area. An excellent example of what can be done is the Emscher Park in the Ruhr area of Germany. In the regeneration of a former zone of heavy industry, a key

Figure 9.12 Dock redevelopment biodiversity: tree planting beside one of the older developments at Salford Quays.

160

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

goal was to clean up the Emscher River, which runs 70 km from east to west through the region. For decades, the river was regarded as a biologically dead ‘open sewer’, acting as a waste water canal since the end of the nineteenth century. With the cessation of coal mining, underground sewers carried waste away from the river allowing its return to a more natural condition. The river has been altered from a straight narrow concrete channel to follow a more natural, winding course, with trees and native plants along its banks; collectively, these steps have improved water quality as well as the ecosystem services in the area. Altogether, up to 2014, the process of river regeneration has required an investment of 4.4 billion euros. However, it has provided a highly visible symbol of positive change that should have lasting benefits for the Ruhr valley. The project planning considered costs, alternatives to the normal planning process, accessibility for the public and the need to increase woodland cover. Thus, among other actions, it cost effectively transformed urban areas of no further economic use to greenspaces of different types requiring minimal upkeep. It also considered landscape aesthetics and biodiversity by examining which plants and animals would survive on particular urban soils (including contaminated soils) and in diverse habitats. Attention was given to ‘industrial nature’ as a counterweight to ‘industrial culture’ and to making contact with nature in the city possible by creating or conserving accessible patches of natural vegetation or regrowth.13 The Emscher Park is a fine example of innovation and of recognising unique opportunities in a place full of challenges. Through its excellent planning and long-term vision Emscher Park will benefit not only its present residents but future generations as well.

Problems of canalside and other waterfront development (a) Preparing the site and environmental quality maintenance The UK Government’s National Planning Policy Framework favours ‘development that is sustainable’ especially the bringing of previously used (brownfield) land back into use. Managed effectively as a sustainable redevelopment scheme, brownfield sites provide affordable housing, create opportunities for employment, promote conservation and wildlife, and can offer a shared place for play and enjoyment. However, the costs of waterfront reclamation and redevelopment can be high, especially if new transport infrastructure and land reclamation are involved, as in the London Docklands redevelopment (Table 9.2). Indeed, so valuable is the land there that in 2014 it was even suggested that London City Airport should be closed as the economic benefits from real estate development would far exceed those from airport operations!14 Historical legacies from past industrial and domestic activities can pose continuing maintenance problems for waterfront developments. This is the

WATER

AND THE

CITY

161

case with the former docks along the Manchester Ship Canal; these are sited downstream of the confluence of the Rivers Irwell and Medlock, that formerly discharged a combination of domestic and industrial sewage overflows and road runoff to the canal. Because of the slow flows along the canal, highly polluted, organic-rich sediments were deposited in the dock basins and turning area resulting in a range of environmental problems, including watercolumn anoxia, sediment rafting, noxious-gas generation and metal mobilisation. On hot summer days the release of gas from the sediments became a sensitive problem threatening the attractiveness of the new waterside developments. New problems threatened in 1987 when the dock basins at Salford Quays were hydrologically isolated from the canal, to prevent the input of further contaminated sediment. However, the existing sediment was not removed from the basins and the anoxia remained. The remedy was to install Helixor pumps to release oxygen into the water column, thereby keeping the water well mixed. The resulting improvement in water quality has led to marked changes in the biology and sedimentology of the Salford Quays.15 Outside the enclosed basins the large turning area near The Lowry still received sediments from upstream. The problem of decomposition of the organic matter in the sediments and the release of gases during hot weather had to be tackled, as in the basins, by investing in a system of oxygen injection. Starting in 2001, 15 tonnes of oxygen were pumped each day into the water (Figure 9.13). When the equipment is turned on during hot periods, the dissolved oxygen in the water can increase by almost 300 per cent. By 2003 the number of invertebrate species had risen to more than 30, including the freshwater shrimp and species which cannot tolerate polluted environments. Fish, including roach and perch, have been found to be spawning and fish growth rates, particularly of roach, were among the highest anywhere in the country.16 While sewer overflows continue and while the organic matter-rich sediments remain on the bed of the canal, oxygen injection is a cost that has to be paid to overcome some of the hangover effects of the past 200 years of urban and industrial development upstream. It shows that even in the heart of this industrial area, environmental processes cannot be segregated from economic development and urban retailing, residential and leisure activities. (b) Development at an inappropriate scale and out of tune with the neighbourhood The magnitude of financing of waterfront redevelopment is most striking in prestige projects, such as London’s Canary Wharf and Olympic Park.

162

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 9.13 The equipment used to release oxygen into the waters of the Manchester Ship Canal turning basin at Salford Quays, Greater Manchester (this equipment was relocated in early 2014).

However, big money implies expensive living accommodation and prestige jobs coming to an area that may formerly have housed dock workers and other relatively poorly-paid workers. Thus there is a tendency for the immediately adjacent unemployed to be unable to find permanent jobs in such developments once construction has ceased. On the Isle of Dogs, many of the new jobs involved the transfer of firms from elsewhere in London, bringing skilled workers with them. The LDDC was criticised for promoting outsiders’ interests rather than concentrating on the needs of local people for jobs and homes. The waterfront complex thus risks becoming ‘an island of wealth in a surrounding sea of poverty’. This process of gentrification can lead to the disappearance of ‘traditional’ high street shops and services and their replacement by ‘trendy’ retail outlets aimed at a different clientele.17 At a conference on urban regeneration best practices in Manchester in 2002, Ken Knott, Chief Executive of ASK Property Developments, said: ‘The Anchorage at Salford Quays, on the face of it, looks a stunning piece of development [but] you have got to question the extent to which Salford

WATER

AND THE

CITY

163

Quays has integrated with the surroundings at Ordsall in Salford. In fact it’s fair to say there’s absolutely no integration whatsoever and the people who live in that area have a major problem with what’s been delivered there and constantly seek to vandalise and cause difficulties for the business occupants. Perhaps that’s because there was simply not enough emphasis on the integration and community issues’. In the city centre canalside developments, most of the residents are young and single. About 60 per cent of Manchester’s inner city residents, many of whom live in the waterfront developments, are aged 18–34, and 75 per cent are single. Perhaps 40 per cent are students, but at least 10 per cent are professionals, such as lawyers and accountants. There are few families with children.18 These young residents patronise the new restaurants, bars, clubs and entertainment venues around their apartments. A small number of retired people also enjoy the easy access to city centre facilities. (c) Appropriate financing and planning mechanisms In his 2002 address (see above) Ken Knott also asked whether enterprise zones, such as those of London Docklands and of the former Salford Docks, provided the right form of stimulation. ‘They will indeed suck in the private sector because it’s a tax-based, highly attractive form of driving forward projects but the absence of qualitative planning control and design guidance is a huge error in hindsight and the absence of integration is not really the way forward in my view’. For Salford Quays, however, Knott claimed that ‘The public sector created the vision, gathered funding, secured investment and managed the process as part of a coordinated, longterm plan.’ The successful Brindleyplace development in central Birmingham involved inventive land assembly, creative funding packages, speculative and leveraged development and the City Council’s unwavering commitment to urban design principles to create high quality design and commercially viable, privately funded regeneration. But the origins of Brindleyplace were far from easy. In the mid 1980s, a derelict 7.2 ha canalside site, immediately adjoining Birmingham’s CBD, had been sold to a developer for £23.3 million. When that developer failed, the former owner, Rosehaugh Stanhope, took it over, investing in decontamination (£0.5m), infrastructure (£12m) and a new master plan. The collapse of Rosehaugh in 1992 and the acquisition of Brindleyplace plc by the developer Argent at a knock-down price opened the way for the present high quality development. Land prices are a key factor in the success of such schemes. This highly accessible mixed use site with its offices, expensive private apartments and leisure facilities located alongside fully

164

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

landscaped and renovated canals, takes much of its inspiration from Baltimore’s Harborplace scheme.19 The success of Brindleyplace stems from a combination of the long-term shared vision that the partners brought to the development and the fortuitous drop in land value which brought Argent into the project, and from the City’s vision for the wider area which created synergy between this and other schemes in the City Centre; in particular, the adjacent International Convention Centre and the National Indoor Arena. The overall City Strategy helped to ensure an integrated approach, particularly in the use of the waterways to create attractive waterfront leisure space. The impact of the early 1990’s financial crisis on the development of Brindleyplace was mirrored by the way the post-2008 crisis temporarily halted, or drastically slowed, progress on New Islington and other canalside developments in Britain. By 2014, work had accelerated, but not up to the 2007 pace. (d) Accessibility to the waterfront and public transport provision One of the most elaborate canal networks in Britain is that of Birmingham and the Black Country. Although opened up for public access, both on foot and by barge, long stretches of these canals are bordered by high steel fences separating the waterfront from factory yards with few opportunities to get off the canal towpath into neighbouring streets (Figure 9.14). A similar situation exists along the Leeds and Liverpool canal in Liverpool. However, in more residential areas, some canals have been fully integrated into the walking and cycling network. In the Greater Manchester Borough of Trafford, the canal towpath is now labelled the Bridgewater Way, and cycling routes to local schools via the canalside are well signposted. The route is a popular local link between homes, shops and tram stops. Public transport access is highly important for major dockland redevelopments. The Canary Wharf rail links are mentioned above. In the case of Cardiff Bay in Wales, where the redevelopment houses the Welsh Assembly building and several other major attractions, buses provide the main public transport service, with an old railway line connecting with other commuter rail services into the Welsh Valleys. Undoubtedly the most successful canalside developments in Britain are those that adjoin city centres; Castlefield in Manchester, Brindleyplace in Birmingham and Edinburgh Quay exemplify this. Elsewhere, in places where there has been major investment in transport infrastructure, as at Canary Wharf with its underground and light rail links to major commuter routes in and out of London, success is well supported. And suburban canalside

WATER

AND THE

CITY

165

Figure 9.14 Restricted waterfront access, as well as unrealised potential for biodiversity along the Ashton Canal near the Chips Building, New Islington. Access is usually only at bridges, such as the one in the distance in this picture.

developments can benefit greatly from adjacent rapid transit routes; an example is along the Bridgewater Canal which parallels the Metrolink tramway southwest of Manchester.

Conclusion Many cities now have thriving waterfront areas, from the canals of Venice to Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. The great industrial and commercial cities of Europe have revived many of their former docks since the 1970s, with new commercial, residential and leisure developments, often in combination. Such developments have brought residents back into city centres, they have enabled the restoration and re-use of historic buildings and they have introduced iconic new buildings and other structures. Generally these initiatives have depended on highly active and motivated local authorities, often with a particular councillor or senior officer, driving the redevelopment process forward. Almost always there has been a measure of public/private partnership, sometimes involving national government and/or European funding. Having a dedicated developer skilled in urban renewal, such as the Manchester company Urban Splash, is often critical. In many cases property

166

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

companies have to be enticed to engage in something other than their standard ’cheap and cheerful’ housing or office block ‘products’. The challenge, typically, will be to create an attractive environment out of a derelict brownfield site, with the sensitive re-use and conversion of older buildings with preservation orders. Leisure facilities will usually be a key element, especially in inner city developments, and often they help to create an image that will attract particular types of resident. Equally important is the opportunity to enhance visual amenity, to provide traffic-free areas, and to bring nature back into the city. Many sites have met these conditions and are now prospering, but experience has also revealed the problems that can arise with waterfront developments (Table 9.3). Using old industrial land can involve costly remediation. It is important to ascertain exactly what industrial processes took place, or which chemicals or products were stored, on the site over the entire period of its use, in order to avoid potential health risks. Experience with sites along the Thames Estuary has shown that remediation can take many months. Some contaminants are better left on site but such sources often require continuous monitoring and management, as the experience of water pollution at Salford Quays shows. Waterside developments generally bring in new people and new types of work and may be viewed by existing communities as ‘something apart’ or ‘out of reach’. Ideally, the new housing should be mixed and include some social, low-rent properties, but that seems to be seldom achieved. The most successful developments have usually attracted young professionals and students. But one measure of ‘success’ is gross rental income, which can mean multi-storey apartment blocks intruding into a surrounding ‘sea’ of low-rise workers’ housing. In other words, the image of an ‘island of wealth in a sea of

Table 9.3

Positive and negative elements in waterfront developments.

Positive requirements

Negative factors

Government initiatives Public: Private Partnerships Active committed developers Community support Leisure facilities (multifunctionality) Good image Greenspace Ecosystem service benefits Access to the water’s edge

Cost of land reclamation Cost of environmental quality maintenance Alienation of neighbouring communities Inappropriate scale of development Financial insecurity and commercial failure Complex planning mechanisms Lack of public access to the waterways Poor public transport

WATER

AND THE

CITY

167

poverty’, or what Brian Robson has called the ‘sweet core and the sour surround’.20 Several projects have temporarily faltered through financial insecurity as the examples of Brindleyplace and New Islington show. Inevitably, fluctuations in property prices and availability of finance cause variations in the rate at which development proceeds and can lead to a glut of properties to buy or rent when conditions are bad. This can cause a development to look half-finished and quasi-derelict for a few years, damaging its reputation and deterring potential new residents and investors. And planning procedures can slow development, especially when developers have to revise their schemes to meet new requirements or when their ability to restore listed buildings is reduced. Designing a development that either closes a canal or riverside walk, or prevents easy access to the water from neighbouring streets is likely to alienate local people and give the development a poor image. Instead, developments need to maintain such walkways and access and to create them where they do not already exist. Also, for anywhere not within 10 minutes’ walk of a city centre, good public transport is essential. This ease of access is as important for business developments as it is for new housing. The most successful developments have either a good bus service, or, preferably, an excellent tram service. Finally, waterside developments have to fit within an overall urban, or metropolitan regional, growth strategy or strategic plan. Although waterfronts in Europe are important elements for urban redevelopment and provide unique images for marketing, they tend now to be integrated with medium to long-term regeneration measures (alongside other brownfield sites) and with transportation and landscape planning efforts.21 They are a highly effective re-use of brownfield land.

Photo credits Photographs are taken by the author unless otherwise indicated.

Notes 1. N. Gjorgon, ‘Pop and Rock Music: Development and Characteristics’, in A. Bergmann (ed.), Music City. Sport City. Leisure City: A Reader on Different Concepts of Culture, Creative Industries and Urban Regeneration Attempts (Weimar, 2008). 2. J. Schiebel, ‘Essen or Go¨rlitz: Europe’s German Capital of Culture 2010’, in A. Bergmann (ed.), Music City. Sport City. Leisure City: A Reader on Different Concepts of Culture, Creative Industries and Urban Regeneration Attempts (Weimar, 2008). 3. John Urry, Consuming Places (London, 1995).

168

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

4. Z. Hall, ‘Narrow Escapes: canals offer the potential for waterfront living in areas where, in the past, few would have dreamt of buying’, The Sunday Times, Section 8, 22 May, pp. 20 – 1. 5. H. Clout (ed.), The Times London History Atlas (London, 1991). 6. B. Leung and E. Hui, ‘Evaluation Approach on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Urban Developments’, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 9/1 (2005): 1–16. 7. Leung and Hui, ‘Evaluation Approach on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Urban Developments’. 8. B. Robson, ‘Regenerating places: The contemporary British city- sweet centre, sour surround’, in I. Douglas, R. Huggett and C. Perkins (eds), Companion Encyclopaedia of Geography: From Local to Global (London, 2007). 9. T. Hall, ‘Proactive Engagement in Urban Design – The Case of Chelmsford’, in S. Tiesdell and D. Adams (eds), Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process (Oxford, 2011). 10. G. Williams, The Enterprising City Centre: Manchester’s Development Challenge (London, 2003). 11. I. Douglas, ‘Suburban mosaic of houses, roads, gardens and mature trees’, in I. Douglas, D. Goode, M. Houck and R. Wang (eds), Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology (London, 2011). 12. http://liverpoolbiennial.co.uk/artists/all/300/kerry-morrison/ 13. J. Dettmar, ‘Forests for shrinking cities? The project ‘Industrial forest of the Ruhr’’, in I. Kowarik and S. Ko¨rner (eds), Wild Urban Woodlands (Berlin, 2005). 14. H. Kersley and E. Cox, Royal Docks revival: replacing London City Airport (London, 2014), http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/195fb39e613cea6c01_ddm6bwubt.pdf Leung and Hui,. ‘Evaluation approach on public-private partnership (PPP) urban developments’. 15. K. Taylor, N. Boyd and S. Boult, ‘Sediments, porewaters and diagenesis in an urban water body, Salford, UK: impacts of remediation’, Hydrological Processes, 17/10 (2003): 2049– 61. 16. Ibid. 17. Robson, ‘Regenerating places’, p. 476. 18. Ibid. 19. F. Webster, ‘Re-inventing place: Birmingham as an information city?’ City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 5/1 (2001): 27 – 46. 20. Robson, ‘Regenerating places’, p. 467. 21. D. Schubert. ‘Waterfront Revitalizations: From a local to a regional perspective in London, Barcelona, Rotterdam and Hamburg’, in G. Desfor, J. Laidley, Q. Stevens and D. Schubert (eds), Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow (London, 2011).

CHAPTER 10 ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT Sir Peter Hall

Transport project assessment has changed greatly over the last half century, although in different ways between one country and another. Essentially we have moved from ‘predict and provide’ to approaches based on public capacity to pay for investments, or social equity, or, increasingly, environmental sustainability. This has been associated with a move away from providing additional physical capacity to meet rising car ownership, underpinned by cost-benefit analysis, to analysing alternative solutions, including public transport, within a wider framework incorporating other impacts: economic, safety, environment, accessibility and integration. As this chapter shows, there has been increased interest in assessing the indirect effects of transport investment on regional and urban development and regeneration, mainly by trying to quantify effects such as the uplift in land values after the investment. And this has been associated with attempts to capture these uplifts for the public purse, on the basis that the investments have invariably been made by public agencies while the gains have gone to private investors without any conscious effort on their part.

