By Phil McManus
"... The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste ... The end of living and the beginning of survival." — Chief Seattle, 1854
All things are connected. This includes the current state of the world (the "here"), our visions for the future (the "there") and the paths between.
Where exactly is "here" and how did we arrive at this situation? What are our visions for alternatives and how do we move towards them? How do cities fit into these pictures?
These are challenging questions because the "here" is always changing and the "there" should likewise never be a fixed point. The survival of people on earth is dependent on us finding answers and acting accordingly, without delay.
Here
Our bed is contaminated. While you read this article, the earth is rapidly being destroyed. We are losing one hectare of vegetation per second.1
We are all part of the earth, but we are not equally responsible for contaminating the bed. There are approximately five and a quarter billion people living in our bed. The population is increasing exponentially and is expected to exceed 10 billion by 2050. It is not spread evenly, nor is its growth distributed evenly. The capability and suitability of bioregions (biological areas with shared characteristics of water, air, soil types) to accommodate humans is not even, not is resource use. Measured in economic and health terms, the standard of living is neither even nor just.
Moves towards sustainability require numerous individual changes and also major structural changes towards a system that is based on ecological principles, including the role of people in this system. Sustainability, which I define as "meeting basic human needs today without compromising ecological systems and the ability of future generations to meet basic human needs indefinitely", requires work at a number of levels.
It is important to distinguish tinkering at the periphery of our social/economic/political/cultural system from individual efforts which will make a difference. Although even this difference will be restricted by the need for fundamental changes in the world,
we can not wait for this major restructuring before we take ecological action. Indeed, the move towards a sustainable economic/social structure should emerge from ecological action.
Currently, dedicated people are taking important actions not just to halt the destruction, but also to heal the planet and to prevent the destruction occurring again.
There
One innovative area of action is the development of "eco-cities". What is an eco-city? As I understand the term, it is an "ecological city" that integrates nature and modified environments, in which ecosystems, including the concentrated activities of people, exist and develop in ways that maintain the viability of the ecosystem indefinitely.
An eco-city perspective is holistic — all parts of the city and its region are connected. An eco-city is neither viewed in isolation, dissected into unconnected parts nor defined solely by individual distinguishing features. Paul Downton talks of an "ecopolis", which he say is "... more than a series of eco-cities — it ties cities and regions together as ecological, economic and administrative entities. In a sense, it extends the concept of the self-governing city state into the ecological realm by recognising that State boundaries are recent inventions imposed on the landscape, cutting through rivers, watersheds and mountains, with little regard for bioregional realities."2
While recognising that eco-cities must commence somewhere, both in the existing urban form and outside our current cities, they should never be allowed to become the privileged domain of a minority of over-developed countries which can afford to contemplate and develop eco-cities.
We must change the maxim "Not in my backyard" to "Not in anybody's backyard". While the innovators of eco-city appear to recognise this, I feel there is a danger that one day an eco-city may become part of the "new conservatism", and the concept of ecopolis and the world context may be forgotten.
Understanding and developing the concept of eco-city requires people to think, feel and experience at different levels: to work with individual values, the concept of community, the notion of bioregion and the various local, state and national boundaries while also recognising that we are all part of the one planet.
This requires people to develop creativity and critical analysis, wisdom, communication skills plus an ability and willingness to participate in shaping the future. We must change our notions of
life, education and values or eventually the earth will balance in new ecological systems — without people.
Eco-cities should encourage the development of human potential, foster human interaction and provide for the basic needs of human life without compromising the ecosystem or the ability of people to achieve the above indefinitely.
The shape of cities
An eco-city's form and size must be based on the capability and suitability of its bioregion. There is no single model for an eco-city, nothing which can or should be lifted from one context and imposed thoughtlessly onto a different context.
There are, however, interesting debates about generally appropriate ecological ideas which contribute to a more sustainable urban form.
One of these ideas is the "compact city". This idea has been advocated by many organisations and individuals, including Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, Friends of the Earth and the European Commission's Green Paper on the Urban Environment.
