Finding the missing pieces? : evaluating sustainable urban development projects : European case study perspective.

(1)

Source: renewresources.com, 2011

Finding the missing pieces?

Evaluating Sustainable Urban Development Projects:

European Case Study Perspective

Guido Di Cerbo – 10635106

Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning GSSS – University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: dhr. dr. mr. M. (Menno) van der Veen Second reader: dhr. mr. F. (Federico) Savini Final Submission: June 23rd, 2014

(2)

[1] Abstract

The purpose of this thesis research is to examine whether European urban development projects, which supposedly followed the principles of sustainability, actually complied with the main principles of sustainable urban development (SUD). These key principles will be conceptualized through the formative work of Wheeler & Beatley (2009) which is supported by theory from several notable scholars. Their work presents ‘seven dimensions of sustainable urban development’, which contain important concepts of both sustainability and urbanism and have been a valuable reference herein for the analysis of neighbourhood development projects. This research focused on three prominent European projects in order to evaluate if those leading examples complied with the aforementioned principles and if they faced challenges or failures in attempting to do so. The methodology employed was based on case study research which included literature review and fieldwork (observations and interviews), alongside extensive desktop research into SUDs, coupled with in-depth interviews of persons knowledgeable in the field. Through the utilization of an analytical framework, the three development projects have been thoroughly analyzed with the application of an evaluation system purposely designed for this study. The results of this research indicate that certain principles are harder to comply with (for a variety of reasons), and therefore I strive to pinpoint herein where the gaps lay – ‘the missing pieces’. This invariably places into question not only the prominence of those case projects, but also the very essence of the sustainable urban development concept. The paper culminates by offering some potential solutions to the problems exposed here and initiates discussions for future research streams that can hopefully aid in surmounting our 21st century necessity of developing our urban regions in a more sustainable manner.

“We do not inherit the Earth from our

Ancestors; we borrow it from our

Children”

(3)

[2] Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 4

1.1 Research paper……….4

1.2 Urban development projects………..5

1.3 Sustainable development………..5

2.0 Theoretical framework 8 2.1 Introduction……….8

2.1.1 Alternative approaches………..8

2.2 Sustainable urban development………..11

2.3 Seven dimensions of sustainable urban development……….12

2.3.1 Land use and urban design……….12

2.3.2 Transportation……….14

2.3.3 Urban ecology and restoration……….15

2.3.4 Energy and materials use……….17

2.3.5 Environmental justice and social equity………18

2.3.6 Economic development……….20

2.3.7 Green architecture and building……….21

2.4 Analytical framework………..22 3.0 Research methodology 23 3.1 Research questions………23 3.2 Research problem………..23 3.3 Research hypothesis……….23 3.4 Research methods……….23

3.4.1 Data collection methods………..24

3.4.2 Interviewing process………24

3.4.3 Operationalization………24

3.4.4 Evaluation system……….25

4.0 Case studies 28

4.1 Case study selections………..28

4.2 Contents of case study projects………30

4.3 Quartier Vauban, Freiburg, Germany………..31

4.3.1 Introduction………..31

4.3.2 History and background………31

4.3.3 Project details………..32

4.3.4 Objectives………..32

4.3.5 Timeframe……….33

4.3.6 Stakeholders……….33

4.3.7 Project financing and ownership………34

4.3.8 Achievements and acknowledgements……….34

4.3.9 Failures and critiques……….36

4.3.10 Photographs and maps………...………..38

4.4 Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden………40

(4)

[3]