Changing approaches to transport project assessment The way we assess transport projects has changed quite fundamentally in the half century since 1960 – but to varying degrees, and in different ways, from one country to another. The fundamental shift, almost everywhere, is from an approach based on the principle of predict and provide – simply planning to meet predicted demand, whatever it may be – to one based on the principle of limits set by public capacity to pay for investments, or social equity, or, increasingly in recent decades, environmental sustainability. This has been associated with another fundamental shift: away from providing additional

170

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

physical capacity to meet rising car ownership. The assemblage of computerbased modelling and assessment techniques, developed by American consultants and rapidly exported to other countries and cities in the developed world – particularly to the United Kingdom – was devoted to that end. In particular, cost–benefit analysis, then in its infancy, was chiefly employed to demonstrate the predicted economic return from highway investment through time savings. Not until the end of the 1960s was this approach subjected to fundamental academic criticism from British academics, in particular Professor Peter Self, who derided it in Jeremy Bentham’s term as ‘Nonsense on Stilts’.1, 2 In particular, he criticised the fact that, by using wage rates, the technique reckoned savings for rich people more highly than those for poor people. And it had difficulty once it sought to move into other aspects that were inherently more difficult to evaluate in monetary terms. Particular criticism was directed at the extremely complex cost–benefit analysis employed by the Roskill Commission for the Third London Airport, which evaluated the value of a Norman church, threatened with demolition, in terms of its insurance value. The response of policy-makers at that time, illustrated in the report of the UK Leitch Committee on trunk road assessment (1977), was to try to incorporate the monetary analysis inherent in cost-benefit analysis within a wider assessment framework that could also take account of elements that were measurable but difficult to express in monetary terms, such as noise or air quality, but also elements that were so subjective that they could not easily be quantified at all, such as the value of a landscape. Over the years that followed UK advisory committees made successive attempts to improve on this approach, culminating in the Department for Transport’s New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) of 2007, set out in the DfT website as Transport Analysis Guidance – WebTAG.3 This takes account of the following considerations: .

. .

. .

economy (Public Accounts, Transport Economic Efficiency; Business Users & Transport Providers, Transport Economic Efficiency; Consumers, Reliability, Wider Economic Impacts); safety (Accidents, Security); environment (Noise, Local Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Landscape, Townscape, Heritage of Historic Resources, Biodiversity, Water Environment, Physical Fitness, Journey Ambience); accessibility (Option values, Severance, Access to the Transport System); integration (Transport Interchange, Land-Use Policy, Other Government Policies).

One major reason for this fundamental change was a widespread criticism that, however modified, any approach based on cost–benefit analysis

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT

171

inevitably gave disproportionate weight to time savings, which in turn favoured road schemes that relieved congestion. Almost inevitably, such schemes offered high benefit–cost ratios which put them above the bar for entry into the UK Department for Transport’s investment programme, while public transport schemes like light rail projects tended to perform poorly in comparison. By the early twenty-first century it was frequently observed that very few such schemes were approved for British cities, while in comparison all major French cities (and even smaller towns) were constructing entire urban networks.

Estimating indirect effects One major reason for this anomaly was the difficulty of evaluating the indirect effects of transport investments in stimulating investment in regeneration of urban areas that were suffering from the cumulative effects of economic decline. A number of attempts have been made to estimate such effects, using a variety of measures ranging from the direct (land and property values) to indirect (measures of the performance of the local economy). In an early study, Peter Hall and Carmen Hass-Klau compared a number of urban transport schemes in British and German cities, and concluded that they had boosted local economic potential where that potential existed, but had done relatively little to revive economies that were suffering from more basic structural economic decline.4 Twenty years later, Hass-Klau and her colleagues made an in-depth study of a range of British, mainland European and American cities, concluding similarly that new light rail schemes had boosted values in cities with strong potential, like Manchester or Nottingham, but had not demonstrated a similar effect in Sheffield which had demonstrated lower economic potential.5 A comprehensive analysis of the indirect impacts of transport investment was made by Banister and Berechman.6 Using available literature, they analysed in detail the impacts of a number of major road, rail and airport project in different countries. Particularly interesting were their conclusions on the light rail line in Buffalo, an American city that suffered catastrophic industrial decline at about the time the project was being carried out: ’the key general lesson from this study is that improved accessibility per se is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for such a goal as CBD revitalisation. A corollary to this conclusion is that capital for transport investment must be targeted and the implications of the investment, land development, employment increase and location of service facilities must be clearly determined and enforced through complementary public policies’.7 Likewise, they found that the BART network in the San Francisco Bay Area had

172

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

succeeded in the aim of encouraging associated residential development, but that ironically such development had occurred more rapidly on corridors not served by the network, where other factors – such as freeway access – played a role.8 Summing up, they conclude: ‘the analytical and empirical evidence suggests that development impacts are not uniform and only occur where other economic conditions already favour development. These investments do not act as the catalyst for change, but they can act to reinforce a change that is already taking place (or is likely to take place.’9 For high-speed rail they do find an association, but they stress that this is not automatic.10 This last conclusion is underlined by a recent study from Chia-Lin Chen and Peter Hall on the economic impact of high-speed rail investment in the United Kingdom, which concludes that though there were generally positive effects on economic performance for cities that were brought within a two-hour travel radius of London, this effect was not noticed in a few places (Doncaster in South Yorkshire, Newport in South Wales), probably because their inherited economic structure was unfavourable.11 These findings came to be associated with a criticism – particularly voiced in the UK – that when investments were made, as with the extension of London’s Jubilee tube line through south and east London to Stratford in 1999 (the Jubilee Line Extension, JLE), no advance provision was made to capture the big rises in land and property values that were to occur after completion. Don Riley, a property restorer in south east London, calculated that land values around the new Jubilee Line stations had increased by £13 billion, while the extension had cost taxpayers £3.5 billion to build.12 In response, TfL (Transport for London) and the UK Department for Transport commissioned the University of Westminster’s Transport Studies Group to prepare a report into the impacts of the JLE.13 It found that the new line had delivered substantial benefits to London, both locally and regionally, including provision of potential for further office development at Canary Wharf which generated some 45,800 jobs. In addition to Canary Wharf, a number of other prestigious developments were in progress, principally at London Bridge, Canada Water, North Greenwich and Stratford. The scale and form of these new residential and commercial developments, the report concluded, would not have been possible without the JLE. Overall, employment in the JLE catchment areas increased from 373,000 in 1998 to 425,000 in 2000 – an increase of 15 per cent, compared with a 9 per cent increase in Greater London as a whole, which equated to an additional 32,400 jobs between 1998 and 2000, most of which were of a ‘high value, high productivity’ type. But, despite this success, the study found that the JLE had not significantly reduced unemployment in the catchment areas studied. Achieving that, the report concluded, might take much longer, because it

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT

173

would require either having the appropriate skills to take advantage of the corridor’s new financial and business services jobs, or by using the JLE to reach employment centres elsewhere in London (Figure 10.1). The University of Westminster researchers found it difficult to obtain quantitative information on the relative change in residential prices in the JLE Corridor compared with suitable reference areas. This was complicated by the very rapid rise in values that had occurred between 1992 and 2002. Qualitative evidence, in the form of opinions obtained from estate agents who specialise within the JLE Corridor area, suggested that residential property

Figure 10.1 London’s O2 Arena, served by a station on the Jubilee Line. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

£1.406,037 £1.487,223 £1.687,648 £2,117,653

Shops

Residential

£0 £269,201 £2,750,555 £5,746,230

£294,599 £835,115 £2,262,650 £2,705,606

Shops

£12,405,085 £30,293,315 £51,318,249 £59,157,470

Residential £12,730,610 £32,293,894 £60,698,206 £78,092,604

Sub-Total

£59,647,803 £60,159,881 £62,855,841 £65,448,827

Offices £61.053,840 £61,916,305 £67,294,044 £73,312,711

Sub-Total

Canary Wharf 2002

£30,926 £1,165,464 £7,117,307 £16,229,528

Offices

Southwark 2002

£1,778,767,437 £2,043,984,611 £2.043,984,611 £2,043,984,611

Completions

£0 £0 £0 £0

Completions

£1,839,821,277 £2,105,900,916 £2,111,278,655 £2,117,297,322

Total with completions

£12,730,610 £32,293,894 £60,698,206 £78,092,604

Total with completions

Cumulative property market value directly attributable to the JLE by market type and distance band (December 2002).

Source: Bannister and Thurstain Goodwin 2005.

250m 500m 750m 1000m

250m 500m 750m 1000m

Table 10.1

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT

175

values have risen particularly fast in most of the Corridor and particularly in the area south of the River Thames. Jones Lang LaSalle estimated that the total value of land within 500 metres (for commercial) and 750 metres (for residential) of Canary Wharf station had increased by between £1.82 billion and £2.84 billion between 1992 and 2002; and within 500 metres of Southwark station, by between £0.82 billion and £1.68 billion. Their best estimate of land ‘uplift’ attributable to the JLE in the Canary Wharf area was £2.0 billion (in the range between £0.3 billion and £2.7 billion), and in the Southwark area was £0.8 billion (in the range £0.0 billion to £1.45 billion). Jones Lang LaSalle also estimated that the total value of property had increased by £3.9 billion at Canary Wharf and by £2.0 billion at Southwark. They estimated that between £0.75 billion and £1.9 billion of this at Canary Wharf, and between £150 million and £650 million of the increase at Southwark, would not have occurred without the JLE. ‘Uplift’ due to the JLE is estimated towards the top of the range quoted for Canary Wharf and towards the bottom of the range quoted for Southwark.14 Banister and Thurstain-Goodwin15 analysed property price changes in depth around two JLE stations. Their key results are summarised below. The estimated total property value increase around Southwark and Canary Wharf Stations was just under £2.2 billion, and this could be solely attributable to the impact of the JLE: it would not have occurred if the extension had not been built (though unfortunately, due to a lack of transactional data, the land value uplift could not be estimated). In essence, results for Southwark showed the greatest effect of the JLE on residential property value; it was responsible for about 75 per cent of total uplift, but overall the effect was less great than predicted. Some limitations of the data available might have accounted for this, but the proximity of the area to central London also means that accessibility was less fundamentally changed than in other JLE station catchments. Around Canary Wharf station, the attributable effect of the JLE on commercial property was much greater. This assumes that none of the completions in Canary Wharf between 1999 and 2002 would have occurred without the JLE. Boucq16 analysed the impact of a new tramway, the T2 in the western suburbs of Paris, on residential property values. Opened in 1997, it was actually a conversion of an old railway line that had closed four years earlier. Connecting two key employment nodes at the two ends (La De´fense and Issyles-Moulineaux) it ran through a former industrial zone that was rapidly being converted to residential land use, and notably improved accessibility to the new developments. Boucq found a definite rise in value which at that point could not be revealed due to a confidentiality clause with the sponsors, RATP, but was somewhat under 5 per cent. This growth was strongly concentrated in the central zone crossed by the T2 and a zone extending towards

176

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

the south-west, where the accessibility gains between 1996 and 1997 were the highest. So, the study concludes, ‘the implementation of the T2 had a positive and significant impact on the evolution of housing prices, by the means of the accessibility gains to jobs due to the infrastructure’.17 This could suggest the possibility to tax landowners to recover the added values. But in France these added values are not captured, because – as in the UK and other countries – the local tax base is not consistently updated. Network Rail commissioned research into the economic value of investments in railway stations in conjunction with international transport consultants Steer Davies Gleave. Their report18 sought: . . .

to investigate the commercial potential of station development; to quantify, as far as possible, the impact of station investment on the economy; to identify the implications for future station investment.

Based on interviews with over 60 stakeholders, and economic modelling and case study investigations, the key findings of the research19 were: .

.

.

.

.

.

.

Stations can have a major impact on the towns and cities that they serve, often acting as regional gateways, helping to stimulate economic growth and attract businesses. The productivity benefit associated with increased development around stations enabled by station investment can by as much as five to seven times exceed the benefits estimated by traditional transport appraisal techniques. Investment in Sheffield Station and the surrounding area contributed to a 67 per cent increase in the rateable value of property within 400 metres of the stations between 2003 and 2008 – three times the average increase for Sheffield over the same time period. Investment in Manchester Piccadilly Station had similarly helped to create 650,000 square feet of new and refurbished office space and to increase property values by some 33 per cent. Obtaining maximum value from station investment often requires supporting investment in the area surrounding a station, especially where there is a legacy of under-investment in adjacent land and property. At the same time, station investment can act as a catalyst to broader development providing there is an appropriate balance between railways’ operational, commercial and regeneration objectives. Almost all stakeholders who were interviewed identified the significant contribution that railway stations can make in attracting inward investment to a city or region.

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT .

177

In Sheffield, the direct employment impact was estimated to be 185 additional jobs, while the increase in employment in areas around station developments following station investment for each of Sheffield and Manchester was estimated to be up to 3,000 jobs. While it is difficult to attribute employment impacts specifically to station investment, there was a clear view among stakeholders that, over the longer-term, improvements delivered by station investment and associated regeneration were key to supporting the overall growth of city centre economies and employment.

Are indirect effects the main objective anyway? It remains extremely difficult to make a direct comparison between the assessment procedures and techniques used for transport investments in different EU countries. In a study for the SINTROPHER project, Hasiak and Richter have suggested that France, Germany and the United Kingdom adopt radically different strategies for public transport investment (Table 10.2). In France, tram investments are seen less as transport projects in their own right than as devices to regenerate the city.20 Thus one can distinguish three different forms of rationality: investment decisions in the United Kingdom are driven by ‘economic rationality’ (or value for money), in Germany by ‘functional rationality’ (achievement of a smoothly-functioning system) and in France by ‘political rationality’ (a political vision of the future city), a model the authors describe as ‘open to criticism, but effective’.21 This, it must be said, has been possible because of the existence of a hypothecated tax on employers, the versement transport, which has no equivalent elsewhere22, and which has provided a ready source of funds for urban transport investment.

Capturing land value uplift In the UK political controversy had raged for many decades over the issue of capturing rises in land values following public investment, or betterment. The historic 1947 Town and Country Planning Act had tried to deal with this in the most radical way possible, by nationalising development rights, compensating owners for the prospective losses in value, and thence taking all subsequent rises in value for the state. But, though the basic nationalisation provision has survived for over six decades, as the legal foundation of development control powers in the UK, the associated financial provisions were soon dismantled and subsequent attempts to capture value were also repealed. However, some degree of consensus seems to have been reached through the application of Section 106 Agreements (named for a

Systematic closure of existing networks after WW2, but then many new lines

Virtually complete closure of old networks; relatively few new lines Retention of most existing networks but relatively few new lines

Source: Hasiak and Richter 2011.23

France

Germany

UK

Efficient performance

Achieve highest possible level of urban design

Political rationality

Profitable economic return

Technical rationality

Economic rationality

‘Style’

Development of tramway network

Country

Dominant decisionmaking model

Modes of rationality in planning European tram systems.

Table 10.2

Open up highest-value economic sectors; organisation of Park and Ride for modal effect and environmental balance Provide best possible service level in synergy with the existing transport system and economic regeneration; provision of frequent, simply-designed tram stops Investment seen as part of systematic development of an enhanced ‘modernistic’ urban image, accompanied by public policy and urban marketing

Hypothesis on tram investment planning

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT

179

clause in the 1990 Planning Act) which allow local planning authorities to agree contributions from developers as a condition of receiving planning permission. Even more recently, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) provides for local planning authorities to devise fixed tariffs for such contributions, specified in advance for all developments. And in the case of Crossrail, a very large project to build a new longer-distance express west– east line under central London, the Mayor of London obtained special powers allowing him to levy advance imposts on the grant of planning permissions in central and inner London, even though this has been criticised on the basis that these levies have been imposed on developments far from the line of the route. In the United States, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has represented a longer-term approach to capturing land value uplift to finance major urban investments. It uses future tax gains to finance current improvements (which theoretically will create the conditions for those future gains), by creating funds within a defined district to finance debt issued to pay for the project, thus borrowing against future property tax revenues. There are thousands of examples. California, which invented tax increment financing in 1952, has over 400 TIF districts of varying kinds and with an aggregate of over $10 billion per year in revenues, over $28 billion of long-term debt, and over $674 billion of assessed land valuation (in 2008). TIF is widely cited in connection with schemes like the extension of the Washington DC Metro’s Silver Line to the Tysons Corner business centre, the largest in the state of Virginia and the twelfth-largest in the United States.24 However, the reality there is somewhat different. Tysons Corner, now being marketed as ‘The next US City’, is a remarkable phenomenon. As recently as the mid-1960s it was a rural area of Fairfax County at the crossroads of Routes 7 and 123, with a single general store. Then, construction of the Capital Beltway and the Dulles Airport Access Road in the 1960s improved access to highway and air transportation. This made Tysons one of the region’s most strategic locations for capturing suburban office and retail development. First one and then a second large regional mall was opened, beginning the area’s transformation into a major commercial centre. It became home to several Fortune 500 (top US and global corporation) headquarters and many other prominent national firms, and in 2010 had around one-quarter of all of the office space in Fairfax County. Tysons was identified as the archetypical ‘Edge City’ by Joel Garreau in his 1991 book of the same name.25 But now Tysons is entering a new phase of development. It is to have four new Metro stations along the Washington DC Metro’s new Silver Line Phase 1, due to open in late 2013 and to be extended to Dulles International Airport

180

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

by 2016 (Figure 10.2). The aims of the revised Plan, developed by a Tysons Land Use Task Force, are: to promote more mixed use; facilitate transitoriented development (TOD); enhance pedestrian connections; increase the residential component of the density mix; improve the functionality of the area; and provide for amenities such as public spaces, public art and parks. It has a vision of clusters of high density buildings surrounding the four Metrorail stations, and tree-lined streets connect neighbourhoods, with people at sidewalk cafes, walking or jogging down tree-lined boulevards, enjoying public art and outdoor performances, and playing in the parks. Tysons has been widely cited as a successful example of Tax Increment Financing. However, the cost of Phase 1 of the Silver Line is being met in quite a different way: it is shared, 43 per cent by $900 million of federal funding, 28 per cent by a special tax district on commercial property along the route, and 28 per cent by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority through an additional toll on the Dulles Toll Road along which most of the extension will run. TIF, in so far as it plays a role, will be part of a package to develop the associated works necessary to transform the area from a car-based Edge City into a model of Transit-Oriented Development. And here, it is clear on closer examination that TIF is being contemplated only as a relatively small part of a much larger package. It usually works best for relatively small geographic areas; in the state of Virginia, examples so far are limited in scope and are usually coupled with formation of a so-called Community Development Authority (CAD), a flexible tool, funded by ad

Figure 10.2 New Tysons Corner Silver Line Station. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT

181

valorem special taxes or special assessments, negotiated with petitioners, which unfortunately has proved extremely complex in establishment and administration owing to a number of factors concerning the use of public funds, the degree of control desired by the developer and the tenants, and the use of special assessments as the developer’s preferred funding mechanism. The experience of CDAs across the United States is mixed, with such a high degree of failure that as a group they are considered among the riskiest municipal bond investments in today’s market. TIF bonds are usually unrated and carry the highest interest rates – up to 4 per cent higher than General Obligation Bond debt, which is characteristically AAA-rated and carries lowest possible interest rates – considerably reducing any general fund leverage.

