Over the next 50 years, the region is expected to gain as many as 4 million people and 2 million jobs. In a place where a crushing housing shortage is already threatening quality of life, how can we welcome new residents and jobs without paving over our green spaces or pushing out long-time community members? To keep pace, and make the region more affordable, the Bay Area will need almost 2.2 million housing units by 2070, according to research from SPUR, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association.

As part of the Regional Strategy, ArchTam collaborated with SPUR to examine what it would take to house everyone who wants to live in the Bay Area. We’ve published our research in a new report, Model Places: Envisioning a Future Bay Area With Room and Opportunity for Everyone.

To determine where growth should go, we used land use data to assign every part of the nine-county Bay Area to one of “14 place types” based on urban patterns that occur throughout the region — from open spaces and residential suburbs to industrial areas and dense downtowns.

Cul de Sac Suburbs of Tomorrow – Neighbors – both longstanding and new arrivals continue to live close to nature, streets are transformed to make play-space for kids and a place to gather, exercise, and stroll. Last mile mobility solutions move through at a walking pace, between native plantings and permeable swales.

Model Places envisions what six of these different place types could look like if they grew in ways that made them not just more equitable and more sustainable, but more livable and humanizing places to live and work.

Our analysis shows that the Bay Area has plenty of room to grow, but only if every urbanized part of the region is willing to accept its share of the change. The responsibility can’t rest solely with the low- and moderate-income neighborhoods that have seen the most growth in recent years. Affluent places also need to do their part to accommodate new housing and new jobs.

The good news for everyone is that new growth can make existing neighborhoods better places for people, supporting diversity and inclusion, public health, sustainability and community life while retaining many of their essential qualities and lowering our carbon-footprint. And if we do it right, we can grow without sprawl — protecting and restoring the Bay Area’s unique natural environment.

Office Parks of Tomorrow – 20th Century single-use parking dominated offices parks are transformed into complete communities, with places for people to live and work in an highly amenitized environment. Automated shuttles offer internal circulation and regional transit connections.

This vision represents a bold new direction for the Bay Area, so we invited five artists to help us bring it to life, lending their different sensibilities to imagine a region where every place does its part and everyone can thrive. You can see their work in the report.

A Call to Action
To realize this vision, the Bay Area must commit to collectively tackling the challenges of housing, transportation, equity and climate change. Getting there will require profound changes in policies, practices, laws and culture — recommendations SPUR will make in upcoming Regional Strategy reports. Real transformation will require a series of changes at different levels of government over many decades. It’s never easy for communities to commit to massive change, especially when they can’t see ahead to the outcome. We hope Model Places gives a glimpse of what’s possible — and inspires a commitment to what’s needed.

Read the Model Places report.

The post Model Places: Envisioning a Future Bay Area with Room and Opportunity for Everyone appeared first on Blog.

With over half the world’s population, two-thirds of the world’s energy consumption, and 80% of the world’s GDP, cities not only have direct influence over greenhouse gas emissions, but also face the greatest concentration of physical, social and economic risks associated with climate change.

CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) is an international, not-for-profit organization providing a global system for companies and cities to measure, disclose, manage and share vital environmental information. This year, 308 cities have reported to CDP, with a focus on the mode of electricity generation – clean versus fossil fuel. Electricity generation is the single largest source of carbon emissions globally, generating 12.6 gigatons of CO₂ (2015).

Analysis of the CDP 2015 data shows that of the participating cities, Latin American cities average 76% of their electricity from clean sources. European cities in the study average 59%. Participating cities in the Asia Pacific region collectively receive 15% of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. Overall, cities are making great strides in the shift away from fossil fuels toward the adoption of clean energy: with 35% of cities getting three quarters of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.

Cities leading the transition to a lower carbon model include Aspen, Basel, Santa Monica, San Francisco and Stockholm. All of these cities have targets for 100% non-fossil fuel electricity. Ninety-six cities are already taking actions to de-carbonize their energy supply. And these cities understand the business case for doing so: 86% of them say they see economic opportunities from efforts to tackle climate change.

A faster move away from fossil fuel dependency could be accelerated with more private sector support. Many cities cite a need for public finance to help realize their ambitions for low-carbon growth, and more than half of the projects seeking support are located in the developing world, mainly in Latin America and Africa.

The 2015 results from CDP’s cities program are released in an infographic hosted on cdp.net, and city electricity generation mixes can be found here. The disclosures from all cities participating publicly in CDP’s cities program can be found here.