4.4.5 Timeframe………..42

4.4.9 Failures and critiques………..44

4.5 GWL-Terrein, Amsterdam, The Netherlands………..48

4.5.4 Objectives………..49

4.5.5 Timeframe………..49

4.5.9 Failures and critiques……….52

5.0 Case evaluations and conclusions 55

5.1 Case projects evaluations……….55

5.1.1 Quartier Vauban evaluation………..55

5.1.2 Hammarby Sjöstad evaluation……….56

5.1.3 GWL-Terrein evaluation………57

5.2 Evaluations analyzes……….58

5.2.1 Quartier Vauban evaluation details..………..58

5.2.2 Hammarby Sjöstad evaluation details..……….59

5.2.3 GWL-Terrein evaluation details..………60

5.3 Case comparisons………..61 5.4 Case conclusions……….61 6.0 Conclusion 66 6.1 Final conclusions……….66 6.2 Recommendations……….67 6.3 Reflections………..68 6.4 Acknowledgements………..69 7.0 References 70 7.1 Reader……….70 7.2 Others………..71 8.0 Appendices

8.1 Appendix A – List of Interviews 8.2 Appendix B – Interview questions

(5)

[4] 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Research paper

There are several examples in Europe of neighbourhood development projects that have been considered

sustainable urban developments (SUDs for simplicity). These types of urban development projects should

theoretically follow the core principles of sustainable development (environmental, social and economic factors), amongst the realm of urban planning. A deeper understanding of these complex concepts needs to be deliberated alongside the social and scientific rationale of researching SUD projects. In order to really understand what SUDs consist of, herein the theories from a distinguished reader will serve as the basis as part of an analysis of several case studies. ‘The Sustainable Urban Development Reader’ (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009, 2nd Edition), offers seven dimensions of sustainable urban development which comprise the following aspects:

Land use and urban design, Transportation, Urban ecology and restoration, Energy and materials use, Environmental justice and social equity, Economic development; and lastly, Green architecture and building,

which are someway all interconnected. It will be argued that those seven dimensions capture the very essence of the SUD concept and will be applied in this research as the core element of the analytical framework. This will be joined alongside theoretical insights which will be used to reinforce the importance of the dimensions as guiding principles. Furthermore, interviews were conducted with experts in the urban planning and sustainable development fields, which provide additional theory to support the analytical framework built upon those dimensions.

There are many projects in Europe that can be studied within the context of sustainable urban developments. Preliminary research has helped me to identify three exemplary SUD projects which will constitute the case studies of this thesis. Those are Quartier Vauban in Freiburg, Germany; Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm, Sweden; and GWL-Terrein in Amsterdam, the Netherlands; which will been recognized to be amongst the most prominent contemporary neighbourhood-scale sustainable projects completed in Europe, which will then help to generalize about European SUDs simply for the purpose of this research. The cases have been explored comprehensively through desktop research, fieldwork observations and in-depth interviews with professionals and City officials involved in those respective projects. This will present amongst other matters the main project parameters and objectives, and most remarkably the project’s achievements and acknowledgements contrasted with their failures and critiques.

An analytical framework was required in order to assess the cases against the main concepts offered here. A central aspect of that framework is an evaluation system produced specifically for this research. That system is structured by the seven dimensions and assesses if the three notable cases have either achieved, not achieved or in fact have shown exemplary performance within each assessed factor. The method of translating each principle into a series of questions – shown as indicator statements – has been chosen as a means of evaluation for the cases. These questions have been specifically produced from the knowledge gained through the Reader, combined with the additional backing theory and expert interviews in the SUD field. The purpose of evaluating these cases in that manner is to aid in understanding the challenges faced by each and more specifically in answering the main research question of this thesis:

Are European neighbourhood development projects which were based on the principles of sustainability actually complying with the main principles of sustainable urban development?

(6)

[5] 1.2 Urban development projects

Our cities are continually evolving as parts of it are renewed or built anew, while other parts decay and are demolished daily. Urban development projects (UDPs) can be defined by a number of planned interventions and this includes the renewal or new development of sites within the urban realm which can consist of greenfield developments, brownfield redevelopments or urban infill projects. These interventions focus on the building of critical infrastructure (streets, water systems, communication and power networks, etc…), and the construction of structures to allow for various functions as in commercial, industrial, institutional and residential uses. Typically in the developed world as in Europe and North American, UDPs focused on greenfield lands which are classified as the building of new infrastructure on previously un-development or agricultural lands. However, for a variety of reasons, the last two-three decades saw the focus shift towards redevelopment of existing inner-city sites which often were derelict or abandoned industrial areas (Block & Erik Paredis, 2012; Salet, 2008).

