What are the 3 prerequisites? They are:

1. Cities must adopt aggressive energy reduction strategies
2. Innovative financing strategies are needed
3. The latest technological advances must be utilized

WWF’s 3 prerequisites are helpful, but I’m unconvinced they’re key. Why? I’ll come to that, but first here’s a little more detail on the report.

Reinventing the City

Cities produce 80% of the World’s CO2 emissions, states the report. Business as usual will result in $350 trillion being spent on urban infrastructure and usage in the next 30 years, which will further increase greenhouse gas emissions.

But there is a different way, according to WWF, where investments help reduce emissions rather than increase them. Investments in renewable energy, district heating and energy efficiency are required.

I agree. I also like their example of Malmo, Sweden as a city that the World can learn from.

The 3 Prerequisites

The question for me is: Are Energy Reduction Strategies, Finance and Technology the 3 most important prerequisites for reinventing the city?

It’s  clear that Malmo used these in their development of the Western Harbour. But there’s one further principle Malmo lived by that, in my opinion, is the most important prerequisite. It’s a principle that has been successful in many cities around the World, such as Curitiba, Bogota and Vancouver.

The Most Important Prequisit for Reinventing the City?

You’ve probably guessed what I think. I think we need to make our cities for people. It’s people that make a city and people that will reinvent the city. Energy strategies, finance and technology won’t make a difference if cities aren’t made for people. You can read more about my ideas on what to build in the city and how to change.

What do you think are the most important prerequisites for reinventing the city?

But why did Time Magazine nominate Jaime Lerner for one of their top 100 people of 2010?

Jaime Lerner – 40 years ahead of his time

Jaime Lerner recognised the problem cars, poverty and environmental waste created in a city way back in 1970. And he was brave enough to do things differently to solve the problems. While other cities were building roads for cars and selling parkland for housing, he was building his city for people, bicycles and buses while expanding parkland.

40 years later, his ideas (like Bus Rapid Transit) are being considered in cities around the World. No wonder that the Time Magazine article was written by Gregor Robertson, mayor of Vancouver – one of the World’s most liveable cities.

I’m delighted Time Magazine recognised Jaime Lerner, and I hope other cities are encouraged to follow the lead of Curitiba.

What do you think of Jamie Lerner’s relevance to cities today?

Well, London’s history has shown it can sustain much – the coming and going of Romans. Marauding Vikings. Plague. Fire. The Blitz. Pea Soup Fogs.

And I think London has as good a chance as any city to be a sustainable city for the future.

Why? Because London is trying, and trying hard. Below are 4 steps London are taking towards the sustainable city, which I think any city could take. Would any of the steps succeed in your city?

1. Encourage walking, cycling and public transport – Congestion Charging

Public transport is part of London’s heart and soul; the red Double-Decker bus and the Tube are recognisable Worldwide. But Londoners, like everyone else, also like cars. The city became chock-a-block with them.

Could the city tempt people to walk, cycle and take more public transport?

Yes. Former mayor Ken Livingston used the carrot and stick approach when he introduced the Congestion Charge in February 2003. The stick is an £8 charge (used to be £5) on vehicles wishing to enter central London on weekday daytimes. The carrot was that all profit from the scheme is used to improve London’s transport infrastructure, especially busses.

Has it been successful?

Judge for yourself. A report from the Department for Transport claims 70,000 fewer cars in Central London, 6% more bus journeys, 12% more bicycle trips, 15 million litres of fuel saved per year and an extra £137m raised to invest in transport in 2006/7. Plus, although not universally popular, almost twice as many Londoners support the scheme than oppose it.

London was one of the first cities to try congestion charging. Could it work in your city?

2. Measure how you are doing – London City Limits

“You cannot manage what you cannot measure”, to paraphrase Lord Kelvin.

London took Lord Kelvin’s philosophy to heart and produced the fascinating City Limits report, which measures things like London’s consumption of materials, water, energy and food. And other things like London’s production of waste and CO2. Last, but not least, it estimates London’s ecological footprint.

The figures, which are for the year 2000, are astounding. To give just 3:

1. London used 876,000,000,000 litres of water, of which 28% was wasted in leaks.
2. London consumed 6.9 million tonnes of food, of which 81% came from outside the UK.
3. London’s ecological footprint is the size of Spain.

What’s your definition of a sustainable city? Would London fit in it based on this report?