Conclusion Thus, despite half a century of evolution in the way that nations and cities assess their urban transport investments, the remarkable fact is that they go about the process in very different ways, with very different outcomes – which are evident, even to the casual observer, in the contrast between the scale of investment in every French major city and now in smaller cities too, and the relative paucity of such investments in the United Kingdom. This is to a considerable degree explicable in different funding structures, so much more generous and explicit in the French case than in the British one. But finally such differences are explicable in terms not of economic rationality, but of political rationality. The French system – like that of Spain – is essentially based on deep cooperation between public and private actors, at local, regional and national scales, to maintain high levels of public investment in the interests of economic modernisation programmes which are of long duration and are driven not by narrow accounting considerations but by grand longterm visions of a desired future. Such strategic planning has never been accepted for very long in the British system and is now completely out of fashion. And, of course, after the collapse of the model in Spain after the 2008 global crisis and the deep questions hanging over it in France, it raises major questions of comparative economic policy that go beyond the scope of this chapter. All this might have been different if in any country there had been an effective way of capturing land and property value rises, following transport investment, and appropriating them for future investment. But, with the rare exceptions of countries with a tradition of public land ownership (Sweden, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore), this so far is an aspiration for the future. Perhaps the innovations now taking place in collecting Community

182

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Infrastructure Levy, in London and other British cities, may at last provide the long-sought breakthrough.

Editors’ note Sir Peter Hall died on 30 July 2014. Writing this chapter had been one of his final projects.

Notes 1. P. Self, ‘Nonsense on stilts: cost-benefit analysis and the roskill commission’, Political Quarterly, 41 (1970): 249– 60. 2. P. Self, Econocrats and the Policy Process: The Politics and Philosophy of Cost-Benefit Analysis (London, 1975). 3. DfT (Department for Transport), ‘Transport Analysis Guidance – WebTAG’, https:// www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag (2011). Editors’ comment: this DfT guidance was updated in 2014, after this chapter was written. It includes a requirement for cost benefit analysis. However, the introduction to that guidance states that while cost benfit analysis is seen as ‘an important part of transport appraisal it is only one element of what is effectively a multi critertia analysis. 4. P. Hall and C. Hass-Klau, Can Rail Save the City? The Impacts of Rail Rapid Transit and Pedestrianisation on British and German Cities (Aldershot, 1985). 5. C. Hass-Klau, G. Crampton, R. Benjari, The Economic Impact of Light Rail: the Results of 15 Urban Areas in France, Germany, UK and North America (Brighton, 2004). 6. D. Banister and J. Berechman, Transport Investment and Economic Development. London: UCL Press (2000). 7. Ibid., p. 278. 8. Ibid., p. 283. 9. Ibid., p. 285. 10. Ibid. 11. C-L. Chen and P. Hall, ‘The impacts of High-Speed Trains on British Economic Geography: a Study of the UK’s InterCity 125/225 and its Effects’, Journal of Transport Geography, 19 (2011): 689– 704. 12. D. Riley, Taken for a Ride: Taxpayers, Trains and HM Treasury (Teddington, Middx., 2001). 13. R. Lane, T. Powell, T. Eyers, J. Paris, K. Lucas, P. Jones, ‘JLE Summary Report: Final Report’ (2004), http://home.wmin.ac.uk/transport/jle/wp/WP54_JLE_Summary_Report_ [130904].pdf. 14. Ibid., vii. 15. D. Banister and M. Thurstain-Goodwin, Property Values and Public Transport Investment (London, 2005). 16. Boucq, 2007. 17. E. Boucq, ‘The Effects of Accessibility Gains on Residential Property Values in Urban Areas: The Example of the T2 Tramway in the Hauts-de-Seine Department, France’ (London, 2005). 18. SDG (Steer Davies Gleave), ‘The Value of Station Investment: Research on Regenerative Impacts: Report’ (London, 2011), http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/sites/default/files/ newsandinsights/Station_Investment_Report.pdf. 19. Ibid., pp. 20 – 2.

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT

183

20. S. Hasiak and C. Richter, ‘Sintropher WP2: E´valuer les Effets territoriaux des Syste`mes de Tramways’ (Lille, 2011). 21. Ibid., p. 82. 22. Ibid., pp. 41 – 2. 23. Hasiak and Richter, ‘Sintropher WP2’, p. 87. 24. Fairfax County, ‘Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2011 Edition, Area II Tysons Corner Urban Center’ (2010), http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/comprehensiveplan/area2/tysons 1.pdf; Fairfax County, Tyson’s Committee of the Planning Commission, ‘Methods of Financing Available to Fairfax County’ (2011), http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning/ tysons_docs/100511methods_of_financing.pdf. 25. J. Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York, 1991).

CHAPTER 11 ASSESSING THE AMSTERDAM SINGEL CANAL AREA FOR THE UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LISTING (2010):HERITAGE AND SUSTAINABILITY Pierre Laconte

History and the initial Singel canal area design The medieval township of Amsterdam developed southwards from the port, along an inland waterway leading to the sea (Plate 6a). In the seventeenth century it was confronted with the ‘80 years war’ (1568–1648) and the Dutch accession to independence. A consequence of these events was the need to accommodate a major population expansion generated by the Protestants’ exodus from the Southern Provinces. At the same time, Amsterdam became the centre of international trade, taking this role over from Antwerp. The growing city adopted a curvilinear development framework, surrounding the old town by a triple circle of canals (‘grachten’) and a grid pattern of streets linking them (Plate 6b and Figure 11.1). This plan was implemented over some 400 years. The subdivision of space in narrow blocks aligned to form a cityscape is shown in a painting of the period (Figure 11.2). For the purposes of comparison the present cityscape is illustrated by a random canal view (Figure 11.3). What were the pressures that led to the establishment of the three encircling canals around the medieval town? What factors led the early planners to conceive and build their compact plots and dense buildings in the way that they did? And, finally, how did the area develop even until today in such a resilient way?

ASSESSING

THE

AMSTERDAM SINGEL CANAL AREA

185

Figure 11.1 View of Amsterdam Singel canal area. It indicates the three ring canals framework. Source: Wikipedia.

The underpinning rationale of that plan was and remains the combination of: space saving (high density-low rise buildings); the provision of drainage systems for water protection and supply; the use of the canals as a way to access and service houses (and their upper floor mercantile space) and; finally, the concern for quality of life through private amenity provision such as small rear gardens. Public amenity was also important and this was achieved through systematic tree planting along the canals, making the canals themselves a civic amenity. One might add into the mix the ethics of Dutch traders’ society. Dutch egalitarian values and protestant ethics worked in favour of a limited number of variations in style within the three ‘Singel canals’ (Prinsengracht, Keizersgracht, and Herengracht). But there are variations in character between the three canals, their distinctive frameworks reflecting the economic and social hierarchy of the city, and the ‘top’ level being represented by the Keizersgracht. By contrast, the individual canals display conformity in their architecture. This grand design developed over time through a process of trial and error, not by any ‘imperial’ decree. The first version, produced in 1612, was widely criticised but served as the precedent for the actual master plan of 1663, drawn up by the municipal planning authority. That planning provided in the first place for the digging of the canals to create platforms of land suitable

186

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

for construction and access of building materials. The architectural historian, Jaap Evert Abrahamse, cites occasional instances of speculation by developers who were illegally informed about the proposed plans and bought whole areas, for example in the area located around the present Jewish Museum. However, this did not affect the general subdivision plan.1 All in all, the seventeenth century circumferential planned lay out of residential canals and service streets, its land subdivision into small plots and its implementation over four centuries have proven both their robustness and their sustainability for the City of Amsterdam. For the most part, its integrity and authenticity has been preserved. The area has succeeded in accommodating changes in functions as well as changes in building styles and building techniques. This inherent flexibility, including the adaptive reuse of buildings, has, at the same time, been the subject of regulation over the centuries, for example in more recent times to avoid transformations into office space. The late nineteenth-century inversion of sea access, through the creation of a direct sea link towards the west, while historically all ships had previously arrived from the east, and the building of the railway station (Figure 11.4) just north of the port and historic centre, have created an irreversible change in the city’s urban functions. However, these changes have had scarcely any impact on the strong canal grid, as the port and railway areas never impinged on the residential grid. The twentieth-century development of metropolitan rail transport right through the Singel canal area could have wiped out the entire fabric of the area, but fortunately this did not happen thanks to a thrifty use of space. This transport investment indeed raises the issue of the choices needed to ensure both the accessibility and the sustainability of the city as a whole, including the historic centre and the Singel canal area. Instances of demolition and other damage related to rail developments are to be seen in the broader perspective of keeping scarce urban space in the city primarily for the use of the people, instead of using land for the high space-consuming infrastructure needed for cars and related parking. There was a brief period when Amsterdam tried to embrace the automobile culture but eventually retreated from it. Pete Jordan’s In the City of Bikes tells us about the efforts to make the city more car-centric from the 1930s to the 1960s, and the ‘pushback’ against these efforts.2 The intensive urban development on the water space extending north of the nineteenth-century Station required new north – south transport links running through the area. These developments also entailed a change in the land-use of areas adjacent to the historic centre, including high-rise buildings. However, as indicated earlier, these changes have hardly affected

Figure 11.2 View of early building phase. The Bend in the Herengracht by Gerrit Berckheyde (1671 – 72). Source: Web Gallery of Art (public domain).

Figure 11.3 Random view of a canal today. This shows the multimodal use of the canals, adapting to changes in transport modes, while remaining an amenity in their own right. Source: http://www.webklik.nl.

188

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 11.4 View of central station, Amsterdam. This photo, taken in 1900 shows the link with the old town and the canal area, while remaining outside of it. Source: Wikipedia.

the Singel canal area, as the station was separated from it by a water basin (Figure 11.4). To sum up, the history and design of the Singel canal area, combining long-term economic sustainability, social coherence of the layout and environmental concern for water protection, land provision, energy-saving transport, and greening, do justify the qualification of best practice in sustainable development, and its place in the present book. The interaction of human settlements with the maritime environment has been a national trademark of Dutch planning practice, both urban and rural, throughout history, combining private practice and collective interest as shown by the development of the Beemster Polder, gained from the sea four centuries ago, and inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1999. A special publication is available in English.3

The UNESCO World Heritage list: criteria and procedures The UNESCO World Heritage programme was founded under the ‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’, which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on November 16, 1972. The first inscriptions on the World Heritage List were made in 1978.

ASSESSING

THE

AMSTERDAM SINGEL CANAL AREA

189

Ten selection criteria confer eligibility to be placed on the list, of which the first six apply to built heritage (Box 11.1). UNESCO procedures require that countries (‘state parties’) must first take an inventory of their significant cultural and natural properties and enter them on the tentative list. Next, they can select a property from this list to place it in a nomination file. At this point, the built heritage nomination files are evaluated by experts appointed by the International Council on Monuments and Sites – ICOMOS. Evaluation entails an experts’ site visit report that can be complemented by a critical desk study review. Once this procedure has been fulfilled the case’s nomination is put on the agenda of the World Heritage Committee and considered for inscription on the World Heritage List. The beneficiaries have to declare that they accept their obligation to respect and maintain the character of the site.

Box 11.1 World Heritage List – UNESCO’s criteria for selection. To be included on the World Heritage List, sites have to be of outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria. Thus, sites should: 1. represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; 2. exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; 3. bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; 4. be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; 5. be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; 6. be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria); 7. contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance; 8. be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; 9. be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; 10. contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

190

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

The author’s desk review The site was duly selected by the state party (Dutch Ministry of Culture) as a candidate and a very detailed file was put together. The experts’ visit was duly reported. Objections were raised as the candidacy was solely for the Singel canal area, while the historic medieval centre was not included. The state party disagreed and their view prevailed The author’s assignment was to carry out the ICOMOS expert desk review about the inclusion, or not, of the Singel canal area on the World Heritage List. This review argued strongly in favour of inclusion. It was part of the process leading to UNESCO’s decision in 2010 to add the area to the World Heritage List.4 The Ministry’s submission referred to three of UNESCO’s qualifying criteria, these being Nos 1,2 and 4 which relate, principally, to evidence of human creative genius, the interchange of human values over time and outstanding achievement in terms of building, architecture and town planning (Box 11.1). In the author’s view, the justification, based on these criteria, includes planning, development controls, implementation issues and international influence. The planning of the area reveals a great mastery of the land and water interface, the area’s land subdivision (in small plots), bulk control, the creation of a consistent design and materials vocabulary, soft landscaping including tree planting and, finally, simplicity in urban block design. The blocks consist of residential row houses (’architectura minor’), punctuated by a limited number of iconic monuments (‘architectura major’); Development controls were entrusted to the municipal planning authorities, with private associations acting in an advisory capacity, i.e. a sort of public/private partnership system, moderated by countervailing influences from the associations. A large number of city government resolutions (‘Vroedschapsresoluties’) are cited by Abrahamse in his book on urban development in seventeenth-century Amsterdam.5 Implementation has taken place over a very long period of time and has therefore confirmed the durability of the master plan. It has also confirmed the continuity of a ‘Baukultur’ combining technological and engineering strength with a concern for public and private amenities. International influence has been acknowledged by urban historians at large and lately by the international symposium ‘New Urbanism and the Grid: the Low Countries in an International Context – Exchanges in theory and practice’, held in Antwerp on May 8, 2009 and by Abrahamse’s book as referred to earlier.6

ASSESSING

THE

AMSTERDAM SINGEL CANAL AREA

191

The comparison with canal-centred sites in other countries confirms the uniqueness of the Singel canal area. In particular it cannot be compared with Venice, which developed gradually along the Grand Canal and, so far as we know, not in accordance with any unified design or planned structure. As to St Petersburg, Russia, while there is a clear influence emanating from the planning of Amsterdam, through the influence of Peter the Great, the two cities differ in terms of their overall planning (imperial vs merchant) and in the speed of their implementation (through ‘imperial enforcement’ this was particularly fast in St Petersburg). Important also is the difference in plot subdivision typology (‘parcellation’). Thus the St Petersburg approach (subdivision into large palatial plots) is strikingly different from the typical small plots for merchant row-houses (Figures 11.1 and 11.2). The superior mastery of water flows in Amsterdam (vs St Petersburg) must be underlined. This aspect cannot be emphasised enough, at a time when sustainable water management has become of international concern. In the wake of globally rising water levels, the Netherlands is continuing its long tradition of water management. It is probably the world pioneer in protecting itself against future floods, to the benefit of its historic areas as well as its newer settlements. The main arguments for inscription on the World Heritage List can be summarised as follows: 1. The canal ring’s layout (residential canals and service streets), its land subdivision in small plots and its implementation framework and development control have proved their robustness over four centuries. 2. The canal areas has been able to accommodate functional changes as well as changes in building styles and building techniques, but generally avoiding the amalgamation of individual plots to satisfy demands for larger scale building. 3. The boundary between public space and private space has been clearly preserved. The area has avoided the trend elsewhere in ‘modern’ planning whereby public/private boundaries are frequently blurred through the creation of anonymous ‘green spaces’ between slabs and towers instead of truly public spaces and gardens for neighbourhoods. 4. The issues confronted by the canal area at its edge have not overly affected its own robust framework and character, thanks to the (planned) physical separation. 5. Indeed the Singel canal area goes beyond the specifics of heritage conservation and places itself in the realm of the emerging wider UNESCO approach, i.e. towards ‘historic urban landscapes’ (HUL), and their global sustainability (economic, social and environmental).8