A look back at recent years’ reports:

2014 | 207 cities reported | The report spotlighted cities disclosing that climate change presents a physical risk to their businesses, and that this is serving as a driver for local governments to take action in response.

2013 | 110 cities reported | The report highlighted how climate change action is giving us healthier, wealthier cities. Cities reported annual energy savings of up to US$13 million, and their residents benefitting from healthier living and better business environments.

2012 | 73 cities reported | The report flagged that economic opportunity was a principal motivator for action on climate change.

Ben Smith (ben.smith@archtam.com) is director of sustainable development in ArchTam’s London office and is part of the ArchTam CDP team that has partnered with CDP since 2012, volunteering expertise to provide data analysis, communications and visualization techniques. ArchTam’s full CDP team can be viewed here.

The post How clean is your city’s electricity: CDP Cities Report 2015 appeared first on Blog.

Quake-proofing the city is a near-impossible challenge, but it’s critical that “lifeline structures” – those needed to sustain life and support recovery operations – be as resilient as possible. We created this info-graphic to examine the key points of seismic vulnerability in a city and the strategies that can be taken to strengthen them. Also, explore an existing essential services facility that was engineered to withstand a magnitude 7.5 earthquake.

October 16 is the International ShakeOut Day of Action, when nearly 20 million people worldwide will participate in earthquake drills and disaster preparedness activities.

Jake Herson (jacob.herson@archtam.com) is managing editor for the Connected Cities blog.

The post How can cities increase seismic resilience? appeared first on Blog.

Jacinta McCann, global lead for ArchTam’s Design + Planning practice and president of the Landscape Architecture Foundation, kicked off the discussion by showing the experience of different cities – Sydney and its Opera House (a single object); Doha’s Marina Bay (a cacophony of objects where ArchTam is now designing a public realm to stich it all together); and New York’s Rockefeller Center with the art of Jeff Koons. Iconography can come in many different shapes and sizes, Jacinta said.

Ross Wimer, Americas lead for ArchTam’s Architecture practice (pictured above), explored the idea that a building could be iconic not just on the outside but on the inside. Drawing on the example of a tower project he has worked on in China, Ross showed how internal workings and innovations in sustainability and structure can speak just as powerfully about a city’s aspirations –  if not more so, in fact – than its striking profile in the skyline. Ross talked more about this in a recent podcast.

Stephen Engblom, Americas lead for ArchTam’s Design + Planning practice, took a historical view of iconography. From the Victorian train stations of the industrial era, to the towers of the roaring twenties in America and today’s Gulf States and China, iconography follows the money so to speak. We can trace a direct correlation between waves of economic progress and architectural expression. The latest evidence of this, Stephen noted, is the recent trend of tech companies commissioning grand headquarters projects by starchitects, a phenomenon best reported by architecture critic Paul Goldberger in Vanity Fair. There’s Apple and Foster, Facebook and Gehry. Twitter’s headquarters remains one of the last holdouts of urban grit in San Francisco.

Bill Hanway, global lead for ArchTam’s Architecture practice, conjectured that perhaps what’s most important to a city is not an iconic building or even an iconic skyline, but great systems underpinning it all. Bill cited the example of our work as masterplanners since 2005 for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. There, striking structures such as Zaha Hadid’s Swimming Pool, Anish Kapoor’s Orbit, or Hopkins’ Velodrome are carefully knit together into a cohesive park with new transport interchanges: the centerpiece of a powerful legacy plan that emulates London’s traditional village patchwork pattern, far more iconic overall than any of the individual buildings.

Susan Szenasy, publisher of Metropolis, agreed with Bill’s assertion, noting that many cities suffer too many little silos. Paula Deitz, editor of the Hudson Review and landscape architecture critic, asked if this question is something more and more cities around the globe are asking themselves as big challenges like climate change would seem to dwarf any particular iconic building. Other attendees included writers and editors from The Architects’ Newspaper and Architect Magazine, as well as representatives from the Van Alen Institute, Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, the Institute for Public Architecture, the New York Mayor’s office, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

Balancing the need for iconic architecture with the bigger picture of urban systems and challenges is an issue that ArchTam grapples with in its work with cities around the world. There’s probably no more striking example of architectural firepower than Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi. There a cultural district is under construction that will feature a particular intensity of iconography: Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, Norman Foster’s Sheikh Zayed Museum, Zaha Hadid’s Opera House, Tadao Ando’s Maritime Museum, and Jean Nouvel’s Louvre Abu Dhabi. ArchTam has carefully masterplanned Saadiyat so that these jewel-like icons can shine, but are firmly embedded into the urban fabric of Abu Dhabi. It’s a ‘master-architect’ role that requires flexibility grounded in respect for the power of striking architecture while with an eye to the whole urban puzzle. Abu Dhabi is a forward-thinking emirate trying to make a statement about the power of culture in a region fraught with conflict: a line-up of beautiful temples to knowledge and expression by architects who are diverse in both architectural style and cultural origin. Criticised by some as extravagant, it might just be an iconography that its time and place needs, considering the regional context.