For what it’s worth, I like that London fessed up to it’s resource consumption and waste production. I have a feeling that it will encourage progress throughout the city for a long time to come.

What do you think?

3. Flagship development – BedZED

Beddinton is a district in the London Borough of Sutton. Until recently, its claim to fame was a controversy when Sir Walter Raleigh married a local resident, Elizabeth Throckmorton, who was a maid of honour of Queen Elizabeth I.

Today Beddington is home of BedZED, a landmark development of 99 homes that aims to be self sufficient with renewable energy. BedZED achieves this with solar energy, biomass combined heat & power (CHP) and highly energy efficient homes. Other initiatives include electric car facilities and rain water recycling.

Want to know more? Watch a video by one of the founding organisations, BioRegional:

In many ways BedZED is London’s version of the Western Harbour, Malmo or Vauban, Freiburg. Perhaps a little smaller, but none the less impressive.

BedZED is a flagship development that shows what is possible. I’d like to see more flagship developments, how about you?

4. Locally Produced Renewable Energy – The Merton Rule

History has given us centrally produced electricity and the power lines to bring it to our homes. For heating, many of us use natural gas piped in and burned in our boilers.

These are wonderful. They’ve given us an affordable and reliable energy supply, which is far cleaner than the energy we used 50 years ago.

Yet, in some situations, there are better energy solutions. And London is making them happen. For example, off the coast in the Thames Estuary you can find the proposed 1,000MW London Array wind farm.

Another innovation is the Merton Rule, a planning rule initiated by the London Borough of Merton that has since spread far and wide. The rule insists that large, new developments meets 10% of their energy need from locally produced renewable energy.

A good idea? Well, property developers have understandably resisted due to the extra costs. But I say good for Merton and good for London for encouraging local renewable energy.

Or do you think differently?

The final word

It’s a tall order for London to become a sustainable city for the future. But London is trying, trying hard and moving in the right direction. I like London’s 4 steps to the Sustainable City and I think they could be used in any city.

What do you think?

The beginning of Chinese Cities

The discovery of pottery, agriculture and the wheel encouraged people to settle on the shores of the Yellow River about 5000 years ago. Chinese cities, like Anyang, rapidly flourished.

The ancient Chinese civilization led to the birth of two brilliant thinkers in the sixth century BC – Confucius and Lao-Tzu. Their philosophies became the cornerstone of Chinese culture for over two thousand years.

And I think their philosophies have some relevance to making cities for people in the twenty first century. Here’s why:

Confucius and Cities

Confucius invented a set of moral, social and political codes for use by ancient Chinese people. Three ideas of Confucianism are:

1. You can improve yourself
2. Humanity is central
3. Relationships matter

What do these have to do with making cities for people? A lot, I think.

First, like people, all cities can improve themselves by taking simple measures like building parks or using more renewable energy. Where you’re going matters more than where you’ve been.

Second, humanity is central to cities, just as it is central to Confucianism. What is a city for, if it is not for people?

Third, relationships matter. I learnt a lot from living in Sweden about how everything interconnects in a city. The success of developments like The Western Harbour, Malmo comes from linking waste to energy supply to transport – and finding solutions that help all these problems. The Swedish SymbioCity concept sums it up well.

The Way of the City

Whereas Confucius believed in a series of codes, Lao-Tzu believed in Tao or The Way. What is The Way?

They say you cannot express The Way, but you can know the principles and you can follow them. Make sense?

I’m still a bit bewildered, I admit. But, when I look at making cities for people, I can see where Lao-Tzu is coming from. People try to express principles, like the Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities, but it’s hard. Deep down, though, we all know the kind of things that make good cities. For example here’s my list of what makes a good city for people.

The last word

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”, said Lao-Tzu.

Two score and five centuries later cities such as Copenhagen, Malmo and Curitiba followed his advice, taking small steps that made them great cities for people.

I wonder which cities will be next will be next to take that single step? What do you think?

Let me explain why I think Creativity, Wealth Creation, Defence and Environmental Degradation were important to southern Mesopotmia.

Background to Sumerian Civilization

Uruk, Ur and Eridu were just some of the cities of the Sumer, the World’s first civilization. The Sumerians created the World’s first cities in the Euphrates and Tigris river basins starting around 5000 BC.

Today the area is desert and ruins, but thousands of years ago it was lush and rich. The opprtunities for agriculture enabled many people to come together, leading to the first cities.