192

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

UNESCO’s world heritage listing: an overall assessment Between 1978 and 2014, 1,007 sites were put on the World Heritage List. As UN bodies’ decisions must be taken unanimously, there is clearly a case for a negotiation process involving national delegations before additional sites are put on the list by the World Heritage Committee. The growing realisation that inscription on the list could result in an increased number of tourists has created a strong appeal to some countries to multiply their candidacies. Nomination files are getting more and more numerous and detailed and national selection more and more political. China is a good example of how the selection process works. The national candidate projects, selected through a technical and political process, within China’s branch of ICOMOS, are put on a multi-year calendar, enabling an optimal preparation and run up to the final international negotiation and decision. A case in point is China’s Grand Canal. The nomination process started in 2007, the nomination files were submitted to the World Heritage Centre and the final decision by the World Heritage Committee was taken in 2014. The process was explained at length by heritage researcher Shuaishuai He.9 As an illustration from Belgium, there was an initial proposal to have some specific medieval belfries on the list. These were all located in one region i.e. Flanders. But the result of the national negotiation process was that all the belfries in Belgium, including recent ones with no architectural distinction, were nominated and inscribed on the list. The international selection process has much to with the experts chosen to operate it. While the UNESCO criteria are reasonably well defined their interpretation leaves room for divergent recommendations. As an example of that divergence, the old town of Warsaw was put on the list because of its symbolic value although it was completely rebuilt and thus is not ‘authentic’. By contrast, the old town of Gdansk, of equal symbolic value and also totally rebuilt, could not be put on the list, because it was not ‘authentic’. But another reason may have been the feeling at the time that one inscription from Poland was enough. The main problem with a list of more than a thousand sites is monitoring them in respect of the obligations placed on the authorities responsible for their management. Some countries, for example, the United Kingdom, consider that fixing the standards for respect of the inscription’s obligations is part of their sovereignty and stress the mismatch between UNESCO requirements and their national planning system. By contrast, other countries accept UNESCO’s monitoring, even if it constitutes a constraint and may give unwanted publicity. A case in point is the

ASSESSING

THE

AMSTERDAM SINGEL CANAL AREA

193

German city of Dresden, which lost its World Heritage Status because of a bridge which was considered to be incompatible with the listed perimeter. In some cases, the threat of the loss of that status is used by opponents to contest particular projects which are being favourably considered by the authorities, and fully supported by their own experts’ reports (‘my expert against yours’). In certain countries, the monitoring of inscription obligations is clearly giving way to political and commercial considerations. A case in point is the Xi’an site which has a shopping mall and high income housing next to it. In fact, inscription on the World Heritage List can sometimes accelerate inauthentic additions to a site (and ‘Disneyfication’). Returning to the matter of ‘authenticity’ the interpretation of what this means remains a real problem. The 1972 Convention focuses on the ‘materiality’ of properties. Both restoration practices and investment pressures can lead to changes in use, allowing higher yields, and possibly the expulsion of established communities. This issue has been described at length by architect planner Dennis Rodwell.10 All in all, in the four decades since 1972, the listing process has proven to be an important tool towards increasing world wide awareness of the importance of cultural heritage conservation. However, the selection and monitoring processes have become part of the international political game and have therefore lost some of their credibility. Perhaps an independent evaluation of listed sites might be made available to authorities and visitors, to help avoid disappointments? But how would such an evaluation be put into place, financed and its own activity monitored? These are some key unanswered questions.

Acknowledgments The author acknowledges the help of Dennis Rodwell and the useful remarks of Shuaishuai He, Xie Li, Alex McGregor and Mitchell Reardon.

Notes 1. J. E. Abrahamse, De grote uitleg van Amsterdam. Stadsontwikkeling in de zeventiende eeuw (The great expansion of Amsterdam: Urban development in the Seventeenth Century) (Toth, 2010). 2. P. Jordan, In the City of Bikes: The Story of the Amsterdam Cyclist (New York, 2013). 3. W. Reh, C. Steenbergen and D. Aten, Sea of Land – The Polder as an Experimental Atlas of Dutch Landscape and Architecture (English version – published by the Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier, Purmerend and Delft University of Technology, in cooperation with the Uitgeverij Noord-Holland, Wormer, the Netherlands, 2007). 4. P. Laconte, ‘ICOMOS Desk Review about Potential Inclusion in UNESCO’s World Heritage List (2010) (17th Century Canal Ring Area of Amsterdam inside the Singelgracht)’ (2010, unpublished).

194

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

5. Abrahamse, De grote uitleg van Amsterdam. 6. P. Lombaerde and C. van de Heuvel, Early Modern Urbanism and the Grid - Town Planning in the Low Countries in International Context: Exchanges in Theory and Practice, 1550– 1800 (Turnhout, 2011); Abrahamse, De grote uitleg van Amsterdam. 8. UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscapes adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference on 10 November 2011. 9. S. He, ‘Developing Relations between Heritage Conservation and Urban Revitalization: Lessons from China’ (Oxford, 2014, PhD thesis). 10. D. Rodwell, Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities (Oxford, 2007); D. Rodwell, ‘The Unesco World Heritage Convention, 1972– 2012: Reflections and Directions’, The Historic Environment, 3/1 (2012): 64– 85.

CHAPTER 12 KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW URBAN QUARTER FOR LONDON Chris Gossop

Currently one of the largest and most challenging development projects in Europe, King’s Cross is a standard setter for integrated transport planning, for masterplanning and place making, and for the creation of a new quarter for London that can reach new heights in terms of urban design and sustainability. After a brief introduction, this chapter charts the rise and then the changing fortunes of the King’s Cross lands over six generations, before turning to the parallel transport and planning visions for this area and the complex steps that have been taken to realise them. Following the theme of the book, it then seeks to assess the performance of the scheme in terms of urban design and in overall environmental terms. The concluding section, a combination of text and a table, sets out the author’s conclusions regarding the impact and success of King’s Cross.

Introduction London has experienced a renaissance over the last ten to 15 years as it seeks through the London Plan and related strategies to ‘expand opportunities for its people and enterprises’, achieve ‘the highest environmental standards and quality of life’ and tackle challenges such as that of climate change.1 Under the London Plan, the aim is for London to grow without expanding its boundaries, concentrating much of that new development within its ‘opportunity areas’ of which that at King’s Cross is a prime example.2 This is already becoming a fine urban quarter within an area where there are two interlocked visions. The first is a transport vision, capitalising upon the

196

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

superb accessibility provided by the two railway termini of King’s Cross and St Pancras and a host of associated local transport facilities. The second is a planning and design vision for a new and vibrant mixed use community for London.3 The development at King’s Cross is notable for its size. At 27 ha, it is described by the developer as ‘the largest site in one ownership to be masterplanned and developed in central London in over 150 years’. This is the area between and to the north of the two termini; taking that railway land into account, the total regeneration area amounts to some 40 ha.4 After many decades of dereliction and under use, this whole area is undergoing massive change which has already yielded impressive results. The design of the emerging urban quarter has been greatly influenced by the positions and the quality of the site’s historic buildings and other infrastructure laid out over a period of almost 200 years. The evolution of the site and the establishment of its main buildings during its initial phase of use is briefly described in the next section of this chapter. This then charts how the story became one of decline over much of the twentieth century, leading to two failed attempts to revive the area before, finally, the conditions became right and a viable regeneration began. The third and fourth sections bring us up to date by describing that present transformation and the twin visions that underlie it. Sections 5 and 6 analyse two things. The first is about the place-making qualities of King’s Cross in terms of its overall urban design, the approach to the quality of its buildings and of the public realm around them, and of its attempts to integrate the new with enhanced and adapted versions of the old. The second relates to Section 5 because it is about ‘environmental performance’; it explores the extent to which developments at King’s Cross can advance current practices in the overlapping fields of urban design and environmental sustainability. The final section attempts to summarise the response and impact of this highly complex scheme in respect of a range of planning considerations. From this analysis, the conclusion is that King’s Cross is on the way to becoming a highly distinctive and exemplary new urban quarter for London.

The history Origins The mid nineteenth century experienced a ‘gold rush’ of railway building as the revolutionary new railways spread out to cover the entire country. Indeed, in 1846, in a wave of ‘railway mania’, a total of 272 Acts of Parliament were advanced to build new lines. Through a process that displaced an estimated

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

THE DEVELOPMENT

197

Figure 12.1 Battlebridge Place – a new public space at an entry point to King’s Cross with St Pancras International in the background.

100,000 people, London was hugely transformed through the building of a ring of railway termini, a process which started with Euston in 1837.5 Broadly the same distance from the city centre, King’s Cross Station opened in 1852 with St Pancras following in 1868.6 As the termini of rival train companies, the Great Northern and the Midland, they were to be very different in their form. King’s Cross Station was designed by the architect, Lewis Cubitt. With its twin train sheds and, at the front its massive glazed openings that follow the curved shapes of the train shed roofs, this building has a very legible form that clearly indicates its function. Alongside it, there is a separate station hotel, the Great Northern, also by Lewis Cubitt. By contrast, St Pancras Station and its much grander hotel directly adjoin one another. They represent the divided responsibilities of an engineer, William Barlow who designed its single span train shed – at 75m the widest ever attempted at that date – and an architect, George Gilbert Scott, whose extraordinary neo-gothic station hotel effectively forms the end wall and entrance to that station.7 The two termini and the Great Northern Hotel between them define the southern entrance to the present development site and have strongly dictated its layout (Figures 12.1, 12.3, 12.4). Another major influence has been the legacy of buildings and infrastructure elsewhere on the site. While the locomotive turntables and much of the other historic railway infrastructure have long since gone, the buildings that remain are listed as of architectural and historic

198

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 12.2 The Regent’s Canal, opened in 1820 as a transport route for London’s food and other freight and now a popular facility for leisure boating.

importance, as are four ornate gasholder frames which have been dismantled, prior to their on-going restoration and re-use on the site. The Regent’s Canal forms the other main historic feature of the site. Belonging to an era just before that of the railways, this operational waterway separates the King’s Cross site into two roughly equal halves (Figure 12.2). Decades of decline and two failed schemes As the roles of the railways and the technologies changed, this area fell into a long period of decline. Goods were increasingly carried by road, natural gas from the North Sea replaced gas manufactured from coal and the sidings gradually became redundant. And the Midland Grand at St Pancras became unable to compete with its newer rivals and it closed as a hotel in 1935.8 Ideas in the 1960s to redevelop former railway land for public housing came to nothing. Other proposals focused upon some rationalisation of the two stations and included the option of demolition. At about the same time, and in part spurred on by such threats, Victorian buildings came to be increasingly admired and back in fashion. That movement was to lead in 1967 to the designation of St Pancras as a Grade 1 Listed Building placing it in the highest category of protection in England. That at least preserved the station, and as a single entity, the train shed together with the former hotel.9 In 1986, the former British Rail and other landowners got together with a view to redeveloping the largely redundant goods yard. The vision was to build a low level London Terminus for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) at King’s Cross and a development of 1,850 homes at affordable prices, together with opportunities for jobs and open space.10 However, in 1994, the resulting scheme was withdrawn because of a

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

THE DEVELOPMENT

199

combination of the poor economic conditions and a belated government decision to promote an alternative scheme for the CTRL with a high level terminus at St Pancras.11,12 Eventual transformation Legislation for the CTRL route between London and the Channel Tunnel, based on the use of St Pancras, was passed in 1996. The concession to build and operate the rail link was given to London and Continental Railways Ltd who were also to be responsible for the remodelling of St Pancras Station, with the exception of the hotel. That company was also granted land between the two stations. The King’s Cross site, is being developed by the King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership, which brings together: . . . .

Argent King’s Cross Limited Partnership; London & Continental Railways Limited; DHL Supply Chain;13 Australian Super (superannuation fund).

The transport vision This is an area that has long been well connected. Thus, King’s Cross/St Pancras is a major hub on the London Underground System, the only one to be served by six lines. King’s Cross Station is at the southern end of the UK’s East Coast Mainline, serving York, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh, with a separate company providing links to Cambridge and East Anglia. For its part, St Pancras is the terminal for the Midland Mainline serving Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. With the opening of the CTRL, now High Speed 1 (HS1), in November 2007, St Pancras became St Pancras International, the London terminus for HS1. It replaced the temporary arrangement based on Waterloo Station that had served since the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994. With HS1 in place, London is now just 2¼ hours away from Paris and less than 2 hours from Brussels and other high speed links are being pursued, for example, to Amsterdam and Cologne. The line is a major asset for Britain and its continental neighbours and the businesses that are setting up at King’s Cross will be extremely well connected internationally (Figure 12.3). HS1 is also bringing significant benefits for domestic travel. Two new stations have opened along its route. Of these, Ebbsfleet serves the Thames Gateway Development Area while, further into London, Stratford City is a second centre for regeneration having been the rail gateway to the 2012 Olympics site in the Lea Valley. Those places are benefitting economically

200

Figure 12.3

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

St Pancras International.

from their new international links and from much improved accessibility to central London. Moreover, commuters from more distant places, such as Ashford, have had their journey times cut significantly. A further project centred upon St Pancras, and a new low-level station there, relates to the upgrading of Thameslink which provides a north –south railway connection through London. Added to this, the King’s Cross St Pancras underground station benefits from improved subway access and the area as a whole has numerous bus services. Users of St Pancras and King’s Cross Stations are benefitting from better station facilities and a much improved environment. Barlow’s train shed has been magnificently restored as part of a transformation that has included a modern extension to accommodate the long Eurostar trains as well as new platforms for domestic services, while shops, cafes and other facilities have been provided within the former undercroft of the original building. And in the summer of 2011, the former Midland Grand Hotel re–opened as the St Pancras Renaissance following a major restoration. In parallel, the upper storeys and attic spaces were converted into penthouses, while the original hotel was extended along the western side of the train shed to provide many new bedrooms following a design that is in keeping with that of the original building (Plate 7b). King’s Cross Station has also been restored. This took the form of a new western concourse surmounted by a striking glazed canopy, works that

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

THE DEVELOPMENT

201

Figure 12.4 The opened up frontage to King’s Cross Station with new public square in the foreground.

enabled the removal of the many extraneous structures from the front of the station. That has re– opened the original view of this important fac ade and enabled the construction of a public square as a gateway to the King’s Cross development (Figure 12.4). Thus the buildings and spaces that were once so symbolic of Victorian progress and of the first railway age are being adapted to suit the modern era with its international high speed rail travel. Moreover, the transformation of the two termini is closely associated with the plans for the land in between, where the aim is to create an exemplary new urban quarter for London. To that end, the works to the two stations and their surrounds have set a high standard.

King’s Cross: the planning vision Complementing the clear transport vision for those stations is a long-term planning vision for those former railway lands. This involved a lengthy process of negotiation between the developers and three local authorities, Camden Council (in which almost all of the site is located), Islington Council (which has jurisdiction over about 1 ha of the site) and the strategic planning body, the Greater London Authority (GLA) which came into being in 2000. Many other official bodies have also been involved, for example, English Heritage in connection with the numerous historic buildings, and there was extensive consultation with the local community. Over the years the King’s

202

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Cross Development Forum has brought the various community groups together and acted as a sounding board for the many proposals.14 The relevant planning documents comprised, principally, the Mayor of London’s Plan for London, Camden Council’s updated Unitary Development Plan and that authority’s planning brief for King’s Cross.15,16 Both Councils remain highly supportive of this development because of the boost that it undoubtedly gives to London’s role as a world business, commercial and cultural centre. However, Camden Council has also placed great emphasis on the need for the scheme to achieve economic, social and physical integration with the surrounding communities. Those communities, notably Somers Town to the west, Maiden Lane to the north, King’s Cross to the south and Thornhill (within Islington Borough) to the east are among the most deprived in the United Kingdom, in terms of income, employment and housing. Thus, the benefits of the new development need to ripple out into these surrounding areas.17 Outline planning permission and other necessary approvals, covering, for example, the alteration, or demolition in some cases, of pre –existing buildings were granted in 2007 and 2008. The approved documents included a substantial Section 106 Agreement (part of the statutory planning system for England and Wales) which commits the developer to provide a package of social and environmental infrastructure. For example, it provides for a significant amount of affordable housing, both ‘social rented’ for people who cannot otherwise afford to buy or rent accommodation in the housing market and ‘intermediate housing’ intended to be within reach of those on moderate incomes, for example teachers and public health workers. The outline planning permission and associated masterplan (Figure 12.5) provides for a high density, mixed use development with some 740,000 sq.m of floor space and includes the following components: . . . . . . . . . . . .

the refurbishment and re –use of 20 historic buildings and structures; about 50 new buildings; 20 new public streets and ten new public spaces; enhancements to the Regent’s Canal, including new bridges; a world class public realm embracing 40 per cent of the site area; urban home zones; 25,000 jobs, together with skills and recruitment initiatives; 1,900 homes and up to 650 units of student accommodation; retail and leisure provision; University of the Arts London; children’s centre and primary school; primary health care centre, plus walk– in centre;

Figure 12.5 King’s Cross Master Plan. Source: Townshend Landscape Architects.

204 . . .

.

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

public health and fitness facilities; indoor sports hall; energy infrastructure, comprising combined heat and power (CHP)/ district heating, provision for biomass energy, ground source heat pumps and other forms of renewable energy; native species planting, green/brown roofs and new habitat areas.18

This remains a huge construction site with as much happening below the ground as above it. However, several key developments are complete with others well advanced, notably those surrounding Pancras Square which opened in April 2015. These include Five Pancras Square, a public building for Camden Council which accommodates two public pools, a leisure centre and a cafe as well as offices. Moreover, the first major roadway, King’s Boulevard is in place. Currently acting as a footpath and cycleway (it will eventually take buses too) this route crosses the Regent’s Canal via a new bridge linking the two parts of King’s Cross (Figure 12.10). Its timing coincided with the completion and opening in October 2011 of the University of the Arts London campus. The university provides a home for Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design. Based upon a transformation of the Grade II listed Granary complex, this development now houses the College’s Schools of Art, Fashion and Textiles, as well as Graphics and Industrial Design, together with a newly created School of Performing Arts with its associated 350-seat public theatre. Accommodating 4,500 students and staff, the complex and the major public space in front of it is already bringing enormous life into the heart of King’s Cross.19 With its canal-side location and its various water features, Granary Square is a focal point for the whole development (Figures 12.6 and 12.7).