Saadiyat Island Cultural District.

In Cambridge, UK, we are undertaking a similar role as our masterplan for the University of Cambridge’s Northwest extension enters its first development phase. We have helped to assemble a cracker-jack team of some of the UK’s and Europe’s most interesting architects to design new residential and academic clusters in what will be the largest extension for one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities. The project, for which ArchTam has been shortlisted for the World Architecture Festival Future Projects award (winner to be announced this week in Singapore), brings together a coalition of architects: Alison Brooks, The AOC, Cottrell Vermeulen, Maccreanor Lavington, Marks Barfield, Mecanno, Mole Architects, MUMA, Pollard Thomas Edwards, RH Partnership, Stanton Williams, Wilkinson Eyre, and Witherford Watson Mann, with ArchTam as landscape architects as well. The architecture will be refined, a touch eclectic but very much in the spirit of European city-making that makes places like Cambridge so special.

New residential courtyard in Cambridge University’s northwest extension.

In contrast to Saadiyat, it is a subtler iconography, but iconic nonetheless. Given Cambridge’s centuries of heritage and status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, new architectural interventions must be deftly handled and delicately conducted to respect what is a memorable place. Each architect will have her or his own distinct expression, and the result will be contemporary. Centuries from now, it will be the early 21^st century layer in the rich Cambridge texture that includes the Victorian, Georgian, Elizabethan and Medieval. Taken together, these make one iconic place, especially when one takes the long view of history.

That’s why in retrospect, the right question probably isn’t do our cities need more icons. It’s more multifaceted than that. Iconography is about symbolism and aspiration, and these are at the heart of architectural expression and civic building. As urbanists, we should be questioning not whether we need more icons – our cities thrive on them – but how can they be better and more relevant to the people they are intended to inspire? Are we designing the right kinds of icons? Can a city as a whole be an architectural icon?

Daniel Elsea (daniel.elsea@archtam.com) is creative director for ArchTam’s Buildings + Places group.

The post Do our cities need more icons? appeared first on Blog.

The world’s cities are already home to the majority of the global population, with this forecast to grow by a further 3 billion people by 2050. The infrastructure needed to support this growth is often underfunded or falls short of what it could deliver to urban communities.

Cities have long planned and developed strategies to provide infrastructure investment, but as successive governments have discovered, there is never enough room in public budgets for all necessary projects.

Del Mar Station, Pasadena.

Many treasury departments have introduced processes to better manage public spending and project budgets as they are being conceived, developed and readied for construction. While more effective use of taxpayers’ money is commendable, the focus on budgets has often made it harder for governments to justify infrastructure investment which will enhance local livability, particularly where a project has little or no immediate or obvious economic return.

In Melbourne, with a population of over 4 million, a heritage of building resilient infrastructure over the decades has delivered world-class livability. Important thoroughfares, drainage works and railway projects of the past have delivered iconic boulevards, significant parks and city landmarks which have not only fulfilled their functional brief but also contributed to Melbourne’s amenity and reputation. However, times have changed and the scrutiny to which projects are subjected has tended to hobble the investigation, let alone the execution, of new roads, rails or drains that could also improve amenity over time.

When the focus of a project is narrow and does not consider broader long-term amenity considerations, the outcomes can be suboptimal and, in the long run, expensive.

Octavia Boulevard, San Francisco.

There are many global examples of infrastructure being built only to be completely torn down at great expense when broader negative health, economic and social impacts have done their damage.  This could be avoided with more inclusive and integrated thinking.

The solution is for project proponents to reconfigure the way in which they conceive and design projects. Specifically, designers need to consider community amenity and aesthetics as core parts of a project’s design and functionality. This is likely to require a precinct approach to project planning, rather than considering infrastructure in isolation. In Melbourne the recent spate of railway level crossing removals carried out by the Victorian Government have considered amenity as a central part of their design, resulting in rail lines being sunk with development opportunity created above, rather than previous approaches such as road overpasses, which have undermined community connectedness.