Creativity in Mesopotamian Cities

Writing, bronze working and the wheel were invented in Ur and Uruk. With so many people living together for the first time in human history, and with their basic needs met, there were opportunities for human creativity. People invented like never before. Could you imagine life without writing, the wheel or metal working?

Creativity today is often thought of as an individual, an academic or an R&D thing. But can we again inspire creativity in our cities, like the Sumerians?

Things like the excellent annual Malmo festival or the Thinkers in Residence program in Adelaide are example of how we can tap into and enhance the creativity of our cities.

Wealth Creation in Mesopotamian Cities

Uruk, Ur and Eridu created wealth by efficiently using the Sun’s energy, the water from the rivers and the richness of the land. They then traded, so that each city could make the very best use of their own resources.

Wealth creation attracted people, allowed the building of great structures and increased time spent on invention. Today is not so different. Cities like New York, London and Tokyo have become great because of their ability to create wealth.

Defence in Mesopotamian Cities

Unfortunately for the residents, the land around the Tigris and Euphrates is not only rich but also flat and open. Uruk, Ur and Eridu were prime targets for invaders.

They learnt the hard way that if you don’t defend yourself, you have a problem. Eventually city walls were built, but the problem never completely went away. Ongoing attacks were one of the reasons the Sumerian civilization fell (along with Environmental Degradation – see below).

Few definitions of Sustainable Cities today include defence. But should they? Recent terrorist attacks in New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai show that we need to defend ourselves and should not take safety for granted.

Environmental Degradation in Mesopotamian Cities

The intensive irrigation and agriculture that led to the rise of the Sumerain cities also led to their demise. The area became salinated and a desert, and is still so today. First, the locals moved to more salt resistent crops, like barley. Second, when that failed, they abandoned the region.

The Sumerians were perhaps the first civilization who, by damaging their environment, came to a sad end. I hope our cities don’t follow their example.

Finally…

Today the key Iraqi city is Baghdad and is not a place many cities would aspire to. But maybe ancient places like  Uruk, Ur and Eridu can show the opportunities and pitfalls that lie ahead for cities today. Creativity, Wealth Creation, Defence and Environmental Degradation are issues now, just as they were 7000 years ago.

Or do you think differently?

Next week, I’ll look at the ancient Chinese civilization and the relevance to our cities. Will you join me?

Great cities rose, lasted for millennia, then declined. Cities like Babylon, Xian and Tikal.

Why?

And can you and I learn from this ancient history, helping our cities be great and be great for longer?

I think we can learn something. For example, the people of the great Mayan city of Tikal were sophisticated and technologically advanced. Yet, mostly due to deforestation and intensive agriculture 1000 years ago, the city collapsed and was abandoned.

Perhaps the intensive use of resources and production of waste in the 21st century will lead to similar catastrophes?

Over the coming weeks, I’ll write about some of the ancient civilizations and what lessons I think they give our cities today. Will you join me?

Do you wonder why Vancouver is described as the most Liveable City in the World and the most Sustainable City in Canada? You can find some reasons from Bree on the new Vancouver page.

What do you think of Vancouver? Please let us know below.

And if you have a story about another city you want to see on Cities for People, please contact me.

“Why?”, you may ask.

Before we answer that, let’s look at the music.

The perfection of Chamber Music

Have you ever listened to outstanding chamber (or other classical) music? Every whistle of the flute, pluck of the cello and blow of the trumpet has its purpose. You know the musicians have practiced and prepared and planned it all; each member knows their part and carries it out with precision and perfection.

You are in awe of their brilliance, and quite rightly.

The creativity of Jazz

Have you ever listened to and watched an outstanding jazz ensemble? Once again, you are in awe. There is less precision and perfection, but you are amazed at their creativity and improvisation.

Similar skills I (and Charles) think you need to make the best cities.

City making – like jazz?

For jazz you need creativity and improvisation more than precision and perfection.  In the same way, I believe if you approach city making with creativity and improvisation, you will do better than if you try to be precise and perfect. I believe you’ll struggle to plan a perfect city in advance with pen and paper.

Instead, I recommend you take a leaf from the book of European city makers of the middle ages and earlier, where great cities evolved without perfect planning. As the saying goes, Rome was not built in a day.

Jazz in Curitiba

Or, in more recent times, how about Curitiba’s transformation under Jaime Lerner to a city for people? Creativity and improvisation ruled the roost.