Urban design The outline planning applications were supported by much additional information, notably an Urban Design Statement and related Framework. The intention of these additional documents was to guide the evolution of the overall scheme over time, and they form part of the brief given to the chosen architects in respect of the individual development plots and opportunities. They build upon a three-year period of consultation and ten fundamental principles, captured within ‘Principles for a Human City’. Among other characteristics, these envisage: a development with a robust urban framework and urban grain; a dense, diverse neighbourhood with a vibrant mix of uses;

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

Figure 12.6

THE DEVELOPMENT

205

University of the Arts London and Granary Square.

strong urban enclosure with streets and squares; and embedding the old with the new. The principles also include commitments to long-term success, to sustainability, to ‘engage and inspire’ and to clear and open communication and ongoing consultation.20,21 The Urban Design Framework that emerged is a cogent response to the constraints and opportunities of the site. Fundamentally, its authors found it

Figure 12.7 The stepped slope linking Granary Square to the canal towpath and a popular place for students during the summer months.

206

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

to be fragmented and disconnected from the surrounding area. The two great stations with their long blank facades had, in effect, trapped the land between them, while the barriers presented by other buildings and the canal meant that there were no ready connections between the north and the south of the site. That disconnection was reinforced by an absence, certainly in the south, of a coherent urban grain (as present in the urban blocks of Somers Town and other nearby areas) as well as of human scale. Against those constraints, the designers recognised that the retention, where possible, of the site’s historic buildings and railway/industrial infrastructure would be a key to creating a development of great character. What has emerged is an urban grain of development blocks providing strong enclosure, plus a network of major public spaces and new routes which will greatly improve the permeability of the area and the embedding of the old amongst the new. The development is to offer optimum accessibility by public transport, for cyclists and for pedestrians, and active ground floor uses, notably retail, wherever possible. The Urban Design Guidelines provide greater detail and specify the characteristics of individual development blocks and spaces. These are to be taken into account in the submissions for detailed planning permission which will be required for each development block and significant public space. Thus, to take one example, the detailed design statement for Three Pancras Square, an office development now under construction at the junction of Goods Way with King’s Boulevard indicates how the building will relate to the adjacent Buildings One and Two Pancras Square (both now completed) and to the Granary Building and Granary Square to the north of Regent’s Canal. Among other things it shows typical floor plans and how the upper storeys are to be set back – both to provide added visual interest and the required ‘light cone’ within King’s Boulevard (Figures 12.8, 12.9).

Environmental performance The King’s Cross Development has ambitious aims in terms of environmental sustainability. In particular, carbon emissions are to be reduced significantly through energy-efficient building design, the use of the latest technologies and connection to a site–wide Combined Heat and Power (CHP) network. Already in operation, the Energy Centre is located within the Tapestry Building close to the north west boundary of the site. This 6MW CHP system, one of the largest of its type in the United Kingdom, will eventually supply heat to all parts of the development and offset 79 per cent of total power demand, all with estimated carbon savings of over 45 per cent. Renewable technologies, particularly photovoltaics, will also be used throughout the development22 (Plate 7a).

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

THE DEVELOPMENT

207

Figure 12.8 Five Pancras Square, Camden Council’s new offices and public facilities nearing completion (rear) and construction site for Three Pancras Square (frontage) (June 2014).

Overall, a site-wide Environmental Management System (EMS) is applied and there is a commitment to a comprehensive Code of Construction Practice that embraces modern construction methods, waste minimisation, targets for the use of green materials and the re– use of site materials. In terms of their

208

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

overall sustainability performance, new buildings are to achieve a BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) rating of ‘very good’ with an aspiration for ‘excellent’ or ‘outstanding’. In addition to energy performance, BREEAM covers a range of factors which include water use and here this development aims to reduce demand through the use of high efficiency appliances, water recycling and rainwater harvesting. They also embrace transport which is addressed in this scheme by a comprehensive green travel plan. Related to the construction impacts upon nearby communities, the quantum of basement area was restricted to minimise the resulting number of ‘muck– away’ lorry movements, a big issue for both Camden and Islington Councils.23 Detailed planning permission has now been obtained in respect of many of the development zones. To take the completed One and Two Pancras Square as examples, such permissions typically relate to shared servicing basements, areas of public realm, building design and height, refuse handling, noise control, transport and servicing and sustainability. On the transport side, many of the buildings are to provide basement space for cycle parking and there is additional space for visitor bike parking within the public realm areas. On-site provision for car parking is minimal, those bringing in a car having to rely principally on the multi–storey car park contained within the Tapestry Building. The very limited direct provision reflects the unparalleled accessibility of King’s Cross by public transport. One and Two Pancras Square both make impressive contributions in terms of sustainability; this is in compliance with Condition 17 of the outline permission which requires the submission of an Environmental Sustainability Plan. Thus, among their energy-efficiency and technology measures, they: seek to reduce their peak cooling load and annual cooling consumption using the thermal mass of the building; are designed to be adapted to mixed mode conditioning in the future; rely on balconies, slab overhangs, deep window reveals and other design measures to provide natural shading and reduce solar gain, and incorporate high efficiency lighting systems. Through these and other measures, One and Two Pancras Square have estimated carbon emissions 33 per cent and 32 per cent lower than Part L of the Building Regulations. They will benefit additionally from the use of low carbon heat, hot water and electricity generated by the King’s Cross Energy Centre. The projected overall carbon saving for One and Two Pancras Square is high. Thus, compared to the building regulations, this should amount to 41 per cent and 54 per cent respectively, through a combination of energy efficiency, the additional energy efficiency due to the CHP/district heating system and the use of renewables. In terms of the BREEAM scoring system which covers a wide range of factors – management, health and wellbeing, energy, transport, water,

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

Figure 12.9

THE DEVELOPMENT

209

Pancras Square with One and Two at the right (June 2014).

materials, waste, land use and ecology and pollution – both buildings are designed to achieve a rating of ‘outstanding’. That rating applies also to the nearby Five Pancras Square discussed earlier (Figures 12.8 and 12.9).24 These three properties together with many others on the King’s Cross site have, or are to have, green or brown roofs. The Living Landscape Roof Strategy forms the framework for this and is a partnership involving Argent, the London Wildlife Trust and Global Generation, a charity that provides local children and teenagers opportunities to work on sustainable projects within the site.25

Conclusions Table 12.1 seeks to summarise the extent to which King’s Cross has met the aims and objectives set for it by the development plan, and by national planning guidance, for example on urban design, and has complied with wider sustainability and ‘liveability’ considerations. The factors listed are planning considerations that span the environmental, the social and the economic, themselves the three commonly recognised pillars of sustainability. They also embrace those cultural attributes that contribute to human well being; these include the area’s important historical associations and its newly opened university. The response of a development to such planning considerations taken together ultimately determines whether a place succeeds, or has the potential to succeed, as a fine living and working environment, and as a place to be – a place that lifts the spirits.

Public amenity space and vibrancy

Density and land use mix

Transport and accessibility

ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND WELL BEING

Homes and social inclusivity

Social regeneration

Job creation

Accommodation of London’s growth Contribution to the London economy

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

Unparalleled connectivity by public transport, through national and international rail services, six underground lines, many bus services and significant provision for cycling. Reduced dependence upon the car, reflected in limited provision for car parking. A relatively high density, mixed use area where office, retail, residential, hotel, tourism and leisure uses complement one another, providing much scope for people to live and work in the same area thereby reducing car dependency. At ground level, shops, restaurants, bars and other public uses will border and animate main street and public spaces. Mix of uses will create a lively area, seven days a week and into evenings. Ten public spaces and other high quality public realm will provide an attractive environment for residents, workers and visitors and contribute to the developing image of King’s Cross as a vibrant urban quarter.

A major development making effective use of long disused brown field land in central London Potential to accommodate innovative businesses, both UK based and international, boosting London’s world city status. Current provision of jobs in construction/ many thousands to be created as businesses and other sources of employment move in. Potential to provide jobs, homes, services and leisure facilities for people currently living in surrounding deprived areas. Up to 2,000 homes and serviced apartments planned, with 44 per cent affordable, either as social housing or ‘intermediate’ through shared ownership/equity. Many of the affordable homes to be targeted at local people. An additional 650 student units planned.

Response/Impact of King’s Cross

The impacts of the King’s Cross development: a summary assessment.

Planning Considerations

Table 12.1

University of the Arts London with its arts and music venues a new cultural focus at the heart of the site. Two substantial hotels. Retention and re-use of 20 heritage buildings, together with canal-side setting will ensure that the 200 year industrial history of this area is never far from view and that King’s Cross will be a highly distinctive urban quarter. The clear design framework contained in the Urban Design Statement and related documents is a key starting point in the long term push to create a new urban quarter for London that is of the highest quality. The challenge is to ensure that the coherence of that thinking is carried through to the detailed design of the individual buildings and spaces. A highly energy-efficient development, with its Energy Centre, the stringent requirements placed on the energy performance of individual buildings, and the commitment to the use of renewables; this promises significant cuts in carbon emissions. Coupled with the commitment to water recycling and conservation, green strategies on construction and the use/re-use of materials, the comprehensive planning for green travel, and the promotion of biodiversity, this equates to impressive sustainability ratings for overall environmental performance (BREEAM). As a caveat, ultimate performance will depend on how the buildings are operated and managed in day-to-day use.

Source: paper by Chris Gossop to the 47th ISOCARP World Congress in Wuhan, China in October 2011.

Environmental sustainability

Urban design

Heritage

Education, hotels and leisure

212

Figure 12.10

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

King’s Boulevard.

The analysis suggests that this major regeneration scheme is on the way to becoming that truly successful place. The magnificent restoration of St Pancras Station and its hotel is encouraging evidence of the quality that is aspired to, and that has been ably followed by the enhancement works to the adjacent King’s Cross Station and its surrounds. It is as yet early days for the core regeneration area, but the masterplan and related documents provide a fine

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

THE DEVELOPMENT

213

vision of how it could be, a place where the old and the new are successfully integrated and where there is a good balance between the buildings and the public realm that connects everything together. Subject to the many details required of the individual buildings and spaces, the promise is of a highly distinctive and accessible urban quarter that will be a key place in western Europe for business, for education, for culture and leisure, and, of course, for living. Based on what has been done so far, the signs are encouraging. As the transformation of St Pancras is showing, the great asset of this area is its powerful transport and commercial history, a heritage that spans six generations. The retention of so many historic buildings and so much of the infrastructure of the nineteenth century, alongside developments designed by the best architects of today can potentially make this area a pre –eminent example of excellence and best practice at international level. Already, there is much in this experience that can inform future developments worldwide. The scheme has been long in the making but that is a reflection of the extreme complexity of this area, a major factor being the need to accommodate a transport connection of international importance. On environmental sustainability we can look forward to a development that sets high standards in terms of its energy efficiency, its (reduced) carbon emissions and its environmental performance generally. The United Kingdom

Figure 12.11 The striking ArtHouse development, the first market housing at King’s Cross, viewed across the Regent’s Canal with its moored leisure boats. Source: Pierre Laconte.

214

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

has been a slow starter in the field of local energy solutions, especially in respect of district heating/CHP. This whole site will benefit from such a system which, coupled with efficient building design and the use of renewable sources of energy will provide useful lessons for the urban quarters of the future. Given the growing concerns about the urban heat island effect, associated with, largely, man–made global warming, this area’s energy technology and management should provide useful experience on how buildings can be kept cool in the summer months, as well as sufficiently warm in the winter and, in both cases, how carbon emissions can be minimised in the process. But specifying an energy-efficient building is one thing, achieving that potential in practice is another. Having regard to the sometimes alarming ‘performance gap’ discussed in Chapter 1 of this book, King’s Cross will need to demonstrate that its individual buildings are being managed and operated in a way that delivers the expected performance. According to the Partnership’s sustainability report this matter is to be addressed in its Environmental Management Programme, the intention being: the delivery of timely and accurate reporting for investors and industry regulators; the provision of guidance to occupiers to achieve green building standards during fit out; and the establishment of a post– occupancy programme designed to facilitate the sustainable occupation and operation of buildings.26 Parallel Environmental Management Programmes address: resource efficiency (and the move towards zero waste); accessibility and movement (including the preparation of workplace travel plans); and Habitat and Biodiversity (including a review of biodiversity with the London Wildlife Trust).27 Among the overall lessons of the King’s Cross experience so far are the need for: an enduring, close working relationship between the investors, the developers and their contractors, the local authorities and other agencies; a planning process that embraces significant public consultation to establish local wishes and needs; and a firm commitment to the long term (provided here by Argent who have an established track record in seeing developments through). Those are at least some of the ingredients that are required to build a clear vision for the future, and an exemplary, sustainable new urban quarter for London.

Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank the developer, Argent King’s Cross Limited Partnership, for the information and advice they have provided. Illustrations are by the author unless otherwise credited.

KING'S CROSS:ASSESSING

THE DEVELOPMENT

215

Notes 1. Greater London Authority, ‘The London Plan July 2011: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London’ (2011), para.1.52, https://www.london.gov.uk/what-wedo/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-2-londons-places/ policy-213. 2. Greater London Authority, ‘The London Plan’, para. 2.58. 3. C. Gossop, ‘London’s Railway Land – Strategic Visions for the King’s Cross Opportunity Area’, ISOCARP Review 04 (The Hague, 2009). 4. Argent (King’s Cross) Limited (2010), ‘King’s Cross – An Overview’ (2010), pp. 3, 12. 5. P. Ackroyd, London: The Biography (London, 2000). 6. S. Bradley, St Pancras Station (2007), pp. 63, 69. 7. Ibid., p. 94. 8. Ibid., p. 127. 9. Ibid., pp. 157 – 60. 10. D. Pike, ‘The King’s Cross Development Case Study’, The Planner, 76/49. 11. Gossop, London’s Railway Land. 12. M. Ash, ‘Peter Hall: An Inspiration’, Town & Country Planning, October 2014. 13. King’s Cross Development website (2014), (http://www.kingscross.co.uk/whos-developi ng-kings-cross, www.constructionatkingscross.com. 14. Kings Cross Development Forum, http://kxdf.wordpress.com. 15. Greater London Authority, ‘The London Plan July 2011’. 16. Camden Council, ‘Camden Replacement Unitary Development Plan’ (2006). 17. Ibid. 18. Chris Gossop, London’s Railway Land. 19. University of the Arts London, www.arts.ac.uk/csm. 20. Argent St George, ‘Principles for a Human City’ (2001). 21. Camden Council, ‘Urban Design Statement Forming Part of the Planning Application for Kings Cross Central’, http://planningonline.camden.gov.uk. 22. King’s Cross Development website. 23. Ibid. 24. The BIG Biodiversity Challenge, http://www.bigchallenge.info/#!2015-shortlistedentries/c1lym. 25. Ibid. 26. King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership, ‘Sustainability 14/15 Kings Cross’ (London, 2014). 27. Ibid.

CHAPTER 13 CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE: MAKING AN ENTIRE CITY DISTRICT SELF-SUFFICIENT IN HEAT AND POWER Uli Hellweg and Kai Dietrich

Hamburg’s island district of Wilhelmsburg is the location for Germany’s eighth International Building Exhibition (IBA). Developed over more than a century the general intention of the IBA is to generate innovative ideas on the shaping of urban life. Each has had a special theme or themes. For IBA Hamburg they include the theme of Cities and Climate Change through the ambitious central goal of making Wilhelmsburg self-sufficient in energy terms. This chapter charts the establishment of IBA Hamburg by the City’s leaders and their decision to employ one of Germany’s most powerful measures for urban development to remodel this hitherto somewhat neglected island as a pioneer of energy efficiency and the use of renewables in Hamburg. As is described here, energy is at the forefront of a wider strategy to improve the liveability of Wilhelmsburg, a strategy which combines environmental and social measures. The chapter then describes the ‘Energy Atlas’, the outcome of a comprehensive study of the building stock and its suitability for upgrading in energy-performance terms, and the three, very different local district heating networks which have resulted together with some of the individual projects. The chapter also highlights the energy-efficiency drive through the ‘Top Climate Plan’ campaign and stresses the vital need to engage local communities and place them at the centre of all improvement plans. Finally it looks ahead to the intended expansion of this ‘laboratory for urban development’.

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

217

Introduction If they had not realised before, the presentation of the 4th IPCC report in January 2007 must surely have made it clear to every politician and town planner that climate change is threatening the existence of our planet and that, apart from being the areas that stand to suffer most, big cities and metropolises are also doing most to cause climate change.1 It was therefore only logical that the International Building Exhibition IBA Hamburg (Internationale Bauausstellung IBA Hamburg) should take ‘Cities and Climate Change’ as one of its key themes. At the end of 2006 the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg constituted IBA Hamburg as a municipal corporation. Its task was to prepare, for presentation in 2013, an international building exhibition on the River Elbe Islands which occupy an area of 35 sq km in the heart of Hamburg. Germany has a long history of building exhibitions (the first was in 1901) and IBA Hamburg is the eighth in the series. An IBA is more than a showcase for architecture; building exhibitions drive urban development. Building exhibitions concentrate and coordinate private and public spending on construction in an area or region with specific problems as well as specific opportunities. So the series represents a treasure trove of more than a hundred years’ experience when it comes to finding innovative solutions for the most pressing problems of urban community life. Many of the ideas still live on today. And each show was an inspiration to innovators.