There is great promise in these times of austerity for those of us who dream of greener and more enjoyable cities in which to live and work. Rather than looking at livability as an expensive ‘add-on’ it should be seen as potentially adding value to infrastructure project and avoiding costs in the future.

Zac Cvitkovic is a principal urban designer in ArchTam’s Melbourne office.

The post Livable infrastructure appeared first on Blog.

Last month I biked-trained-biked south to the Google campus to participate in “Cities on the Move,” an all-day gathering of people that care about and work on urban mobility issues (practitioners, politicians, techies, and academics). Organized by Paris-based New Cities Foundation, the event included topics such as “what will shape the future city,” “the technology of transport,” “adapting the city,” and “what should drive a better quality of life.”

Not surprisingly, the day was kicked off by Google[X]’s Captain of Moonshots, who is working on the newsworthy driverless cars. Google vernacular note: everyone at Google gets to title themselves, and “moonshots” are the pie-in-the-sky projects from Google[X], the semi-secret group dreaming up the next major technological advancements like Google glasses, etc.; look out!

Below is a summary of takeaways from my experience of the event:

Next generation mobility planning (potentially including driverless cars) has the power to “warp space” and realize three significant benefits:

• Value Creation. Historically, the corner store next to the bus stop fares better (artificial value increase) than the one a few blocks away; what happens when transit no longer occupies a fixed route?
• Use/Productivity. Can driverless cars enable parking-dependent uses to occur on parcels traditionally parking constrained?
• Value Capture. How can classically underfunded transit systems realize a portion of the real estate value increase they enable? See transit-oriented development, even real estate hikes along Google bus routes in San Francisco.

Competition between cities has often revolved around economic opportunity and quality of life. In the near future, three additional factors to consider:

• Dynamism. Flexibility within a strong, thoughtful framework has long been a touchstone of smart planning. But, how do we design mobility and cities with a hyper dynamism that can accommodate technologies even Google[X] has not dreamed of yet? Captain Moonshot believes cities will change and evolve more in the next 30 years than they have in the past 300.
• Access. Today we focus on people reaching jobs, goods, and services better and faster than before. What will the city look like if all of the goods and services come to us instead? And when what was once seen as inconvenient now is convenient (i.e., having your autonomous car membership pick up your favorite pizza, even though its location across town without parking was a prior barrier).
• Zero Commute. Autonomous vehicles could help envision a city with seamless (less handoffs between modes or routes) or little commuting. I am spoiled, enjoying a five-mile bike ride to work that does not feel like a commute, but for many others a significantly streamlined or zero commute might drive relocation and inspire businesses and investment to follow. Cities willing to champion this innovative ecosystem could realize a new form of competitive advantage.

The public realm as contested space and a driver of truly egalitarian, urban happiness might center on three concepts:

• Shared Streets. With fewer, more efficient autonomous vehicles on the road can we realize truly shared right-of-ways where technology enables greater equality? Currently ~25–40% of land in the average city is occupied by streets and parking lots. In San Francisco, one of our major thoroughfares is successfully banning automobiles, which allows the needed space for the separated bike lanes and wider sidewalks that encourage more biking and walking.
• Shared Vehicles. Can public policy keep autonomous cars from being toys of the super wealthy and instead something most can access through more of a car-share model? Today, one shared car typically represents a removal of 25–30 private cars from crowded streets, improving air quality and congestion. [An MIT study estimates that Singapore could reduce its taxi fleet by 70% if all were computer destination directed.] Also, car sharing encourages fewer car trips (and more walking and biking), in part because when one has to spend ~$10/hour to drive, using a car to get a $4 cup of coffee does not pencil out. Could autonomous cars improve this statistic even further by eliminating the unavoidable car share barrier of the physical car pods? Or, will driverless cars result in a further choked city of zero-occupancy vehicles running around at their master’s bidding?
• Focus on the Journey. Whatever the mode, how can we enhance our chaotic, energetic cities by shifting the mobility conversation to quality instead of just efficiency. Advocates of the active groundplane unite: if your walk to work passed through a lovely square, along a tree-lined street of gallery windows, and by your favorite coffee shop, would you mind if it took ten minutes longer than driving? I would bet not.