For example when civil engineer Nicolau Kluppel asked if he could build a new recycling facility, Jaime Lerner said he could do what he wanted, but there’s no money.

By creatively involving the city’s people (buying waste from them with bus tokens) and local business (by selling them recycled goods), Nicolau helped Curitiba achieve the best recycling rate of any city in the World. Miles Davis would have been proud.

Could Curitiba have achieved what it did without the creativity and improvisation of jazz?

Like any big city, London has its good and bad side. A recent visit helped me discover 5 great things about London – Walking, Parks, Capitalism, Food and Culture.

London – a city for walking

My wife, Arrti, and I arrived at Marylebone the Saturday before last for a day trip. First stop was Knightsbridge. And immediately one of central London’s great advantages displays itself  – it’s a wonderful place to walk.

London may not have the pedestrianisation or comprehensive cycling infrastructure of Copenhagen, but there is beautiful architecture, historical monuments, and intriguing shops.   All elements of what the great Danish architect Jan Gehl calls a Good City.

And then there are the parks.

London – a city of parks

The journey to Knightsbridge meandered through Hyde Park, past the famous Speakers’ Corner, the Serpentine and a parade of the Queen’s horses. There’s something special about a beautiful park in the middle of a bustling a city.

Hyde Park is one of many London parks – think Regents Park, Kensington Gardens and Richmond Park (Did you know Richmond Park is nearly 3 times bigger than New York’s Central Park?).

Can you imagine London without its beautiful parks? Unthinkable.

London – a city of capitalism

Capitalism is blamed for everything these days – environmental degradation, social woes and war. Is this fair? Maybe sometimes, but what about the flip side?

Capitalism has given many in the world unprecedented quality of life, historically rare peace in Europe and invaluable freedom.

Knightsbridge’s Harrods may flaunt the more excessive side of capitalism. But London as a whole, even after the recent economic strife, is the driving force behind England’s economy, bringing wealth to its people.

London – a city of food

Walking from Harrods, past Buckingham Palace and Victoria, we reached our next stop – About Thyme. A not-too-expensive restaurant with great ambience.

About Thyme is just one restaurant. In London your food options are unrivalled. From Cambden Market to China Town to Gordon Ramsey. Or you might prefer Tesco, Marks & Spencer, or a Hot Dog stand?

Your choice. In London you can have it all.

London – A city of culture

Our final stop is Piccadilly Circus to see the Michael Jackson tribute show, Thriller Live. Starring the fabulous Maria Lawson, of X-Factor fame. The show was excellent, but it was only the tip of London’s cultural iceberg.

Natural History Museum, Notting Hill Carnival, London Marathon, Changing of the Guard, any number of up and coming bands in local pubs. The list goes on and on.

Do you like cultural cities? I know I do.

London – a city for people?

As I wrote earlier, London isn’t perfect. Homeless people wander, the threat of terrorism looms, air pollution fills the lungs.

And I, for one, am frustrated with the British mentality of building cities too much for cars. I’d prefer London to follow the example of Jan Gehl’s Copenhagen, Jaime Lerner’s Curitiba, Enrique Peñalosa’s Bogota or Ilmar Reepalu’s Malmo – Pedestrians first, public transport and bicycles second, car third.

But overall I think London is a great city for people; one of the best. Walking, Parks, Capitalism, Food and Culture are 5 reason why; there are many others.

What do you think of London, and my 5 reasons for it being a city for people? Have you any others to add?

Update: See my related article, London’s 4 Steps to the Sustainable City.

Now you can. You can take total control of a city’s energy, transport and waste investments and see what the outcome is.

Sound too good to be true? Well ok, you can’t literally do it. But you can try the excellent SymbioCity Scenarios simulation.

Can you solve a city’s problems?

Go on, give it a go – it only takes 15 minutes or so. It’s fun and you get to see what you can do about problems such as urban sprawl, energy shortages, growing landfill and a lack of leadership in the city.

You have a budget and can prioritise whether you focus on renewable energy, a new tram system or recycling facilities. At the end you get a score and can see how you did compared to others.

How did you do? Let me know, and let me know what you think is the key to successful sustainable city development.

What is SymbioCity?

SymbioCity is a Swedish concept. When I lived & worked in Sweden, I was introduced to SymbioCity by colleagues at the Swedish Trade Council.