A century of experience The history of building exhibitions started shortly after the dawn of the twentieth century on Darmstadt’s Mathildenho¨he. By 1901 industrialisation had led to an unprecedented surge in mass-produced housing and overcrowded living space. The architect’s ‘art’ seemed to have no place in the city. The first IBA rebelled against this state of affairs, creating an independent settlement and artists’ colony. In 1927 it was followed by the Weißenhofsiedlung in Stuttgart. Here the Deutsche Werkbund (design and industry federation) realised its vision of a new kind of dwelling. The building exhibition Weißenhofsiedlung showed the latest developments in architecture and house construction as if under a magnifying glass. After World War II, two competing concepts of progressive building emerged in the two halves of the divided nation; both sought to move beyond the disastrous tradition of the barrack-like apartment blocks built in the nineteenth-century Gru¨nderzeit, the period of modernisation towards the end of that century. In the early 1950s the German Democratic Republic

218

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

realised its vision of ‘residential palaces’ for workers’ with monumental buildings on East Berlin’s Stalinallee. Not to be outdone, the western part of Berlin staged its Interbau exhibition of 1957 and rebuilt the war-ravaged Hansa district as a loosely structured cityscape with high-rises and low buildings; this was the first IBA after World War II. The Berlin IBA of 1987 was a reaction to the ‘construction sins’ committed in the 1960s and 1970s, offering models for the repair and reconstruction of urban spaces. The planners aimed for a sensitive treatment of the old and new buildings still standing in Berlin’s historic city centre. Work on the IBA Emscher Park was initiated in 1989 and its ten years were dedicated to the post-industrial, often abandoned, cityscapes of the Ruhr area; for the first time an exhibition focussed on an entire region with numerous towns and administrative districts. Models were developed here for economic and environment-friendly conversion work in the Ruhr district. Since 1999 a similar theme has been occupying the planners of IBA Fu¨rst-Pu¨ckler-Land, the site of disused lignite mines in Niederlausitz district: here too the issues are of environmental rehabilitation, as well as of artistic transformation and putting the region to new, contemporary uses. A current need is to find solutions for Germany’s ‘shrinking towns’, which economic and demographic changes are threatening to ‘hollow out’. That was the subject of IBA Stadtumbau (2003– 10), which was the first exhibition to take an entire state in the German Federation – Saxony-Anhalt – as its location. All building exhibitions to date have had this in common: they have generated ideas on shaping the future of urban life, survival even, that has had an impact far beyond their immediate location and remit. IBA Hamburg focusses on the section of the city where the north and south arms of the River Elbe wrap around the largest river island in Europe (technically a closely connected group of islands) inhabited by about 55,000 people (Figure 13.1). For historic and geographical reasons, climate change is a topic of particular importance to this part of the city. Dykes surround the island to protect it from flooding from the North Sea or when the River Elbe is running high. However, in 1962 the waters of a storm tide breached those dykes, with disastrous consequences for many residents – more than 200 people drowned in the chilly waters. After that many people left Wilhelmsburg, the main Elbe island, and new residents arrived in their place – most of them from less wealthy sections of society and/or with an immigrant background. Although in the 1980s there was a radical change of course and a lot of public money was invested in bricks and mortar, the social conditions barely changed at all.

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

219

Figure 13.1 Wilhelmsburg, an island located between the north and south arms of the River Elbe and the project site for IBA Hamburg. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg/Landesbetrieb fur Geoinformation und Vermessung.

The 2005 resolution made by the Senate for the City of Hamburg to stage an international building exhibition was a declaration of intent to employ one of the strongest urban development instruments known in Germany. IBA Hamburg is unique by being the first building exhibition to be held in connection with an international garden show (igs). Like IBAs, garden shows have a long tradition in Germany; similar to the IBA in terms of structure and management, these focus on the green spaces, and their legacy is public parks. For the Hamburg IBA, the igs link provides additional synergies for the city’s urban space. International building exhibitions are a kind of task force with a time limit. It is a typical feature of an IBA that it is structurally separate from ‘normal’ administrative units, being usually incorporated as a German GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschra¨nkter Haftung), or limited liability company. It thus has a certain amount of independence from classic administrative hierarchies and can act more like a private enterprise. Although an IBA has no sovereign rights and administrative tasks, it does have a remit defined by the parliament (called Bu¨rgerschaft in Hamburg) and it is legitimated by democratic process. In addition to the key IBA theme ‘Cities and Climate Change’, IBA Hamburg is also concerned with social issues. Thus, under its second theme

220

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Kosmopolis, the intention is to make Wilhelmsburg liveable once again for all parts of society. This will be through better education, in particular through better schools, refurbishing and modernising housing, the construction of innovative new buildings and affirmative action for an intercultural urban community. IBA has initiated 70 building projects and 14 social and cultural projects in order to demonstrate what is possible when an entire city district is remodelled according to social and environmental considerations. A third theme, Metrozones, is about developing the Hamburg metropolitan region from within, making better use of neglected, disused land, for example to create small business areas and new local jobs. Achieving modern standards of energy efficiency plays a key role by acting as catalyst and driver of the varying aspects and tasks which together make up a holistic planning approach. Partly these projects are designed to show what the future of modern environment-friendly town planning might be and how cities could be remodelled so as to become climate-friendly or even climateneutral. Another key message is that a hitherto somewhat neglected district of Hamburg with a negative image can reinvent itself as the pioneer of energyefficiency in the city.

Conversion concept for energy efficiency in the city The foundation for making the city a more energy-efficient environment is the ‘Future Concept Renewable Wilhelmsburg’ (Zukunftskonzept Erneuerbares Wilhelmsburg), which was developed between 2008 and 2010 by an international committee of experts in collaboration with IBA.2 The idea behind the resulting ‘Energy Atlas’ is that we need to utilise the city’s (or district’s) local energy resources to supply renewable energy and at the same time to increase considerably the efficiency of local energy use. With this in mind, the various types of building on the Elbe islands were assessed from an energy perspective (for example, their suitability for solar thermal, photovoltaic or shallow geothermal systems) and any restrictions noted (for example, protected monument status, cost –benefit ratios). The conclusion reached was that a smart combination of measures to improve the energy efficiency of existing structures and building services, plus a supply of renewable energy would enable Hamburg’s Elbe islands to produce enough power to meet all demand from the islands’ residential areas for electricity by 2025 and for heating by 2050 (Figure 13.2). Currently there are some 21,500 dwellings in total; these house around 55,000 people.3 A core element in the Renewable Wilhelmsburg concept is the principle of decentralised, local district heating networks. IBA has planned three such networks to supply buildings, of which two have already been realised and one

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

221

Self-sufficient in electricity

Renewable Wilhelmsburg concept for the future

Population 73.078

Population growth

100 90

Self-sufficient in heating

80 70

Population 55.180

[%]

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2007 2010

2020

2030

2040

CO2 emissions 2050

TIme [a]

Figure 13.2 Renewable Wilhelmsburg Concept for the Future. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH.

is still in the planning stage. The first central facility for a local district heating network with the capacity to provide 7.99 MW of heating and 0.61 MW of electricity is located in a disused World War II flak bunker that was converted into an energy bunker (Figure 13.3 and Plate 8a). A buffer

Figure 13.3 Energy Bunker: a memorial transformed into a power plant for renewable energy. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Bernadette Grimmstein.

222

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

storage tank holding 2,000 m3 of water was installed in the bunker to store surplus heat from solar thermal units, a wood-chip boiler and a biomethane CHP plant, together with waste industrial heat; the biomethane comes from a Hamburg-based composting plant. Back-up capacity of 15% to cover peak hours is available from natural gas (the only non-regenerative fuel source). When completed, the energy bunker will supply heating to about 3,000 households and electricity to some 1,100 homes, with an estimated reduction of carbon emissions of 95 per cent or 6,600 tonnes per year. Currently, for the first stage of the project, 830 dwellings in the ‘Weltquartier (Global Neighbourhood)’ are being connected to the energy bunker (Figure 13.4). The second network, not yet realised but in the final planning phase, will utilise the deep geothermal energy potential of the island. Once implemented, this project will play a pioneering role in north Germany. In the context of the IBA, seismic surveys were conducted in 2009–10 which revealed some very promising geological formations. Hot water at 130oC is believed to be present at a depth of 3,200 m. The indications are that this can be exploited, with up to 10MW becoming available for heating. Investigations are being made into the possibility of generating electricity too, depending on the actual temperature of the water. The third heating network (Figures 13.5, 13.6) takes a unique approach, connecting a total of some 115,000 m2 gross floor area of buildings, including dwellings (some 30,000 m2) and business users (some 75,000 m2). The network, or ‘energy association’ supplies heating as well as allowing

Figure 13.4 Weltquartier: renovated social housing. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Martin Kunze.

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

223

Figure 13.5 Local energy network (energy association) supplying district heating to dwellings and businesses and piloting the ‘feed in’ to the grid of surplus heat from consumers. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH.

decentralised consumers to feed heat into the grid. This extends the feed-in principles successfully enshrined in Germany’s Renewable Energies Act in respect of electricity to the provision and ‘export’ of heating. During the initial pilot stage the energy association will be limited to IBA newbuilds in central Wilhelmsburg and it will serve as a full-scale laboratory experiment to trial the future conversion of Hamburg’s huge district heating network. Thus, even if the conversion of the buildings already standing is ultimately the most important aspect of making the city more energy efficient, those new builds still have a pioneering role to play. Displaying a variety of innovative designs these 16 ‘model houses’ serve to demonstrate what the future of energy-efficient building might be. Some of them are described below. The basic unit in the energy association is a central facility with a biomethane cogeneration (CHP) plant and gas-fired boilers for peak demand.

224

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 13.6 Area covered by the local energy network depicted in Figure 13.5. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Falcon Crest Air.

This guarantees the annual baseload supply totalling 3.14 MW of thermal energy to the buildings connected to the grid. Three of these buildings are equipped with heat pumps and not only provide heating to consumers but also feed into the system any excess heat produced. According to the regulations drawn up specifically for the energy association, these decentralised exporters have priority feed-in for a total of up to 20 per cent of the annual heat requirements and the grid operator pays them a fixed fee for every kWh of heat that they export. However, this is conditional on the heat being generated solely from renewable sources. When the energy association is extended, the feed-in limit will be increased to up to 25 per cent. The first building, the ‘Smart Material House’ (Smart ist gru¨n) to be integrated with the heating grid is a 15-unit residential building by Zillerplus architects, Munich (Plate 8b). The building conforms to passive house (passivhaus) standards and produces as much solar thermal heat as is needed for heating and domestic hot water per year.4 The overproduction in summertime will be first stored in a phase change material (PCM) system and fed into the grid later. If needed, the heat will be sourced back again. Overall, the amounts of feed-in and supply will be balanced out. Another example is the BIQ by Splitterwerk architects, Graz/Austria. These ten units have been likewise built to passive house standards (Figures 13.7 and 13.8). The energy concept combines heating through geothermal sources with the production of biomass by algae within the fac ade. The CO2 which the algae need in order to grow in the special fac ade elements is supplied by a fuel cell

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Figure 13.7 and 13.8 Source: Johannes Arit.

225

BIQ passive house with bioreactor fac ade.

micro CHP that feeds its excess heat into the grid. The biomass generated through the photosynthesis and growth of the algae can be re-used in a biogas plant to generate energy or used for research purposes. Equally the four water houses (Figure 13.9) feed into the grid. The Water Tower and the triplex town houses by Schenk Waiblinger architects offer 34 units built to passive house standards. Heating for the

226

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 13.9 Water houses realised in a water-retention basin. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Bernadette Grimmstein.

buildings will be supplied by shallow geothermal sources (through the medium of heat pumps), solar thermal and the district heating network. Any excess solar thermal energy will be fed into the grid. Kennedy & Violich Architecture (Boston) present ‘soft houses’ which demonstrate that residential buildings can be climate neutral not only with regard to their energy consumption, but also in terms of their entire life cycle (Figure 13.10). Overall, the energy association in central Wilhelmsburg will reduce CO2 emissions to nearly zero, if electricity generation in the CHP plant is taken into account.

Preferably decentralised In addition to the local district heating networks, local renewable energy resources play a crucial part in the ‘Renewable Wilhelmsburg Climate Protection Concept’. In the aftermath of the disaster in Fukushima, the Federal Republic of Germany decided to phase out the use of nuclear power. That is a good, future-oriented move. However, there is a danger that people will return to thinking in terms of producing energy in large industrial-scale structures only, rather than using locally available resources and potential. IBA Hamburg is a determined advocate of energy supplies that are ‘preferably decentralised’. There is no time like the present to start remodelling the way we provide our cities with energy. There are still major technical problems to be solved in connection with big offshore wind farms and the proposed gigantic power

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

227

Figure 13.10 ‘Soft houses’. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Bernadette Grimmstein.

plants in the Sahara (’Desertec’), and completely new grids will be required to transport the power. Decentralised utilities, however, secure jobs and income for local communities. Moreover, decentralised systems are considerably more resilient in the face of natural disasters and political decisions than new, industrial-scale mega systems. To underline this position, IBA Hamburg’s concept for ‘Renewable Wilhelmsburg’ describes various decentralised methods to achieve energy self-sufficiency on the Elbe islands through the use of renewable energy. One important project, and a particularly interesting one, is the ‘Energy Hill’ (Figure 13.11). This hill is actually a disused landfill covering 45 ha; a toxic waste scandal forced it to close in the 1980s and the site must now be permanently monitored. At present two wind turbines are installed on the landfill and, together with a photovoltaic array covering 1 ha, these generate enough electricity to supply the needs of 4,000 households (20 per cent of all households on the Elbe islands). Moreover, the landfill gases generated within the hill supply an industrial operation while shallow geothermal energy heats a documentation and visitor centre providing information about the history of the landfill and its transformation into an energy hill.

Energy self-sufficiency The overall aim of the Renewable Wilhelmsburg concept is to use wind and solar energy, biomass and geothermal energy to make Hamburg’s Elbe

228

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 13.11 Energy Hill. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/www.luftbilder.de.

islands energy self-sufficient. Despite forecast population growth of more than 40 per cent, the goal is to reduce the demand for heating from 550 GWh of final energy in 2007 to 335 GWh in 2050. Demand for electricity, by contrast, will rise slightly from 143 GWh of final energy (2007) to 153 GWh in 2050. Despite that, it should be possible to reach self-sufficiency in electrical power by 2025 and in heat towards the end of the 2040s. Hamburg’s Elbe islands will then be practically climate neutral in respect of energy supplies to all buildings. This concept will, however, only be realised if the energy efficiency of buildings, both those already standing and new constructions, is radically improved. To do that we need to increase the rate of building renovation from its current 1 per cent to about 3 per cent a year. Since the buildings on the Elbe islands date from different periods of history, including many that are listed as protected monuments or are iconic elements of the cityscape, the Renewable Wilhelmsburg Climate Protection Concept defines a number of different standards for individual types of city space according to building typologies. Listed buildings in the old part of town, for example, where energy consumption is 200 KWh/m2/year would ‘only’ need to achieve an efficiency standard of 72 KWh/m2/year, in order to protect their appearance. By contrast, high-rise apartment blocks built in the 1970s are to be refurbished to almost passive house standard; this is possible at reasonable cost. The IBA’s Renewable Wilhelmsburg Climate Protection Concept aims at a gradual transition to a fully renewable energy supply on the Elbe islands.

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

229

Renovating the existing housing stock offers the greatest potential for energy savings. In order to achieve the target, IBA Hamburg and several project partners have supported the campaign, which involves planning, the issue of energy certificates providing quality assurance, and three-yearly monitoring to check that energy-saving renovation work remains effective. The IBA project was targeted specifically at private homeowners, who were offered financial support and expert advice as encouragement to renovate their buildings, to make them more energy efficient. The ‘Top Climate Plan’ campaign (Prima Klima Anlage) was launched in January 2009. In the first phase, a total of 65 applicants were granted the special ‘IBA Excellence’ Hamburg Energy Certificate. This provides information about the energy saving potential of the inspected building. Most of the homeowners also received a thermal imaging scan of their roof and fac ade. The plan is also good news money-wise. In the second phase, the participants were eligible to receive financial support for their renovation work, of up to e10,000 per property. In order to qualify, owners needed to meet at least four of the seven ‘IBA Excellence in Renovation Standards’ criteria: . . . . . . .

Insulation of the roof Insulation of the external walls Insulation of the cellar ceiling Window replacement close to meeting the Passive House standard Use of controlled ventilation with heat recovery Heating and hot water supply primarily using renewable forms of energy Construction of a photovoltaic unit for generating power

The Wilhelmsburger Strasse being part of the ‘Top Climate Plan’ project showed how a listed brick fac ade that is a typical example of the 1920s era ‘Schumacher-style’ buildings can be preserved in its original condition, while the building itself is modernised to the energy-efficiency standards required of newbuilds (Figure 13.12). This is made possible by a combination of architecturally appropriate measures to increase efficiency and increasing the amount of heat provided by renewable energy.

Building exhibitions: laboratories for urban development Obviously, the individual houses and the Top Climate Plan ones highlighted above are initially ‘best practices’ which are highly innovative and experimental in character. But that is part of what an IBA is about. International building exhibitions are research and development laboratories

230

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Figure 13.12 Top Climate Campaign: Wilhelmsburger Strasse. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Martin Kunze.

for urban planning. An IBA is established for a limited period of time, as a rule between eight and ten years, and is designed to provide models or paradigms for solving the problems of a location. IBAs are public corporations, but local government allows them a fair degree of independence and their own budget (in Hamburg e100 m over seven years). Nevertheless, all building exhibitions need to secure the support of local politicians and, most importantly, of the people who live locally. Local communities are often afraid that an IBA will overrun their district like a ‘gentrifying steamroller’ and that by the end of the IBA rents and building land will have become unaffordable. All IBA Hamburg projects are therefore discussed in great detail during consultations with representatives of the local residents and those directly affected by the measures. IBA Hamburg does not go ahead with any projects if they are opposed by a majority of the citizens’ participation council. It often takes a lot of effort to convince local residents that a project is important or meaningful. This is particularly true of efforts to make the city more energy efficient, which will not happen unless house owners and tenants are willing to play an active role themselves – and financial incentives alone are not enough. People have to be convinced on an emotional level that they have a stake in a green future. This is one of the key communication objectives of a building exhibition. It must take structural change to the point where it has gathered enough momentum to drive urban development when the IBA has finished.