UDPs haven’t always resulted in positive outcomes, and many have been criticized for the effects on the environment and on local communities. Gentrification is a major risk with negative consequences which can occur with urban renewal and infill projects (Wheeler, 2002: 106). This relates to the displacement of lower income residents who reside in prime inner-city locations that become slated for regeneration and are replaced with new residential buildings geared towards the more affluent members of society. Those long-time residents are then burdened with the task of finding new homes which most often are less affordable, not as well located to jobs and services, less accessible by public transportation and do not encompass the much needed social and community networks that have developed over time (Ibid). In fact, although gentrification is most often attached to residential situations, this can also occur for commercial and industrial enterprises with similar negative affects which can result in the closing of those businesses (Susan Fainstein et

al., 1983) UDPs also can have damaging consequences on the environment. To begin with, when sites are

redeveloped, existing infrastructure is very frequently demolished and replaced with new. This increases the usage of valuable raw-resources while our landfills get loaded with more material that can often be reused and/or recycled. Furthermore, existing sites get replaced with new forms of development which can have little consideration for the local ecosystem and may cause undesirable environmental consequences; as in the building of a high-rise with much exterior parking which increases the harms caused by automobile usage while producing structures that utilize high amounts of energy in its construction and daily usage thereafter.

These development projects require more considerations of their final outcomes, yet this is often ignored in lieu of the immediate economic benefits they can present. With cities constantly looking to increase their tax revenue base, coupled with the very real prospect of direct and indirect employment opportunities presented by new construction; these factors outweigh any potential downsides, above all those that can only become apparent in the long term (Susan Fainstein et al., 1983). Nonetheless, for all the benefits offered by UDPs, the consequences eventually overcome those when viewing it in a holistic manner. There certainly needs to be a fair balance between the need for economic stimulation and social/environmental considerations. Perhaps this is where sustainable urban developments become the development model to pursue to ensure that projects satisfy all these requirements in a more positive way.

1.3 Sustainable development

This next section will contain a discourse on the meaning of sustainable development and will briefly discuss its origins as a concept. This will enable the reader to get an overview on the subject but also to aid in appreciating the importance of researching this complex, and at times controversial concept.

Sustainable development today has become a common term that is often used, and misused, to represent many different things. A mere three decades ago, hardly anyone but staunch environmentalists and

(7)

[6]

scientists knew what the term meant and why it was so imperative. In 1987, the United Nations hosted a summit on the environment in which a document on sustainability – the now famous Brundtland Report – brought to the public’s attention the importance of its underlying issues and set out an agenda for the world’s countries to work together to ensure a better future for the planet and its people (UN, 2010). The foundation of the sustainable development principle was pillared on three key aspects: economic, social and environmental development. The premise being that in order to ensure a prosperous and healthy future for today’s population and the next generations to come, that those three aspects need to be equally integrated in the development of our built environment (Chiu, 2012). Thus, when referring to sustainable urban development, this would suggest that urban development projects incorporate the concept of sustainability and follow those principles of equally integrating the three aforementioned pillars.

Yet is it really necessary to develop in a sustainable manner? The world has witnessed massive population growth since the middle of the last century, and with a majority of that population now living in urban regions, this has caused a major strain on the environment in which the results range from substantial pollution problems, resource depletions, poor water, soil and air quality, and instances of climatic changes (Dixon, 2010; UN, 2010). This merely describes some of the problems embattling our planet as a direct result of our development and consumption patterns, further strained by growth and general increases in standards of living. The consequences have been well documented and extend well past the ecological realm to directly affect us humans (UN, 2013).