The idea in my mind is simple. Instead of looking at one solution for one problem, find a solution that helps solve many problems. E.g. A waste to energy plant takes away your waste problem, creates jobs & money and generates cheap energy for the city.

This kind of system thinking is something I think the Swedes do impressively. Like in the Western Harbour, Malmo.

And my score was?

Umm…did you have to ask?

A little over 40,000. Not very high up on the leaderboard. I overspent and underdelivered. Looks like I’ve got a lot to learn about cities.

What do you think of SymbioCity Scenarios?

(p.s thanks to Lars Lindgren, who e-mailed me about SymbioCity Scenarios. Lars works for BTS, the company who developed the software)

Newcastle?! In the heart of the industrial North East? Home to the expression Selling Coal to Newcastle? Can it be true?

I’m doubtful…let’s look at why Forum for the Future rank Newcastle first.

Why Newcastle is a Sustainable City

Forum for the Future state:

“Newcastle has won because it does fairly well across the whole set of indicators we use to capture a balanced picture of cities’ sustainability, with no particular area of weakness.”

Looking at the full report, they use 13 indicators. Everything from Air Quality to Ecological Footprint, from Education to Employment, from Economy to Recycling. 20 cities are rated from 1 to 20 in each of the indicators, the numbers are combined and hey presto, we have the ranking.

Newcastle scored particularly well in Green Space, Biodiversity and Recycling. Maybe I was wrong to be doubtful of Newcastle.

Or maybe I wasn’t.

Why Newcastle isn’t a Sustainable City

I like the way Forum for the Future have used a range of straight forward indicators. But are they the right indicators to measure a city’s sustainability? We could discuss the rights and wrongs of different indicators until the cows come home (if you really want to), due to their subjective nature. But here are a couple of more that I think are relevant.

Population Growth

Should a city aim for population growth or decline? I don’t know what’s best, but I’m not sure I like the trend you can see on p.63 of the 2006 government report into the state of UK cities. Of 9 cities, Newcastle’s population decline between 1991 and 2001 is second only to Liverpool.

Can a city be sustainable if people don’t want to live there?

Economy

Forum for the Future say Newcastle’s economy is one of its less good points, with the city in the bottom half of the rankings. Perhaps things are even worse than that.

The National Statistics Office show that the North East, the region which includes Newcastle, has the worst regional economy in England based on Gross Value Added per person.

Newcastle has a better economy that it’s surrounding region, but it can’t totally separate itself. Curitiba in Brazil is a great example of a fantastic city that has started to struggle to cope with the demands placed on it from increasing numbers of less well off people in the surrounding area.

In my opinion, a strong economy is perhaps the most important thing in a city. Can a city be sustainable if it doesn’t have a top notch economy?

On Balance

On balance I think my doubtfulness is misplaced. An article in The Times states that Newcastle’s population is increasing again and that there are many positive economic trends.

They also comment that the Lonely Planet put Newcastle in the top 30 places to see Worldwide. Quite a vote of confidence for the city.

Newcastle are trying to learn from others too. For example, the city visited the Western Harbour, Malmo to find if Scotswood could follow their example. You can see a BBC news video on Malmo’s website.

All in all I’m impressed. Hats off to Newcastle for their success and hats off to Forum for the Future for measuring and publicising it.

What do you think of Newcastle and Forum for the Future’s ranking?

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

Is it the climate? Something in the local psyche?  Or simply chance?

I don’t think so. I think it is mostly about design. Bogota, the capital of Colombia,  gives a nice example of a city that tried to design for bicycles and bicyclists.

Can we learn from Bogota’s experience?

From Cars to People, Buses and Bicycles

“A citizen on a $30 bicycle is equally important to one in a $30,000 car”, declares Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogota.

When Mr. Penalosa became mayor in 1998, plans for a new $15 billion highway system were given to him. He discarded them and spent money on pedestrianised streets, buses and parks. And lots and lots and lots of cycle paths – 300 km worth – which people started to use.

Here are 3 steps they took that I think helped them build a bicycling culture:

Bicycling in Bogota – 3 steps to success

1. Build Bicycle Paths

A great bicycle path network makes it easy and safe for anyone to use, young or old. Cycle paths can come in all shapes and sizes – what kind is best? I guess it depends, but I like this useful guide from Enrique Penalosa, “A bicycle way that is not safe for an 8-year old is not a bicycle way”.