The compact city is usually supported because of its perceived advantages in energy efficiency, the ability to conserve agricultural and bush areas at the fringe of the city, its likelihood of promoting interaction between people and so on. It is usually recognised that the compact city must be based on walking, cycling and public transport, plus improved design to make better use of open space and the development of smaller blocks of land for housing.
I believe that an essential element of the compact city must be a recognition of the difference between density (a quantifiable measure of the use of space) and crowding (a feeling of negative stress associated with density, danger, gender, familiarity).
The perceived advantages of energy-use reduction resulting from a higher density compact city will pale into insignificance beside social issues resulting from crowding, or will not materialise as people attempt to escape the city. An eco-city should foster the development of human potential and contribute to a holistic richness in human life, and must therefore address the issue of crowding.
An alternative idea which will influence urban form is the concept of "eco-villages", based on the earlier permaculture ideas of Bill Mollison and developed by people such as Ted Trainer and Peter Cock. The focus is on community, simpler lifestyles, self-sufficiency where possible and interconnected eco-villages.
The concept of "village" appeals to romantic notions of community (itself a romantic notion unless analysed) and conjures up notions of closeness, affinity and a more comfortable pace of life. It generally ignores hierarchies, including those based on class and gender (as one academic wrote, "besmocked farmers' wives in the marketplace" and "women at the well") and is also seen by some people as "primitive".
The "radical conserver society" advocated by people such as Ted Trainer is far from primitive, "We would have all the high tech and modern ways that made sense, e.g. medicine, windmill design, public transport and household appliances ..."3
The urban form of a radical conserver society would be based on less affluence, but this doesn't mean poverty. The new urban form of eco-villages is intended to satisfy people's needs without strengthening an economic system which is destroying the earth.
Within eco-cities
Eco-cities, as distinct from the energy sink-holes of the 1990s, are characterised by the use of renewable energy sources. The other component of this energy-use change is that eco-cities are characterised by minimal waste discharge.
We currently survive in a system which measures energy use as part of the Gross Domestic Product. In 1989-90 energy use contributed 5% to GDP and 18% to Australia's total export income. The main energy user was the transport sector (38%) and the main source of energy was petroleum (49%), while solar energy accounted for 0.1% of our energy use.4
Eco-cities and ecopolis must be based on a rejection of the cancer-like growth for growth's sake of capitalism. Fundamental to this change is the promotion of low-intensity, renewable energy inputs. Depending upon the characteristics of the bioregion in which an eco-city is located, such energy use in transport may include promoting walking as priority, encouraging cycling for longer trips and providing neighbourhood minibuses to link into a light rail or heavy rail network. All transport would use the most ecologically appropriate source of power for that bioregion. The car, regardless of its energy source, would be the transport mode of last resort because of its rejection of human interaction and because of its requirements for road and parking space.
In terms of integrating transport and land use, the key notion is "accessibility", not "mobility". If we reduce unnecessary journeys by making goods and services accessible in well-designed, mixed-use centres, we also foster diversity.
Our current cities are like our agriculture: the search for order has created monoculture, and anything which doesn't fit this monoculture is eradicated. Eco-cities must be diverse, encourage cultural exchange and connect people with their environment. This requires a change in values from profit generation, exploitation and individual consumption to community fulfilment of basic needs, a reduction in wants and the development of community living, which fully includes the need for private space for personal reflection and development.
Both the compact city and eco-village advocates appear to recognise many of these principles, perhaps with varying degrees of emphasis.
Can the twain meet?
Are the two notions of eco-city as compact city and eco-villages compatible in the one location? Peter Newman has characterised them as the "urban-commons" view and the "rural-commons" view, with commons including air, water, wildlife, etc. He believes they are incompatible in the one location and that sustainable settlements need two alternatives:
- one for the city, to make it more in tune with the natural resources on which it depends, but which is unashamedly urban, and
- one for the countryside, to make it also more in tune with natural resources, and which is unashamedly rural.5
The rural/urban distinction put forward by Peter Newman is seductive because it sounds simple — make the urban more urban and keep the rural as rural. However, people's psychological attachment to the earth and the social consequences of dissatisfied people living in cities need to be carefully considered. The rural/urban distinction tends to separate rather than connect.
