ECOLOGICAL URBANISM: Alternative and Sustainable Cities of the Future

scootie

scootie

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Not sure if this should be posted in this folder...if not I apologize.


http://ecologicalurbanism.gsd.harvard.edu/

[from website]

"ECOLOGICAL URBANISM: Alternative and Sustainable Cities of the Future
Conference at Harvard University Graduate School of Design
April 3 - 5, 2009

With the aim of projecting alternative and sustainable forms of urbanism, the forthcoming
conference will ask: What are the key principles of an ecological urbanism? How might
they be organized? And what role might design and planning play in the process?

While climate change, sustainable architecture, and green technologies have become
increasingly topical, issues surrounding the sustainability of the city are much less
developed. The conference is organized around the premise that an ecological approach
is urgently needed both as a remedial device for the contemporary city and an organizing
principle for new cities. An ecological urbanism represents a more holistic approach than
is generally the case with urbanism today, demanding alternative ways of thinking and
designing.

The conference will bring together design practitioners and theorists, economists,
engineers, environmental scientists, politicians and public health specialists, with the goal
of reaching a more robust understanding of ecological urbanism and what it might be in
the future."

speakers:

I?aki ?balos
Michelle Addington
Pierre B?langer
Homi Bhabha
Stefano Boeri
Andrea Branzi
Lawrence Buell
Margaret Crawford
Dilip da Cunha
Gareth Doherty
Herbert Dreiseitl
Bill Dunster
Richard T. T. Forman
Ed Glaeser
Susannah Hagan
Walter Hood
Doroth?e Imbert
Mitchell Joachim
Jerold Kayden
Niall Kirkwood
Rem Koolhaas
Alex Krieger
Sanford Kwinter
Nina-Marie Lister
Anuradha Mathur
Thomas M. Menino
William J. Mitchell
Mohsen Mostafavi
Antoine Picon
Spiro Pollalis
Mahadev Raman
Chris Reed
Christoph Reinhart
Daniel Schrag
Thomas Schroepfer
Matthias Sch?ler
Niels Schulz
Richard Sommer
Donald Swearer
Charles Waldheim
Christian Werthmann
 
Damn I wish I could go to this.

One question though-why is "ecological urbanism" an "alternative?" Isn't regular urbanism (in the proper sense) generally environmentally friendly?
 
^ These Harvard conferences tend to be fuzzy and unfocused. Eons ago, there was one with Jane Jacobs, James Rouse, Moshe Safdie et al. that had exactly zero lasting effect. Everyone felt good, though; they could see the world was going to be saved.

And yes, Kennedy, all genuine urbanism is environmentally-friendly.
 
Speaking of fuzzy thought (why is Homi Bhabha, the world's least coherent literary theorist, invited to this!?), the reason why "all urbanism is ecological" never suffices is that brains have been so captured by the concrete v. green disparity that the notion of an environmentally friendly city that doesn't consist of LEED certified photovoltaic yurts covered in vines doesn't quite resonate with the environment crowd. Nevermind that New York will always be more environmentally friendlier than comparatively decentralized (but superficially "green") Portland.

Seriously, I cannot believe the number of people devoted to technologies and strategies that will ultimately have a wholly negligible impact on climate change.

Oh, and this should be on the events forum.
 
The people devoted to technologies and strategies aren't going down the wrong path, just a more concrete one. IMO, the human race will eventually use science and technology to perfect what nature would do on it's own after billions of years. Science will be the perfect form of nature.

I haven't decided where creativity and emotion plays into this, though. I'm still sort of wrangling with the idea that it only provides the backdrop of the science and technology, but I'm sure it plays a larger role than that.
 
I don't mind a commitment to science and technology, but the notion that you can save the world with a greener coffee maker or hair drier is absurd. A problem like global climate change is really only tackle-able with a global solution, like ocean algae blooms. Everything else is way too piecemeal.
 
czsz said:
...ocean algae blooms...
Click to expand...

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!

soylentgreen.jpg



It would be worth the price of admission to see Glaeser, Koolhaas and Menino in the same room
 
czsz said:
I don't mind a commitment to science and technology, but the notion that you can save the world with a greener coffee maker or hair drier is absurd. A problem like global climate change is really only tackle-able with a global solution, like ocean algae blooms. Everything else is way too piecemeal.
Click to expand...

I agree, green coffee makers are goofy. I don't think that we need an algae bloom to solve the problem, though. What about algae biofuel?

ablarc said:
!
Click to expand...

?
 
kennedy said:
One question though-why is "ecological urbanism" an "alternative?" Isn't regular urbanism (in the proper sense) generally environmentally friendly?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the scale here is least to most environmentally friendly urbanism as apposed to least to most environmentally friendly development generally. Density may be the most important thing, but it is obviously not the only important thing. Cities are by far the best option on a per-person basis, but cities are still extremely dirty places that could be cleaned up significantly.

czsz said:
I don't mind a commitment to science and technology, but the notion that you can save the world with a greener coffee maker or hair drier is absurd. A problem like global climate change is really only tackle-able with a global solution, like ocean algae blooms. Everything else is way too piecemeal.
Click to expand...

kennedy said:
I agree, green coffee makers are goofy.
Click to expand...

Why? What is wrong with piecemeal? If we can cut the amount of energy we use while making in coffee in half and do the same for other small aspects of our lives that will surely benefit all of us. It is just a matter of more and more people doing so. How is a change for the better, even a small one, goofy? If everyone who sat back and said "this solution isn't good enough" reduced the amount of energy he uses by two percent it would have a significant impact.

I apologize if that was a little (or a lot) preachy.
 
The problem isn't that the "green coffee maker" is ridiculous, it's that not nearly enough people will ever voluntarily use it to make an impact. People should stop buying this crap to feel good about themselves; if they really wanted to make a substantial impact and believed this technology was the way to go, they would lobby for a law that made it illegal to build energy-inefficient coffeemakers in the first place.
 
ablarc said:
I meant that you had come up with a striking turn of phrase. Like the lyrics of a Beatles song, it made me think.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't know, but that's sort of my idea of humanity's future. I was thinking about it mostly because I got in an argument with this kid telling me that evolution was BS, and Darwin was wrong, and pulling up all these Nobel winners and NASA scientists backing him up. Kind of got me riled up, especially to have this discussion in a public school.

Him-"The chances of life happening are so small, and evolution takes so long, that it's impossible."

Me-"If the universe is infinite, and time is beyond human measurement (the whole we've only been here a centimeter out of one mile on a timeline of Earth), then the chance can be infinitely small but it's never zero."

This isn't the place for it, but whatever, I was ticked.
 
Oh, and CZ, I agree with that. All the coffee-makers should be green, not just the ones at Williams Sonoma or whatever for people to feel good about buying.
 
Why so narrow? I've seen vertical turbines before, but they were all wider, with fewer blades and more space between each.
 
:)i am trying to maximize the RPM and not the tork.

with the rpm you gain the inertia factor and you will not loose any power to any fearing system.

on top of all that I like the design.

thanks
sam
 
You just had me look through all of my old physics notes trying to figure it out, but I'll just trust you since it's on display at Harvard and (hopefully) they check their facts more thoroughly than I. Haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top