Below’s an example of one of Bogota’s cycle paths. What do you think of it?

2. Build other Bicycling Infrastructure

It’s not just about kilometers and miles of cycle roads.  Who will use them? How will they be used? Can they be used?

A cycle path that goes from nowhere to nowhere probably won’t be used as much as a well connected, integrated system.

In Bogota, a special emphasis was put on connecting the cycle paths to their bus rapid transit system, Transmilenio. For example they installed free, convenient and secure cycle storage facilities near major bus terminals:

I like that the storage facilities make cycling easy for everyday activities, like taking quick public transport into the city.

3. Inspire – Make it Fun!

Ciclovia happens once a week in Bogota, every Sunday between 7am and 2pm. 120km of roads are shut to cars and opened up to cyclists, walkers and people to enjoy. It’s fun, with around 30% of locals, or 2 million people, taking part. Take a look at this short video from Streetfilms to if you want a flavour of people enjoying themselves on the streets of Bogota:

Maybe Ciclovia isn’t for every city, but are there other ways to make cycling fun in your city?

What do you think of the 3 steps to cycling success? Have you any other ideas?

Top 10. World’s Happiest Cities

Here’s the list from Forbes:

1. Rio de Janeiro
2. Sydney
3. Barcelona
4. Amsterdam
5. Melbourne
6. Madrid
7. San Francisco
8. Rome
9. Paris
10. Buenos Aires

I’ll leave you to agree or disagree with the findings. The question for me is:

Why are these cities happy?

Amazingly the author of the survey, Simon Anholt, states people like Melbourne and Sydney simply because of an association with Australia and Crocodile Dundee. They’re in Australia so the cities must be fun. Is this really all it takes?

Simon says the survey is subjective, so shouldn’t be taken too literally. In fact it is more about branding as it is people’s perception of the cities that influence the results. People think Rio is fun and sunny, they think the people must be happy and they then want to go there.

Perhaps the lesson to learn here is not what makes cities happy, but how cities can brand themselves as happy to attract people?

I like them. For example, principle 7 is to “Empower people and foster participation” – a noble aspiration for any city.

But I do have one small criticism.

Background to Melbourne Principles

First, I’d like to mention a little of the background to the Principles. In 2002 a group of over 40 experts from around the world met in Melbourne for a charrette, organised by UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), and developed a Vision:

“To create environmentally healthy, vibrant and sustainable cities where people respect one another and nature, to the benefit of all”

Followed by the 10 principles you can read in the document.

So what’s good about it?

They state, “the principles are not prescriptive…they allow cities to develop sustainable solutions that are relevant to their particular circumstances”.

This is fantastic. Recognising that every city needs to find its own path, with the principles acting like a Sherpa to help along the way, is incisive. Every city will have a distinctive history, an individual present and a unique destiny. Principle 6 asserts just this, encouraging you to build on the characteristics and culture of the city.

Could the principles be a guide for your city?

And what’s the criticism?

To be generic enough to encompass the needs of all cities and to get agreement among 40+ experts is a tough, tough job. And I admire what they came up with. But I wonder if, to do this, they sacrificed a little more than they needed to in the content.

Think of the some of the best cities for people in the World – say Malmo, Copenhagen, Freiburg or Curitiba. What do they have in common?

They all have world leading, concrete examples of sustainability. E.g. 100% Local Renewable Energy in Malmo, Cycle Paths in Copenhagen, a Solar City in Freiburg and a remarkable Bus System in Curitiba. But, more than that, they are all doing all these things. All the great cities are building better spaces for people, improved public transport and more renewable energy.  Absolutely all of them.

See my page on what to build for examples of what I think every city could do to make them more sustainable. These concrete examples not only are necessary to obtain sustainability, but also to make it real to the people of the city.

The Melbourne Principles are abstract and do not prescribe what to build. And I think they lose something because of that, turning a potentially excellent document that everyone could use into something that may end up only being used by city specialists.

My advice

So what do I think?

I think you should read the Melbourne principles if you are working with cities. I’m sure there is something in there that will add to your current repertoire of ideas.

But do not focus on just the abstract. To build sustainable cities you have to build something. Build a park to rival Central Park, a tram to rival Strasburg’s and cycle paths to rival Amsterdam’s. As Nike say, “Just Do It.”