CONCEPTS FOR CITIES IN TIMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

231

Where does the Renewable Wilhelmsburg Climate Protection Concept go from here? In December 2013 the Senate of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg decided to transform IBA Hamburg into an urban development company with additional tasks in planning and implementation. Hence IBA Hamburg is charged with developing some 7,000 housing units in the next few years. Alongside that, IBA intends to pursue the concept ‘Renewable Wilhelmsburg 2.0’. This includes further studies on the islands’ power supplies, including load-balancing strategies using smart grids, integrating decentralised generators into the grid, the integration of storage facilities and linking local heating networks with Hamburg’s central heating supply grid. Among its other work, IBA will continue to operate and promote the Top Climate Plan campaign. Also, international cooperation on research projects (such as Transform and Horizon 2020) and on the evaluation of projects will be extended. A second edition of the Energy Atlas was published in January 2015.5

Notes 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘Fourth Assessment Report’ (2010). 2. Cf. Internationale Bauausstellung IBA Hamburg (ed.), Energy Atlas – Future Concept Renewable Wilhelmsburg (Berlin, 2010). 3. Industry outside those residential areas, together with transport, are outside the scope of Renewable Wilhelmsburg. 4. The German Passivhaus standard aims for power consumption for heating and cooling of 15 kWh/m2/y (1.7W/m2) and total power consumption of 120 kWh/m2/y (13.7W/m2). 5. IBA Hamburg GmbH, EnergieATLAS Werkbericht 1: Zukunftskonzept Erneuerbares Wilhelmsburg (Berlin, 2015).

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Jochen Albrecht is an associate professor for computational and theoretical geography at Hunter College, City University of New York. Previous affiliations include the universities of Auckland, Wisconsin, and Maryland. Jochen’s current research covers the gambit of GIS and spatio-temporal analysis applied to global and regional climate change, UN sustainable development indicators, GIS program management, migration and social justice. Michael Braungart is a fellow at Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen, and a guest researcher at Delft University of Technology. Dr Braungart is also Professor for Ecodesign at Leuphana University, Lu¨neburg (Germany) as well as founder and owner of EPEA Umweltforschung GmbH based in Hamburg. He is scientific creator of the award-winning Cradle to Cradle Design Protocol, which is also acknowledged as the basis for Circular Economy (CE) Cycles. He is recipient of the USEPA Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award. Calvin Chua is an advisor for Fundacion Metropoli and an adjunct assistant professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design. He was trained at the Architectural Association School of Architecture (London) and is a registered architect in the United Kingdom. Kai Dietrich has an MSc in Urban Design from HafenCity University, Hamburg. He works at IBA Hamburg, and until 2015 was Management Assistant to Uli Hellweg. His current role at IBA is as Project Manager. Ian Douglas is Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography in the School of Environment, Education and Development at the University of Manchester. Educated at the University of Oxford (B.Litt., M.A.) and the Australian National University (Ph.D.), he was awarded the International Medal of the Institute of Australian Geographers (IAG) in 2006. He has been Chairman of the British Geomorphological Research Group, twice Chairman of the UK UNESCO Man

ABOUT

THE

CONTRIBUTORS

233

and Biosphere Urban Forum, and President of The Society for Human Ecology. As a geomorphologist, Ian became interested in urban environmental issues related to erosion on building sites in Kuala Lumpur and is the author of Humid Landforms, The Urban Environment and Cities: an Environmental History. With past projects in Malaysian Borneo’s rainforests and in urban metabolism, he is now concerned with urban ecology. His textbook Urban Ecology, co-authored with Philip James, was published in November 2014. Mark Dwyer is a licensed architect and urban designer from the United States and holds a Masters of Architecture in Urban Design from the Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard University. He has taught Urban Design and Architecture at Harvard GSD, University of Pennsylvania School of Design and the Boston Architectural Center. Prior to joining the Fundacion Metropoli in January of 2009, Mark was an associate in the New York office of Enrique Norten (TEN Arquitectos), managing large scale architectural and urban design projects for the firm. Jake Garcia is Vice President of Data and Technology Strategy at the Foundation Center, New York. As a geographer and programmer, Jake has worked on GIS projects for NASA, the US Army, the City of New York, and Al Gore’s Climate Project. At the Foundation Center, he oversees technology, web development, data standards and data collection efforts. He also leads a team that builds mapping, data visualisation and data mining applications. In 2011, he was the lead developer on a project that won the Large Organization Award in the World Bank’s ‘Apps for Development’ contest. Birgit Georgi is Project Manager for regional vulnerability and adaptation at the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen, Denmark. She has been responsible for urban assessments at the EEA for nine years and has had over 16 years of professional experience in German environmental agencies, focusing on the integration of themes such as regional planning, environmental management, biodiversity and sustainable transport. Among other tasks, she coordinated and contributed to the EEA’s milestone reports, notably ‘Ensuring Quality of Life in Europe’s Cities and Towns’ (2009) and ‘Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe’ (2012), and worked as an evaluator for the European Green Capital Award. Peter Hall, at the time of his death on 30 July 2014, was Professor of Planning and Regeneration at The Bartlett, University College London, and prior to joining the Planning School there held professorships at the University of Reading and the University of California, Berkeley. Peter was the author of over 50 books, and of some 2100 articles. He was President and a former Chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association, an advisor to several government

234

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

administrations and he received many awards including honorary doctorates from universities in the UK, Sweden and Canada. He was knighted in 1998 for his services to the Town and Country Planning Association. Ulrich Heink is Scientific Assistant at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig and has a background as landscape planner. He has expertise in urban ecology, the valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, invasive species policy, environmental discourse analysis and nature conservation ethics. His recent interests have included: the establishment of a biodiversity strategy for Berlin; the development of databases for urban species conservation; the evaluation of environmental damage; the interface between environmental science and practical policy; the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services; and the operationalisation of ecosystem services and natural capital. Uli Hellweg, until his departure towards the end of 2015 to work in private practice, was Managing Director of the IBA Hamburg. Before that he worked as a managing director at the Agora s.a`.r.l. in Luxembourg from 2002 to 2006. Prior to that he worked as head of Department of Planning and Building in the city of Kassel, and as planning coordinator at STERN GmbH for Moabit urban renewal in Berlin. In 1982 he gained his first experience in the IBA format working as a coordinator for pilot projects at the IBA Berlin GmbH (1984– 7). His professional background is in architecture and urban development. Peter J. Marcotullio is Professor of Geography at Hunter College and Director of the City University of New York (CUNY) Institute for Sustainable Cities and a faculty member in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Program at the CUNY Graduate Center. Professor Marcotullio is on the Scientific Steering Committee of the IHDP Urbanization and Global Environmental Change project and was a contributing author to the IPCC AR5 chapter on urban mitigation. His interests include urbanisation and environmental change, and urban environmental transitions. Kerry J. Mashford has a PhD in design theory and methodology for her work pioneering a systems approach to the design and configuration of multi-domain industrial systems, and is a Chartered Engineer, fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Over recent years she has also been a non-executive director of the Centre of Refurbishment Excellence, Chair of Energiesprong UK, advisor to several academic institutions, member of IMechE Council, executive and lead assessor for the Manufacturing Excellence Awards, working group member of the Green Construction Board and judge of several building and energy-related awards. Having simultaneously pursued a personal interest in sustainable construction and built her own

ABOUT

THE

CONTRIBUTORS

235

experimental house, her professional focus has moved towards construction and sustainable development. After a period working as head of sustainable manufacturing and construction at Arup and as sustainable development director at Benoy Architects, Kerry combined consultancy, research, academic and pro bono advisory roles with and for the Technology Strategy Board, the Ecological Sequestration Trust and Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse, before being appointed to her current role as Chief Executive of the National Energy Foundation in December 2012. Douglas Mulhall is a fellow at Technische Universita¨t Mu¨nchen and a visiting professor at Delft University of Technology. He is a business developer working with the Environmental Encouragement Protection Agency (EPEA), and chief editor of a national Circular Economy (CE) study commissioned by the Ministry of the Economy of Luxembourg and of a CE study for the European Investment Bank. He is co-founder of The Environmental Institute, which pioneered CO2 cycles for bionutrient recycling across South America and the Caribbean. He has co-developed thousands of units of housing in Canada and has authored the books Our Molecular Future and Cradle to Cradlew Criteria for the Built Environment. Elke Pahl-Weber studied architecture in Hamburg. Her career has included the roles of Assistant Professor at the Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg (Department of Urban Planning and Urban History) and as CEO of the Planning Office of BPW Urban Planning, Research and Consulting. She is currently Professor of Urban Renewal and Sustainable Development at the Institute for Regional and Urban Development, the Technical University (TU) of Berlin, a role she has held since 2004. That role was part time between 2009 and 2011, a period during which she also served as Head of the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BSR) within the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR). She is Co-Chair of the Smart City Platform at TU Berlin, and in the last ten years she has carried out research on the emerging megacities. Since 2012 she has served on the United Nations Ad Hoc Expert Group on the International Guidelines of Urban and Territorial Planning. William E. Rees, PhD, FRSC, is an ecological economist, professor emeritus and former director of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. His primary research is on the public policy requirements for ecologically sustainable socio-economic development but his most recent work explores the innate behavioural and socio-cultural barriers to societal change. Professor Rees is the originator of the ‘ecological footprint’ concept and co-developer of the method. He was awarded the 2012 Boulding Award in Ecological Economics and the 2012 Blue Planet Prize (jointly with his former PhD student, Dr Mathis Wackernagel) and received the 2015 Herman

236

SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Daly Award in Ecological Economics. In 2014 he was named a full member of the Club of Rome. Andrea Sarzynski is an assistant professor at the University of Delaware’s School of Public Policy and Administration and a faculty affiliate at the Delaware Environmental Institute and the Disaster Research Center. Her research interests include urban land use, transportation, energy, and environmental policy. She previously worked at the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and the environmental law practice at Sidley Austin. Niels Schulz is an environmental consultant at the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). His research interests include industrial ecology, urban modelling, and indicators for sustainable production and consumption systems. He previously worked as a research analyst for the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria and was a research fellow and team leader of the Urban Energy Systems Project at Imperial College London, Energy Futures Lab. He performed postdoctoral research at the United Nations University, Institute for Advanced Studies in Yokohama, Japan. Sebastian Seelig is a chartered urban and regional planner and urban designer with a focus on sustainable urban and regional development. Until 2012 he was a research assistant at the Institute for Urban and Regional Planning, Chair for Urban Renewal at the Technical University (TU) of Berlin, working and researching on climate change and energy-efficiency in the urban context. He completed his PhD on urban strategies for climate sensitivity in 2014. Sebastian has published widely in international journals and books and lectured in conferences in Germany, the US, China and the Middle East. He also regularly reviews for international journals. Sebastian is a member of the International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP), the German Society for Urban and Regional Planning, and the expert panel ‘Cities of the Future’, under the auspices of the German Federal Ministry of Research.

INDEX

A Corun˜a, 92 Aalborg, 64 Aarhus, 93 Aberdeen Plate 3 affordable housing, 69, 76–7, Fig. 9.11, 160, 198, 202, 210 Albert Dock (Liverpool), 145, 147 algae for biofuel, 134 Amsterdam, 58, Plate 3 arguments to add the canal area to the World Heritage List, 190 – 1 canals, 184–91, Fig.11.1, Fig. 11.2, Fig. 11.3 decision to add the canal area to the World Heritage List, 189 history and design, 184–8, Plate 6a, Plate 6b Ancona, 92 Antwerp, 64 Argent 163, 164, 209 Argent King’s Cross Limited Partnership, 199, 214 Athens, 92 Baltic cities, 108 Baltimore, 164 Bangkok, 95 Barcelona, 58, 59, 61, 92, Plate 3 Battlebridge Place, 197 Beijing, 95 Belgium, 30, 94, 192

benchmarking building performance websites, 30 pilot systems for commercial buildings, 31 providing means for building owners and occupiers to undertake, 30 Berlin, 39, 58, 118, 128, Fig. 7.1, Plate 2a, Plate 2b, Plate 3 Bern Plate 3 Better Building Partnership, 24 Bilbao, 71– 4, Fig. 4.1, 80, Plate 4a Metro System, Fig. 4.2 biodiversity, 115 – 22 assessment, goals and criteria, 122 cultural, recreational and aesthetic values, 124 –5 definition, 115 drivers in urban areas, 118 –21 evaluation criteria, 116 instrumental value of, 116 inherent value of, 116 intrinsic value of, 117 naturalness, 123 –4 role in urban areas, 118 see also City Biodiversity Index biomass energy, 204 bioreactor fac ade, Fig. 13.7, Fig.13.8

BIQ passive house, Fig. 13.7, Fig.13.8 Birmingham, 33, 150 Blagoevgrad, 91, 93 Bologna, 92 Bratislava, 58 BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), 23, 42, 44, 208, 209, 211 Bridgewater Canal (Sale), 150, Fig. 9.5, Fig. 9.6 Brighton, 60 Brindleyplace (Birmingham), 163– 5 Bristol 93, Plate 3 brown roof (habitat for insects and birds), 209 Brussels, 94, 96 Building Energy Solutions, 31 Building Performance Evaluation Programme, 29 buildings age profile of stock, 18, 31 benchmarking as green, 42 certification, 43 effective refurbishment of, 31 energy costs for domestic owners, 27 energy-efficient design, 27 energy use of prestige, 16 environmental burden imposed by, 107 factors affecting energy use, 19

238 failure to commission services and systems correctly, 24 financial benefits of green, 27 impact of occupant behaviour on energy use in, 34 inadequacy of quality assurance during construction, 25 ineffective user-centric control of energy in non-domestic, 33 interest of German real estate industry in certification, 44 intrinsic energy efficiency, 18 marketing challenge of reducing energy demand in, 35 metering strategies for, 29 motivations for improving energy performance of, 28 need for qualified staff to oversee controls, 34 need to know energy performance of new, 18 performance gap between predicted and operational energy performance, 23, 24 psychological basis for motivating individuals to reduce energy use, 35 real-time control of energy use, 33 ‘realisation’ of new, 24 regulated and unregulated energy loads in, 19 role of maintenance in determining energy efficiency, 32 scope for energy improvement in existing, 18 specific energy of nondomestic, 16 ‘zero carbon’, 23 zero energy, 20, 22, 23 Buildings Performance Institute Europe, 18 Burgos, 92

SUSTAINABLE CITIES California, 30, 179 Camden, Fig. 1.11, 149, 150, 201, 202, 204, Fig. 12.8, 208 Camden Council, Fig. 12.8 Canada, 135 Canary Wharf (London), 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 175 Cape Town, 95 capitalist economic system, dependence on material growth, 103 capture of land value uplift, 177 Carbon Culture, 31 carbon dioxide (CO2), criticism, 140 emission of cities, 60 potential, 136, 138 – 41 profitability, 137 resource for the circular economy, Fig. 8.1, Plate 5b re-use, 134 – 41 specific applications, 137 supercritical state, 137 carbon taxes and true-cost pricing, political obstacles to achieving, 111 Castlefield, 153 Catania 92, 95 Central Manchester Urban Development Corporation (CMDC) 153 Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), 198, 199 Chelmsford, 155 China, 135 Chips Building, 150 circular economy, Fig. 8.1, Plate 5b ‘Cities of the Future’ (report), 40 cities benchmarking of environmental performance, 48, 51, 52, 61 consequences of migration to, 107 decay in host systems of, 110 ecological vulnerability of, 110 as entropic black holes, 109

environmental impacts, 51 heat island effect in 17, 27 impact of demographic changes, 41 impact of systems on resource use, 6 as incomplete human ecosystems, 109 industrial metabolism of, 107 as motors of economy, 51 problem of delineation, 61 productive hinterlands of 107 resource efficiencies in, 16 risk of thermal instability in, 18 as sub-systems of ecosphere, 104 City Biodiversity Index (CBI), 125– 7, 130 key objectives, 125 indicators, 126 major shortcomings, 127 combined heat and power (CHP), 204, 206, 208, 214, 222, 225, 226 micro CHP, 223 Community Development Authority (CDA), 180– 1 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), 179, 182 conservative cultural value concept, 125 consultation, with local community (King’s Cross), 201 Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), 115, 122 Copenhagen 51, 58, 61, 64, Plate 3 Covenant of Mayors, 60 Cradle to Cradle (design protocol), 139, 141 Crossrail (London), 179 cultural processes concept, 125 cycling, infrastructure indicator, 53, 58 Denver, 95 Display Energy Certificate (UK), 30, Plate 1a