Peter Newman's ideas contrast with Ted Trainer's view that, "When the magnitude of the problems and the necessary changes are understood it is evident that we must go far beyond merely reducing the consumption of cities to ensuring that they also become highly self-sufficient in production."6
Urban consolidation
This is the eco-village view. However, the development of Australian cities appears to be favouring the compact city over the eco-village through the process known as "urban consolidation". I believe many of the current moves towards urban consolidation are piecemeal, ignore the distinction between
crowding and density and will potentially create a compact city which may concentrate and exacerbate many social problems. They will also reduce the opportunities to rectify these problems without enormous expense and disruption to people's lives.
Urban consolidation is often implemented in existing cities without the innovative vision of compact city advocates. It is like the gardener who concentrates on weeding, watering and pruning because the poet hasn't inspired the gardener with the spiritual richness of a garden.
Urban consolidation is being implemented in selected areas, generally "middle suburbs" with large lots, "inferior quality" housing, older residents and lower income, less powerful residents. While there may be some sound planning arguments for this approach, it appears that these are the likely areas for permaculture to develop in the city.
I don't accept the rural/urban distinction as desirable. We can integrate the compact city and eco-villages ideas to realise the potential of our cities. Part of an overall plan to move towards sustainability would include a reduction in unnecessary building setbacks and restrictions, combined with smaller lot sizes and reduced street space, and reserves to create denser, well-
designed neighbourhoods.
I believe we must also challenge the notion of conquering space and reflecting affluence through large water-intensive, fertiliser-intensive. English-style gardens which concentrate on imposing order on the environment, We can introduce Bill Mollison's ideas for "edible landscapes" by including fruit and vegetables in our cities. Some community halls, school sites and recreational facilities could include an "ecological park" which promotes the value of indigenous ecosystems and perhaps similar, imported ecosystems which are suitable in the climate of a particular bioregion. These are small first steps: a beginning, not a final accomplishment.
Another step is to challenge the notion of privacy as currently expressed, while simultaneously promoting the virtues of communal aspects of living. We can encourage the compact city by denser, mixed-use areas which include "community gardens" that are accessible by safe walking trails and cycleways. Community gardens should be located away from areas of automobile pollution in existing cities. Given the number of people who are elderly, households which don't want large gardens and people who are unemployed, there is a likelihood that many people could get some sense of fulfilment from community gardens.
Community gardens may also reduce travel costs to escape the city. They may alleviate potential social problems caused by isolation and boredom. Community gardens could be introduced into
existing cities and built into various new eco-city concepts. Small private lots connected with communal composting and recycling provide a nexus between the existing individualism and the need for communal lifestyles.
The small plot size is unlikely to result in significantly reduced land care. From a holistic perspective, the well-being of participants and potential associated reductions in medical costs, social services, etc would more than compensate for the greater output achieved under the current definition of agricultural productivity, which values high-energy, capital-
intensive, non-organic food production with associated high transport costs.
There are many initiatives that can be taken to ensure our survival. They don't all require blockading and mass demonstrations. Some, such as the various ideas for eco-city and ecopolis, are based on enjoying a fulfilling life in such a way that the encompassing ecosystem is not compromised, nor is the ability of future generations to enjoy a similar lifestyle. We have reached Chief Seattle's prophecy of "the end of living and the beginning of survival". We must now develop our creativity and wisdom to survive by living.
[Phil McManus is a lecturer in urban and regional planning at Curtin University, Perth.]
1. Bellamy, David in "Earth 2000". The West Australian, March 16, 1992.
2. Downton, P., 1991, "Ecopolis Now! Building tomorrow today", in Habitat Australia August, v. 19, n. 4, pp. 22-29, p.28.
3. Trainer, T., 1991, "The Conserver Society — The sustainable alternative", in Habitat Australia, August, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 30-33, p.33.
4. E.S.D. Working Group, 1991, quoted in United Nations Conference, Environment and Development, Australian National Report, p. 141.
5. Newman, P., 1991, "Sustainable Settlements — Restoring the commons" in Habitat Australia, August, v. 19, no. 4, pp. 18-21, p.21.
6. Trainer, p.33.