In New Copenhagen Suburbs, Aim is
Sustainable Living
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/business/energy-environment/in-new-copenhagen-suburbs-aim-is-sustainable-living.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=architecture
The situation in Copenhagen is characterized paradoxes. As they anticipate expansion, they also
look to reduce their environmental footprint. As they work to improve and develop and network of mass
transit, they also hope to eliminate commuting altogether. In this way it is also characterized by
connections. Copenhagen’s internal
and external connections are a means of enhancing the vivacity of the place. In addition to infrastructural
connections, they connect with the Swedish city of Malmo via a rail
bridge-tunnel. This connection is
economically beneficial.
The developments serve as a testing ground for urban and
architectural ideas. While planned
cities have long histories, they are still developing to better meet the needs
of communities. There exist
examples from as early as the 17th century that are now considered
natural parts of the city. They
have the capacity to become well integrated. When they are planned carefully and purposefully, they can
better address the needs of a community.
The author suggests that they should be developed from the bottom up,
not from the top down, so that they better address the human scale.
Implementing major changes in anticipation for growth is
perhaps an appropriate opportunity to make changes for more sustainable
living. Will it be possible to be
more conscientious while looking to account for the needs of 100,000 more
people in a decade, or will those needs become more pressing than the need to
be green? Is it justifiable for so
many resources to go into a single planned community when others are
struggling, or will it ultimately end up preventing enough waste to justify it?
I think this articles does a good job of showing the dangers of getting caught up in the environmental concerns of our time. It seems to me that this a theme we've been seeing in our readings in class as well. For example, the Sierra Club forgetting the societal and cultural past of a land and seeking to preserve it for their "age" to admire from a distance. This relates to Copenhagen because it seems as if the need to make all new development "sustainable" has become the main focus, even overriding economics (to a degree). Ultimately, however, I think Copenhagen is doing the best with the resources it has. Planning cities sustainably also saves money, especially in the long run. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteIn the broader sense, this article delves into the realm of human sustainability vs. environmental sustainability. At one point, the article mentions that current green spaces will soon disappear, but the new suburb taking its place will home 20,000 residents and employ as many as 80,000 people. In a world where larger economic and financial stability often trumps environmental sustainability, it is increasingly important that we find a method that can integrate both. Orestad does an excellent job as an energy-efficient city. The modern mass transit network reduces car use, already 50 percent of Copenhagen commuters use bicycle, and a future connection of canals may even spur kayak transportation. However, as leed13 points out, an efficient city may not be entirely environmentally sustainable in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI think the development of more sustainable and efficient communities is a necessary focus in urban planning. I read an article by Wendell Berry in another class where he argues that the human population is growing, and we must inevitably use the land to sustain this population growth. In other words, urban expansion is inevitable, so it makes sense to develop communities in the most efficient ways available to us. I think this development plan is a welcome compromise of political, economic, and environmental interests. While it may not be absolutely ideal, it is certainly a step in the right direction of consolidating often competing interests.
ReplyDelete