This is a look at the big picture courtesy of Siemens: http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-10-sevenbillion/factsheet-7billion-e.pdf
Cities cover only one percent of the Earth’s surface but are home to more than half of humanity, consume 75 percent of the available energy and emit around 80 percent of all harmful greenhouse gases. The UN It is estimates that roughly 70 percent of the world’s population will live in urban centres by 2050 . In the current scenario, the world population of seven billion is projected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050, in which the population of cities will nearly be as large as the entire world population today. Today, humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. In a business-as-usual scenario, the world’s demand for raw materials (metal ores, fossil fuels, biomass, non-metallic minerals) will more than double from 60 billion metric tons today to 140 billion tons in 2050. Also, energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions would double in such a scenario.
What can we as architects, urban designers, planners do about it? In terms of technical expertise, we know how to design buildings so that they are energy efficient, we know how places should be designed to respond best to the environment, we also know that joined up thinking regarding infrastructure and urban planning is a good starting point to achieving cities that consume less energy, manage resources and above all provide good quality environments to live, to work, to be educated, to enjoy...so why does this not happen? In existing cities, there are many smart city initiatives aimed at retro-fitting infrastructure, whether is is creating new major transport links, cycle networks, district heating/cooling networks and the use of technology to make us more aware of the facilities that are available to us. In creating new cities this should be easy, and in many cases it can be as long there is the will on the part of the project sponsor(s) to depart from 'business as usual' and invest in the elements of infrastructure that are usually perceived as expensive in the short term but provide significant savings in the long term, invest in the elements that developers do not see as financially viable that make the difference between a great urban new environment and just another development.
The problem on many projects is that the key decisions regarding budget and development potential have been made before designers get involved, and subsequently those intangible elements that are to do with creating a sense of place, are very often seen as a 'nice to have' but do not earn revenue for the developer so are discounted early on, or at least render the process a struggle to build in any quality or achieve an appropriate balance between infrastructure and commercial space.
Perhaps we collectively need to redefine the notion of value and quality based on criteria that is not derived from short-term financial gain.
The full story is available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble published by Xlibris - Do We Need ARCHITECTS?
No comments:
Post a Comment