INDEX dissipative structures, 104 Docklands Light Railway (DLR), 153 Dresden 64, 193 Du¨sseldorf Plate 3 Ebbsfleet, 199 ecological dysfunction, symptoms of, 103 ecological footprint analysis of, 105– 9 consequences of failure to achieve equity in, 111 definition, 106 factors affecting area of, 106 use of, 108 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Liveability Index, 54–7, Plate 3 economy, circular, Fig. 8, Plate 5b ecosphere, relative demands of urban and rural dwellers, 106 ecosystem services, 116, 118–19 ecosystems ability to maintain themselves, 104 human beings as components of, 105 population growth increasing pressure to create new, 27 Edingburg Quay, 158 Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), 89 Emscher Canal, Park and River, 148, 159, 160, 218 Energy Act 2011 (UK), 28 Energy Bunker (Wilhelmsburg), 221, Fig. 13.3, Plate 8a Energy Hill (Hamburg), Fig. 13.11 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU), 17, 21, 30 energy performance certificates, 20, 30 competitive advantage in, 23

energy use monitors, 35 English Heritage, 201 entropy increased global, 103 state of maximum, 104 Environmental Protection Agency (California), Energy Star Portfolio Manager System, 31 Europe, 2020, 62 European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment, 51 European Environment Agency (EEA), 52, 58 European Green Capital Award (ECGA), Plate 3 comparability of cities for, 61 evaluation criteria, 51, 52 indicators used, 54– 7, 58 initiation, 51 qualitative information in, 63 as a tool to motivate cities, 52 European Green City Index (Siemens), 51, 52, 54– 7, Plate 3 European Habitat Directive, 123 Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (German) (BBSR), 39, 40, 43 Ferrara, 92 Food and Agriculture Organization, Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT), 106 Fountainbridge, 158 France, 41, 45, 176 –8, 181 Frankfurt, 94, Plate 3 free-rider problem, 111 Freiburg Plate 3 Gdansk, 93, 192 genetic homogenisation, 120 Geneva 94, Plate 3 German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development (DV) 39, 41, 47

239 German Institute for Standardisation (DIN) 40 German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB), 38, 40, 41, 44, 47 German Technical Inspection Association (Tu˝V), 41 Germany, 96 Glasgow, 93 Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), 89, 96, 109 Globe Sustainable City Award, 54– 7, Plate 3 Gothenburg, 64 Granary Square, 204, Fig. 12.6, Fig. 12.7 Greece, 96 Green Building Programme, 42 Green Construction Board (UK), 31 green roof, 63, 209 greenhouse gas emissions assessment of emissions, 83– 4 consumption-based inventories, advantages and disadvantages of, 87 criteria for urban inventories, 84– 8, 90 European cities, 92– 4 measurement approaches, 89– 90 non-European cities, 95 reasons for discrepancy among studies, 96 reporting protocol for corporations, 87 by source, 97 tool for preparing inventories, 88 UK cities, 60 ground source heat, 204 growth, without expanding the city’s boundaries (London), 195 Guggenheim Museum (Bilbao), 145, 148, Plate 4a Hamburg 51, 61, 94, Plate 3, 216, 219– 31, Plate 8a, Plate 8b Hartlepool, 60

240 health, link with poorly performing homes, 29, 32 Heidelberg, 64 Helsinki 58, 64, 93, Plate 3 Hemel Hempstead, 150 High Line (New York) 75, Fig. 4.3 High Speed 1 (HS1), see Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) high-speed rail investment, economic impact of, 172 Hong Kong, 108, 181 human ecosystems, effect of global urbanisation on, 107 human enterprise, cities as subsystems of, 110 dematerialisation of, 106 exceeding Earth’s carrying capacity, 109 scale of 103, 105 unsustainability of, 103 humanity parasitic growth, 103, 105 unique intellectual capabilities claimed by, 112 Imperial War Museum North (Manchester), 145, 148, Fig. 9.4, 156 India, 40, 135, 140 Innovate UK, 23 Institute for Building Efficiency (US), 27, 32 International Building Exhibition, 216 – 20 International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 189 Internationale Bauausstellung (IBA), 216– 20 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 90 Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) (London), 153, 174, 172–5, Fig. 10.1, 175 King’s Boulevard, 204, Fig. 12.10 King’s Cross, 195–211 actual international connections, 199

SUSTAINABLE CITIES connection with Thameslink, 200 constraints and opportunities, 206 decline, 198 –9 historic buildings, 196 history, 195 – 9 masterplan, 202 – 4, Fig. 12.5 origins, 196 –8 planning brief, 202 planning considerations, 210, 211 planning context, 202 planning and design vision, 201 –5 restoration of the station, Fig.12.4 size, 196 transformation, 199 transport vision, 199 –201 Kings Cross Development Forum, 201 King’s Cross Energy Centre, Plate 7a KPMG 53, Plate 3 Lee Kuan Yew, 69– 70 Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) World City Prize, 51, 52, 67– 71, 80, Plate 4a, Plate 4b selection process, 70 judging criteria, 71 Lee River Valley (London), 152 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), 23, 42, 44 Leeds, 150 Leith (Edinburgh), Fig. 9.2 Ljubljana, 92 local energy network (Hamburg), Fig. 13.5, 13.6 London, 31, 60, 93, 108, 111, 149, 150, 152, 153, 160 – 4, 170, 172, Fig. 10.1, 182, Plate 5a see also Canary Wharf; Crossrail; King’s Cross London & Continental Railways Ltd, 199 London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), 149 public expenditure, 153

Los Angeles, 95 Lowry, The (Manchester), 145, 148, Fig. 9.8, 156 Madrid, 93, Plate 3 Malmo¨, 51, 58, 59, 93, Plate 3 Manchester, 60, 145, 150 Greater Manchester, 153 Maribor, 92 Media City UK (Salford), Fig.9.3, 154, 155 Mercer’s Ecocity and Quality of Life Indexes 51, 54– 7, Plate 3 Midland Grand Hotel, 198, 200 Milano, 95 Nord Milano, 92 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 116 Milton Keynes, 60 mixed mode conditioning, 208 Monocle’s Quality of Life Survey, 51, 52 Munich, 58, 64, Plate 3, Plate 8b Mu¨nster 61, Plate 3 Murcia Plate 3 Nantes Plate 3 Naples, 92 National Energy Foundation (NEF) (UK), 31, Plate 1b natural capital, liquidation of, 103 naturalness, 123– 4 conservative naturalness concept, 123 natural process concept, 124 neighbourhood certification absence of commonly agreed system for, 39 absence of scientific discourse on methodologies for, 39 extent, 39 in Germany, 38– 49 limitation to new buildings, 45 limited value in steering development, 47 link to property prices, 45

INDEX need for defined goals and common indicators, 41 need for residents participation in, 41 need to include existing building stock in process, 41 origins, 38 –9 role in measuring efficiency of public spending, 42 scope for debate on factors needed to measure progress, 48 sustainable development indicators as input to, 39– 40 tools for measuring, 42– 3 use as marketing instrument, 44 neighbourhood clear definitions, lack of, 47 meaning of, 39 New Approach to Appraisal (NATA), 170 New Islington, 150, 156, Fig. 9.9, Fig. 9.10, Fig. 9.11, 158 New River Banks Project (Ruhr region), 148 ‘New Urbanism and the Grid: the Low Countries in an International Context’ (symposium), 190 New York, 74– 7, 80, 95, 147 Norway, 30 Nottingham, 150 Nottingham City Homes, 29 Nu¨remberg, Plate 3

Pori (Finland), 91, 93 Porto, 92, Fig. 9.1 Potsdammer Platz (Berlin), Plate 2a, Plate 2b Prague, 93, 95 ‘Principles for a Human City’, 204 pristineness, 124 producer species, primary production by, 104 public/private partnership in seventeenth-century Amsterdam, 190 in the UK, 158, 165, 166 quality management methodological challenges to, 43 use of certification as tool in, 43 quasi-sustainability barriers to achieving, 111 definition, 110 –11

Oslo, 58, 63, 91, 93, 96, Plate 3 oxygen release in water 161, Fig. 9.13

railway station economic value of investment in, 176 implementation in Amsterdam 188, Fig. 11.4 ring of railway termini (London), 197 rapid urbanisation, 77, 79 Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities (RFSC), 64 Regent’s Canal, 198, Fig. 12.2, 204 renewable energy, 204 Reykjavik, 58, 59, Plate 3 Rio de Janeiro, 95 Ruhr region (Germany), 148 Russia, 40, 135

Paddington, 149, 150 Pamplona, 93 Pancras Square buidings, 208, Fig. 12.8, Fig. 12.9 Paris 61, 94, 147, Plate 3 Parma, 92 Pavia, 92 permeability, 206 pilot projects, tradition in German urban development, 47

St Pancras adjacent hotel 198, 200, Plate 7b Grade 1 listed building, 198 history, 197 restoration 200, Fig. 12.3, Plate 7b, 212 St Pancras Renaissance (hotel), 198, 200, Plate 7b

241 St Petersburg, compared with Amsterdam, 191 Sale, 150 Salford, 154 Salford Quays (Greater Manchester), Fig. 9.7, Fig. 9.8, 154, Fig. 9.12 Sao Paulo, 95 Scho¨neberger Su¨dgela¨nde, 128– 31, Fgures 7.2a, 7.2b, 7.2c self-sufficiency, in heat and power, 216– 31 Shanghai, 95, 147 Silver Line (Washington DC), 179, Fig. 10.2 Singapore, 67, 69 ‘Singel canals’, see Amsterdam Slovakia, 97 Slovenia, 97 Smart ist gru¨n (Smart Material House Hamburg), Plate 8b smart meters, 35 Sofia, 61 ‘soft houses’ (Hamburg), Fig. 13.10 soil sealing 58, 59, Fig. 3.1, 61, 118, Fig. 7.1 South American cities, 95 species disctinctiveness, 124 historical connection, 124 rarity, threat and richness 122–3 urbanophilous, 119 urbanophobous, 119 Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) (UK), 25 Stargard Szczecinski, Plate 3 status quo, efforts of vested interests to preserve, 112 Stockholm, 51, 58, 93, 96, Plate 3 Stourport, 150 Stratford City, 199 Stuttgart (Germany), 91, 94 SuperHome network (UK), 32, Fig. 1.10, Fig 1.11 sustainability assessment schemes for buildings, 18 definition, 102 focus on policies fuelling crisis in, 112

242 need for globally coordinated solutions, 110 – 11 public funds as economic pillar of, 42 reductions in material throughput needed to create, 111 sustainable urban development criteria and indicators for, 39 evaluation, 43 monitoring, 42 Suzhou, 77– 9, 80, Fig. 4.4, Fig. 4.5, Plate 4b, Ch 4 Sweden, 22 –3, 30, 181, 28 systems theory, self-organising holarchic open (SOHO), 104 Tampere (Finland), 93 Tax Increment Financing (TIF), 179– 80 Technische Universita¨t Berlin, 39 Technology Strategy Board (UK), see Innovate UK thermodynamics, second law of, 103 THS Gelsenkirchen, 40, 45 Tianjin, 95 Tokyo, 95, 108, 110 Torino (provincia), 92 Toronto, 95 Trafford (Greater Manchester), 150 Transport Analysis Guidance, 170 transport planning, integrated, 195 Turku, 93, 95 Tysons Corner, 179– 80, Fig. 10.2 UNESCO World Heritage List 1972 Convention, 188, 193 criteria, 189 overall assessment, 192 political lobbying, 192 problems around monitoring obligations for sites, 192 procedures 188– 9

SUSTAINABLE CITIES United Kingdom (UK), 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 60, 108, 145, 146, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171 –9, 199 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, 135 United States (US), 30, 42, 84, 85, 107, 140, 179 – 81 University of the Arts London 204, Fig. 12.6 urban (and non-urban) areas, Fig. 5.1 Urban Atlas, 58, Fig. 3.3 Urban Audit database (EUROSTAT), 58, 60 Urban Design Statement and Framework (UK), 204, 206 urban development assessment of, 61 augmenting with qualitative information, 63 choice of indicators, 62 intelligent integration of data, 64 limitations of data quality, 64 making contradictions and limitations visible, 63, 64 need to define purpose, 62 need for pragmatic approach, 63 need for transparency, 63, 64 Urban Ecosystem Europe 52, 53, 54 –7 urban environment assessment Plate 3 availability of data, 58 urban heat island effect, 214 urban metabolism conceptual framework, 53 indicators, 54– 7 urban population growth in Europe, 50, 60 impact of lifestyles on climate, landscape and resource depletion, 112 projected global increase, 16, 102

share of consumption and waste production needed to support, 112 Urban Splash, 165 urban sustainability planning, inadequacy of, 109 urban transport, 169– 82 cost-benefit analysis criticism, 170 estimating indirect effects, 171–9 planning rationale, 178 project assessment, 169–71 Uxbridge, 150 Vancouver, 107, 110 Vaxjo¨, 93 Veneto, 92, 95 Verbania, 92 versement transport (France), 177 Victoria-Gasteiz 93, Plate 3 Vienna 51, Plate 3 Washington DC, 179 water houses (Hamburg), Fig. 13.9 waterfront development, Plate 5a accessibility, 164– 5, Fig. 9.14 importance of government support, 155 positive and negative elements, 153 prices for properties, 150 problems, 160– 5 reasons for success, 149– 60 Weltquartier (Hamburg), Fig. 13.4 West India Docks, 149 Widcombe, 150 Wigan Pier Project, 149 wildness, 124 Wilhelmsburg, 216, 219–31, Fig. 13.1 Erneuerbares Wilhelmsburg (Renewable Wilhelmsburg), 220, 226– 9, Fig. 13.2 Zero Carbon Hub (UK), 23 Zu¨rich, Plate 3

Plate 1a and b The National Energy Foundation (NEF), Milton Keynes, England (1a); and the Display Energy Certificate which relates to it (1b). See Chapter 1. Source: The National Energy Foundation (NEF).

Plate 2a and b The Potsdamer Platz, located in Berlin, Germany’s capital, was the first urban district in Germany certified under the urban districts certificate of the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) in 2011. It achieved ‘silver’ with a score of 74.6 per cent. See Chapter 2. Source: Vincent Mosch.

Stockholm

Münster

Amsterdam

Freiburg

Oslo

Bristol

Copenhagen

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Reykjavik

Nantes

Nuremberg

Vittoria-Gasteiz

Malmö

Barcelona

European Green Capital Award 2012/2013 (Expert panel) (EGCA)

Nantes

VittoriaGasteiz

European Green Capital Award 2012/2013 (jury) (EGCA)

Berlin

Helsinki

Zurich

Amsterdam

Vienna

Oslo

Stockholm

Copenhagen

European Green City Index (Siemens, 2009)

Aberdeen

Zurich

Bern

Nuremberg

Stockholm

Oslo

Copenhagen

Helsinki

Mercer Ecocity 2010 (European cities) (Mercer, 2010)

Copenhagen

Bern

Munich

Frankfurt

Düsseldorf

Geneva

Zurich

Vienna

Mercer Quality of Life Index 2010 (European cities) (Mercer, 2010)

i Helsink

Vienna

EIU Liveability Index 2011 (European cities) (EIU, 2011)

Stargard Szczecinski

Murcia

Malmö

Globe Sustainable City Award (European cities) (Globe Award, 2010)

Madrid

Vienna

Paris

Stockholm

Helsinki

Zurich

Copenhagen

Munich

Monocle’s most liveable Cities Index 2010 (European cities) (Monocle, 2010)

Plate 3 Assessing the Urban Environment – a selection of city rankings (up to place 8); adapted from KPMG, 2010 and extended. See Chapter 3. Source: Birgit Georgi.

Hamburg

1

European Green Capital Award 2010/2011 (Expert panel) (EGCA)

Plate 4a and b The Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain (a), and Suzhou Industrial Park, Suzhou, China (b). Both cities were winners of the Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize (in 2010 and 2014 respectively). Source: ahisgett licensed under CC BY 2.0, and Department of Publicity of Suzhou Industrial Park.

Plate 5a Mixed use waterfront development at Wood Wharf, London. See chapters 9 and 10. Source: Canary Wharf Group.

------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

BIOSPHERE

Residues rebuild topsoil for agriculture & slow CO2 release

Consump on & Dispersion

Biobased Biodegradable Products2

Biobased Fuels

Biobased Feedstock

TECHNOSPHERE

Dispersed Emissions from Diverse Sources

Capture of dispersed CO2 emissions with agriculture, algae3, & forestry then processed into biobased feedstock

Point Source Emissions from Diverse Sources

CO2 for Energy Genera on & Storage4

Capture of CO2 point source1 emissions. Conversion to technosphere feedstock for manufacturing, energy genera on & storage

OR

Nutrients for biomass to be processed into biobased feedstock

CO2 Chemical Leasing for Solvents, Lubricants & Energy

CO2 & Biobased Feedstock for Recyclable Materials5

Biobased feedstock used to manufacture technical cycle materials

CO2 Bio-Cycle is a Carbon Sink & Carbon Exchange

CO2 Technical Cycle is a Carbon Sink

Plate 5b Carbon dioxide as a resource for the circular economy. See Chapter 8. Source: Mulhall, Hansen and Braungart.

Plate 6a The Medieval town, Amsterdam. The Medieval town (map oriented south to north) developed southwards from the port along an inland waterway opening to the sea, as shown in the Braun and Hogenberg map (Braun) but was confronted in the early seventeenth century by the need to accommodate a major population growth. See Chapter 11. Source: G. Braun and F. Hogenberg, Civitates orbis terrarium (Cologne, 1618–25).

Plate 6b The ‘Novissima Urbs’. The city adopted a curvilinear development framework (Abrahamse), surrounding the old town by a triple circle of canals and a grid of service streets linking them. This plan was implemented over some 400 years and became a World Heritage site in 2010. See Chapter 11. Source: D. Stalpaert, Amstelodami Veteris et Novissimae Urbis Accuratissima Delineatio (Amsterdam, c.1678).

Plate 7a Cutaway diagram showing the main components of the King’s Cross Energy Centre. See Chapter 12. Source: Paul Weston.

Plate 7b The former Midland Grand Hotel and now the St Pancras Renaissance Hotel. A magnificent Grade 1 listed building and a fine ‘gateway’ to St Pancras International Station. See Chapter 12. Source: Chris Gossop.

Plate 8a IBA Hamburg – a former World War II flak bunker converted to become the central facility for a local district heating network. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/www.luftbilder.de.

Plate 8b The ‘Smart Material House’, one of 16 highly energy-efficient houses developed by IBA Hamburg. Source: IBA Hamburg GmbH/Martin Kunze.