Maybe you won’t get everything right all the time. Curitiba, Malmo and Copenhagen didn’t either, but look where they are now.

Or do you think differently?

Well, I think the initial signs are good.

Sustainable Greensburg

“I think about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community— how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay.”

“‘The tragedy was terrible’, said one of the men who helped them rebuild. ‘But the folks here know that it also provided an incredible opportunity.’”

Said Mr. Obama during his first statement to a joint session of Congress back in February. The way the whole community of Greensburg came together to envision a better future after the tragic event in May 2007 is very impressive. Take a look at this short video to get an idea of what residents think:

They’re especially looking at investing in energy efficient buildings, renewable energy and alternative transport fuels to secure a better future for their children.

The question is, is this the way to succeed?

Greensburg – a City for People?

The stories from Greensburg and Barack Obama’s support of the city fill me with much confidence. Like them, I also believe in the benefits that come from community and investing in technology that makes the best use of local resources to create a city for the future.

If I were to give them some advice, it would be to think not just about the technology but also how to make the city better for people by making great use of public space. I’ve written before about what I think a city should build. As well as green technology, I think parks, cycle paths and pedestrianised streets all contribute to making a city reach its full potential.

Good luck Greensburg.  As Barack Obama said so well, you are becoming a global example and can inspire all to make our cities better places for everyone.

In my last post, I wrote about how I think trams, pedestrianised streets and solar energy all contribute towards making Freiburg an outstanding city for people.  Freiburg’s presentation to the EU Green Capital competition lists success factors Freiburg think helped make the city what it is.

Here is Freiburg’s list of sustainable city success factors:

1. Vision of integral sustainable development
2. Consensus on sustainability across all political parties
3. Network of different stakeholders
4. Participation of citizens
5. Citizens‘ commitment

The same lessons from Freiburg and Malmo?

Freiburg have used different words, but the overriding message is almost exactly the same as the output from Malmo’s Sustainable City Conference.

As a reminder, Malmo’s message was:

1. Multi-stakeholder involvement is crucial. We can’t all be experts.
2. Make it trendy, make it visible.
3. Transcend the political and bureaucratic barriers.

In both cities they believe that you should get everybody involved, do trendy things that work towards a strong vision, and get politics to work for you, not against you.

I think we can learn from the similar messages of Freiburg and Malmo. Is it a coincidence that both Freiburg and Malmo have made wonderful cities for people?  And they have both made world leading city redevelopments, Freiburg with it’s Solar City and Malmo with the Western Harbour.

What do you think about the success factors of Freiburg?

I don’t know, but I do know that Johann would probably say exactly the same thing today. Freiburg gets called Green City Freiburg, Solar City Freiburg and Sustainable City Freiburg by many commentators.

Freiburg – A City for People

What makes Freiburg a city for people?

Freiburg was unfortunately devastated during World War 2, like many cities in Europe. But since then, Freiburg have done something astounding, something green and something to be proud of.

When rebuilding themselves in the 1940s, 50s and 60s many European cities built for the auto mobile.  Freiburg didn’t – they built their city for people, not for cars. Pedestrianised streets, bike lanes and excellent trams were at the heart of the city’s development. Plus the unique Freiburg Bächle, small canals that run down each central street.

Freiburg Green City

Freiburg’s presentation to the EU Green Capital competition gives some facts and figures about the city. I particularly like slides 10 and 11 that show that 70% of locals walk, cycle or take public transport when travelling. How does that compare to other cities, I wonder?

Freiburg has done some inspiring work with Solar City development too, particularly in the Vauban area. You might like to watch this video:

Martin Hoyer, one of the residents of Vauban, says he generates three times more power than he needs from the solar cells on his home, and makes about €5000 per year selling the excess energy. Sounds good?

Maybe, but his wife, Barbara Shweer, is still unsure whether the revenue makes up for the higher price they had to pay for their house in the first place.

If you ask me, it is not so important that it is clearly cost effective.  The fact they had the option to buy a beautiful home in a beautiful area where they can generate and sell their own energy is a sign that Freiburg truly is a city for people. The district reminds me a lot of The Western Harbour, Malmo.

Next week, I’d like to discuss some of the lessons that I think we might be able to learn from Freiburg.

Will you join me?

So what did they learn?

Conclusions from the conference?