“As we enter the new millennium it has become clear that human activity has damaged the natural integrity of major ecosystems on every continent, seriously threatening the security of the societies that depend on these ecosystems […] the most worrisome environmental trends are global in scope, and thus threaten all of humanity” (Roseland, 2000: 76).

The damage to our ecosystems not only takes form in the deterioration of our physical environments, but also effects important global trade and supply chains that we depend on daily for commerce and goods exchange which imperatively also relates to our food systems. Starting at the local level appears to be the logical first step in this interconnected global problem that needs solutions on every scale. These arguments offer points of reflection as to why it is necessary to consider developing our cities in a more sustainable manner. With exponential population growth continually occurring within urban regions worldwide, coupled with systematic increases in the standards of living for many, ensuring that the principles of sustainability become well established among our development patterns becomes paramount (Dixon, 2010). “Increasingly, cities depend on their natural landscapes to provide food and recreation, capture and store water and energy, absorb wastes, and satisfy many other needs. Protecting and enhancing ecological assets — the natural capital — is a priority when directing (and constraining) urban growth” (Suzuki, 2010: 4). This natural capital not only belongs to all that inhabit the planet, it is crucial to the survival of all beings as well. However, if the continual deterioration of these renewable and non-renewable resources (natural capital) persists, as stated by Hawken (1997: 13), “[o]ur living systems and social stability are at risk”.

Sustainable development nonetheless is not solely focused on environmental factors; there is a close link with social and economic considerations that need to be equally contemplated and acted upon. Forming part of a mutually reciprocating relationship, they can intensely influence each other to negative or positive degrees. Hence, if less emphasis is applied to one factor it can impact the others, even if the relationship is not direct, visible or made explicit. To delve deeper into the significance of the social realm, it must be better understood what this consists of, what are the underlying problems faced, and how it all relates to the main concept.

Social development can consist of various themes and some of the more prevalent comprise issues of equality, justice, food security, health and safety; and poverty reduction (Pareja-Eastaway, 2012). Independently, they are all important aspects that need to be considered to ensure people are treated

(8)

[7]

humanely and form part of an inclusive, cohesive and healthy society. It can be appreciated how these issues can be challenging to collectively guarantee that they are all properly integrated within our communities. Those same challenges exist when developing neighbourhood projects and ignoring them may only compound their consequences at a later time or within other related spaces. A significant problem observed within SUDs is that the social dimension is often less emphasized or simply ignored and therefore its main issues are not properly addressed (Ibid). Among those issues, one that closely resonates with urban development is poverty reduction and this has a direct link with the omnipresent urban issue of housing affordability. This correlates directly with the UN human rights declaration stating that everyone should have access to housing for themselves and their family within a healthy environment with access to social services (UN, 2014). This also includes accessibility to employment, education and services, in which location is also proven to be imperative. Yet access to housing that individuals and families can reasonably afford is a persistent challenge particularly in cities. This is why real estate development projects need to incorporate housing that can be equitably distributed amongst the diverse socio-economic population of regions. Even more so are projects said to follow sustainable development principles which certainly need to ensure affordable housing provisions to stay true to the meaning of sustainability.

The economic component within sustainable development is much less debated or misunderstood. It can relate more broadly to notions of positive financial incomes, commerce, industry development, employment opportunities and managed growth (Rapoport & Vernay, 2011). This can be observed within a variety of scales from the individual building, to site developments, to the urban regional approach. Simply put, every viable development project needs a strong consideration for economic feasibility or it may well not be given approval to proceed, or worse will cause an economic burden which invariably can affect also the social and/or environmental realms. Looking at a larger scale, community or city development also abides by the same principles but with a different perspective. “Community economic development is a process by which communities can initiate and generate their own solutions to their common economic problems and thereby build long-term community capacity and foster the integration of economic, social and environmental objectives” (Roseland, 2000: 97). In preparing projects at the neighbourhood level (the focus of this paper), these notions of community development thus become significant as they connect unequivocally with the successful implementation of the other two pillars of sustainability.