The day ended with four break-out groups hashing out new priorities and visions for urban mobility. Our group landed on the theme: “a high-quality city for everyone, one that uses (but is not used by) technology.” I feel pretty great about that—now, to keep working on it.

Lisa Fisher (lisa.fisher@archtam.com) is an urban planner and associate principal with ArchTam’s San Francisco office, focused on sustainable urban regeneration. She also serves on the board of directors for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the city’s largest advocacy organization.

The post Cities on the move appeared first on Blog.

What makes a city “smart?” What makes it “fast” (in terms of economic growth)? What are the comparative benefits of each? How can a smart city get fast and a fast city get smart?

Reading this article from Fast Company about the 10 “smartest” cities in North America reminded me of this article in Forbes from a few months ago about the fastest growing cities in the U.S. I couldn’t help thinking of the children’s fable about the tortoise and the hare.

Forbes’ list of the fastest was driven by financial indicators alone, not taking into consideration some of the social and infrastructure lenses that Fast Company’s smartest list calibrates.

The most striking observation is that the three fastest-growing cities on Forbes’ list are all in Texas while the “smartest” lists don’t recognize any of these cities. Perhaps that is because the “smartest” list includes Canada. And what about Utah and Arizona? What makes fast-growing Provo and Salt Lake less “smart”? While we cannot predict booms and busts it made we wonder if part of the reason to be smart verses fast is so that a city’s growth is smooth and sustained.

The two cities that are common to both lists are Seattle and Portland—both cities in the U.S. Pacific Northwest with a high focus on sustainability and driven by a significant tech sector economy. Portland is famous for being the first city in the United States to eschew federal transportation dollars for urban highway improvements. As a result they now have one of the most transit-rich urban cores in the world. Portland has also seen an uptick in manufacturing (Streetcars and Bicycles) as well as white collar jobs associated with the Portland sustainability brand.

Houston, a city I called home for six years, is famous for its sprawl. Since recruiting a sustainability director, Laura Spanjian, from San Francisco, there have been advances in major policy initiatives. Yet the lack of comprehensive planning (the city still operates with “super neighborhood area planning” or SNAP) results in a disjointed development pattern in which the large development areas are not aligned with connective transportation infrastructure. The resultant traffic and decaying urban fabric separating the improved SNAP neighborhoods would suggest that it will be wise to focus on growing smarter.

San Francisco is one of the top 10 “smart” cities yet it sits at number 14 on the “fast” list. Efforts at fast tracking pro-business tax policies have catalyzed a rapid influx of technology to downtown San Francisco, which should speed the city’s rise on the fast list. Meanwhile its challenges with affordability could challenge its standing as the #2 “smartest” city.

“Top Ten” lists are always fun to read, but comparing different methods of ranking makes for thought-provoking analysis. Like the slow and steady tortoise, the long-term-looking city may see the more sustainable growth. Yet the tortoises will need to get more agile in the short term to stay competitive.

Stephen Engblom (stephen.engblom@archtam.com) leads ArchTam’s Design, Planning + Economics practice in the Americas.

The post Smart vs. fast appeared first on Blog.

Cities may be getting wealthier, but a lot of that wealth is going to be washed away if climate change continues unabated.  How are cities rising to the task of analyzing the co-benefits of protecting their cities from more frequent storms, for example? Is it harder for cities to justify these efforts? What is the biggest driver of adaptation efforts in your recent experience?

Impacts from storms tend to be very visible compared to GHG emissions which are invisible. As storms become more frequent it becomes an easier sell to start to protect against them.  The co-benefits in terms of improvements in public realm or water quality which exist even in the absence of storm is important when choosing what to do.

For example, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is undertaking a massive combined sewer improvement program and developed a triple bottom line assessment tool to help them choose which design alternatives will provide the most benefit from a social, environmental and financial perspective. Those criteria include climate resiliency, improvement in public amenity, biodiversity, improvement in water quality as well as protection of buildings and property.

Drivers for adaptation – no question that impacts of big storms are having an influence. Also an increasing number of cities are seeing high tides overtop their streets right now. This depends on where you are – those places which have been built in areas which are very hot and dry and putting in place plans to ensure they have a water supply in near future.

The conclusion that most research has drawn from this type of data is that city dwellers have a lower carbon footprint. However, isn’t the bigger story that these city dwellers are getting healthier?