There is an excellent summary of the conference, which I recommend you take a look at with ideas of how to succeed with sustainable city development. There are 3 main conclusions:

1. Multi-stakeholder involvement is crucial. We can’t all be experts.
2. Make it trendy, make it visible.
3. Transcend the political and bureaucratic barriers.

I could not agree more with these conclusions, as I talk about below.

1. Multi-stakeholder involvement is crucial

Malmo’s success has been down to the fact that the municipality, different businesses and people are willing and happy to work together to help make a better future for the city. In the Western Harbour, the municpality led the way and brought together house builders and the local energy company. They also involved people, asking them what they would want the Western Harbour to look like.

The result is a place great for the city, great for the businesses that took part and great for the people. A true city for people.

2. Make it trendy, make it visible.

Often, energy generation systems are hidden away from the public eye. Not in Malmo, as the picture below shows.

Visible Renewable Energy in the Western Harbour, Malmo

Solar thermal panels and solar photovoltaic cells are on buildings for all to see. Less than 2 kilometers away is a wind turbine that powers the city. The only hidden energy source is the heat pump, which takes energy from underground water.

I believe that this approach to proudly showing sustainability helps bring about a cultural change in the people. It certainly inspires me.

And so to the final conclusion…

3. Transcend the political and bureaucratic barriers

It can be so easy to find problems, so easy to dither and so easy for nothing to get done when trying to build Sustainable Cities. But, as Malmo suggest, I would recommend following the advice from Nike.

Just Do It.

Malmo did, Curitiba did, Bogota did. And so can you, if you want to.

One thing the Malmo conference missed?

Of course, when you summarize you leave out ideas. And Malmo had to leave out lessons in the summary of their suggestions. But there is one thing that Malmo that Malmo demonstrated, but didn’t say.

Be open to new ideas, and always try to improve.

The conference itself was about Malmo trying to learn from outside experiences while also trying to show others their ideas. And hats off to Malmo for doing this.

What do you think of these 3 conclusions? Do you agree of have other ideas of your own?

But before we talk about that, here’s a list of the top 10 countries.

Top 10 happiest countries

1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Holland
4. Sweden
5. Ireland
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
8. New Zealand
9. Norway
10. Belgium

The Independent newspaper discussed another report from the University of Leicester in the UK a couple of years ago that drew similar conclusions, so maybe these countries do have something.

For me as a Brit living in Malmo, Sweden, I can definitely see that Swedes have a very good life compared to us British.  But equally the country is not perfect. In fact, some the happiest countries above are also quite high in this list from Wikipedia of the countries with the highest suicide rate.

That aside, what does the report have to say on what makes people happy?

What makes people happy?

Some of the suggested factors are:

1. Wealth
2. Productivity
3. Family, social and community networks
4. Work-life balance
5. High employment rates

A couple of people commented in the blog that other reasons may be access to nature and wilderness, education and a good health system.

I agree with all the above, but I also think there is one more vital factor.

Cities for People = Happy Country?

The Danes have Copenhagen, the Dutch have Amsterdam and the Swedes have Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmo. All great cities for people.

In today’s world, over 50% of people live in cities. So we need great cities for people to be happy.  Cities that enable people to be wealthy, have great jobs and great community networks. Cities that have good eduction systems, great health services and access to nature.

See my article on what I think we need to build to make a city for people.

Of course, it is not all about cities. There are many other aspects of a country that make a difference. But I do think cities for people are crucial.

What do you think?

So says Monocle Magazine. According to monocle:

“Copenhagen treats residents to a lifestyle that’s hard to match: manageable scale, a clean harbour for brisk dips and abundant green space. The development of the Metro system and a commitment to cycling makes urban navigation swift and seamless.”

The Dane’s are hardier than me – personally I find the water around Malmo and Copenhagen freezing. But then, I’m from the south of England and not too tough.

But is Copenhagen as good as Monocle claim?

In my opinion, probably. I think Copenhagen is  a city for people and has a lot to offer.  Many other cities could learn a little from Copenhagen’s attitude to cycle paths, pedestrianised areas and great public squares. You can read about some of the ideas Copenhagen have had in my earlier article on Good Cities.

A pedestrianised square in Copenhagen

I’ve even heard that Copenhagen is officially safer than Malmo.  Given that I find it incredulous that crime even exists in Malmo (at least near where I live in Slottsstaden), I am quite impressed that Copenhagen can be safer.

What do you think? Is Copenhagen is the World’s most Liveable City?