Depends on who you are to what is most important – but yes, if you look at a lot of the mitigation and adaptation actions – many of them should also be helping cities become healthier places to live.  Many of the transportation related policies which are aiming to decrease the number of cars on the road, decrease congestion and improve the cleanliness of car emissions will help improve air quality.   Encouraging more people to walk and bike to work, or take transit will keep our population fit and ward off the growing obesity problems in many cities around the world.

Some cities like New York and Baltimore area are implementing programs and policies to effectively transition dirty fuel oil boilers to cleaner natural gas alternatives – which can have a huge impact on air quality.

To what extent does seizing these health co-benefits depend on good quality, long-term master planning? Is your work with cities touching on the master planning process or are those conversations separate?

Many of the health benefits stem from the way a city is configured and whether residents can walk, bicycle, take mass transit or if they are forced to drive.  All modes of transportation require masterplanning interventions within cities – either re configuring streets or ensuring that new development is transit oriented. Many cities are focusing on transit oriented development to help manage growth and congestion. I believe that the growing movement of eco-district’s in cities like Portland, Denver, Seattle, Cleveland, Washington, Singapore is an important idea to raise here – many cities are looking at urban regeneration around the eco-district concept where issues of energy, water and transportation are considered in a very holistic and integrated way. Providing infrastructure at a neighbourhood scale can be much more efficient instead of a building-by-building scale, and can help future proof the developments for changes in technologies in the future.

For a QA with Gary Lawrence, ArchTam’s chief sustainability officer, click here.

Claire Bonham-Carter (claire.bonhamcarter@archtam.com) is director of sustainable development with ArchTam’s Design + Planning practice.

The post What is climate change action doing for cities? appeared first on Blog.

Cities may be getting wealthier, but a lot of that wealth is going to be washed away if climate change continues unabated.  How are cities rising to the task of analyzing the co-benefits of protecting their cities from more frequent storms, for example? Is it harder for cities to justify these efforts? What is the biggest driver of adaptation efforts in your recent experience?

Impacts from storms tend to be very visible compared to GHG emissions which are invisible. As storms become more frequent it becomes an easier sell to start to protect against them.  The co-benefits in terms of improvements in public realm or water quality which exist even in the absence of storm is important when choosing what to do.

For example, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is undertaking a massive combined sewer improvement program and developed a triple bottom line assessment tool to help them choose which design alternatives will provide the most benefit from a social, environmental and financial perspective. Those criteria include climate resiliency, improvement in public amenity, biodiversity, improvement in water quality as well as protection of buildings and property.

Drivers for adaptation – no question that impacts of big storms are having an influence. Also an increasing number of cities are seeing high tides overtop their streets right now. This depends on where you are – those places which have been built in areas which are very hot and dry and putting in place plans to ensure they have a water supply in near future.

The conclusion that most research has drawn from this type of data is that city dwellers have a lower carbon footprint. However, isn’t the bigger story that these city dwellers are getting healthier?

Depends on who you are to what is most important – but yes, if you look at a lot of the mitigation and adaptation actions – many of them should also be helping cities become healthier places to live.  Many of the transportation related policies which are aiming to decrease the number of cars on the road, decrease congestion and improve the cleanliness of car emissions will help improve air quality.   Encouraging more people to walk and bike to work, or take transit will keep our population fit and ward off the growing obesity problems in many cities around the world.

Some cities like New York and Baltimore area are implementing programs and policies to effectively transition dirty fuel oil boilers to cleaner natural gas alternatives – which can have a huge impact on air quality.

To what extent does seizing these health co-benefits depend on good quality, long-term master planning? Is your work with cities touching on the master planning process or are those conversations separate?

Many of the health benefits stem from the way a city is configured and whether residents can walk, bicycle, take mass transit or if they are forced to drive.  All modes of transportation require masterplanning interventions within cities – either re configuring streets or ensuring that new development is transit oriented. Many cities are focusing on transit oriented development to help manage growth and congestion. I believe that the growing movement of eco-district’s in cities like Portland, Denver, Seattle, Cleveland, Washington, Singapore is an important idea to raise here – many cities are looking at urban regeneration around the eco-district concept where issues of energy, water and transportation are considered in a very holistic and integrated way. Providing infrastructure at a neighbourhood scale can be much more efficient instead of a building-by-building scale, and can help future proof the developments for changes in technologies in the future.

For a QA with Gary Lawrence, ArchTam’s chief sustainability officer, click here.

Claire Bonham-Carter (claire.bonhamcarter@archtam.com) is director of sustainable development with ArchTam’s Design + Planning practice.

The post What is climate change action doing for cities? appeared first on Blog.