Lastly, the sustainable development concept in itself needs to be briefly discussed. The term has been clouded with misunderstandings, definitions that aren’t universally agreed upon, and candidly that it can be considered an oxymoron for the simple reason that in order to be sustainable, many believe that we should refrain from further development and growth, and just maintain what already exists.

“Gross consumption of resources is our culture’s dominant, almost exclusive, way of understanding ‘development’. Linking it with ‘sustainable’ simply misdirects us to believe that somehow we can continue to rely on ‘growing’ our economies as we have until now and still magically achieve a sustainable society. […]We need to develop sustainability, not sustainable development” (Bell, 2013). These fundamental issues at the core of sustainable development represent a massive feat for the entire concept. Apart from those that simply do not subscribe to the necessity of building in a sustainable manner; for those who strive to adhere to these principles, they are faced with the uncertainty of knowing if they are truly following the correct path towards sustainability. If clarity and unity on how to take action is not delivered soon, the challenges in adapting to sustainable development principles in the future may be insurmountable.

(9)

[8] 2.0 Theoretical framework

2.1 Introduction

This section will introduce the theoretical framework of this research, how it is relevant to this research study and how it will be applied throughout. The theoretical framework is generally used to explain the theories of pertinent literature which relates between the concepts and the associated variables. As previously mentioned, this thesis will utilize a theoretical framework based on authors Wheeler and Beatley’s book called, The Sustainable Urban Reader (2nd Edition, 2009). The book – will often be referred to herein as the ‘Reader’ – is established as a comprehensive guide to the subject and has assembled 48 texts from a variety of scholars, including the classic works of Ebenezer Howard, Lewis Mumford and Jane Jacobs as introductory to the discipline; to the more contemporary writings of Peter Calthorpe, Jan Gehl and Robert Cervero. “The choice of contributors is one of the strengths of the book. The authors come from a broad spectrum of fields, many of them not directly associated with urban planning” (Pizarro, 2006: 13). Both Wheeler and Beatley also contributed writings further to their role as the book’s editors. The volume concludes with an overview of several case studies worldwide at a variety of scales (building/site, neighbourhood/district and city/region). These cases are useful in this research to further understand the theories being put forth. More importantly, the book defines seven dimensions of sustainable urban development as the editors felt those particular factors best represent the most significant principles within the combined concept of urban and sustainable developments – of which those dimensions will form the main elements for the qualitative case study analysis.

When discussing the principles of sustainable development or urban development & planning, a variety of literature (books, articles, academic journals) and documents (policy papers, reports) could be utilized to obtain a deeper comprehension of both concepts. Although you may find many overlapping descriptions of what constitute the main principles; considering the vast nature of the disciplines, the list could be exhaustive and as well it can be contradictory at times. Moreover, the amalgamated concept of sustainable urban development being focused on in this paper can further complicate our understandings and needs to be clarified. In attempting to discuss what formulates ‘good’ principles of SUDs, this can be a daunting task and can lead to disagreements amongst some or misunderstandings. Making use of the word ‘good’ in itself is challenging due to the normativity of the term; hence why it is important to explain what has been chosen here to represent good principles and why. Through my initial research and previous studies, I have gathered that both Wheeler and Beatley are distinguished scholars in the field of urban planning with a particular focus on sustainability. They utilize the theories of notable scholars in the field, which reinforces the academic value of the book and the selection of the seven dimensions that can be framed to formulate these ‘good’ principles. Each dimension in the Reader is introduced by the editors and contains at minimum three prominent writings further theorizing on the central aspects of significance for each element. By including several literature sources, this supports the claims of the book and helps to identity the main principles of SUDs. This is also important in proving why they are good principles; thereby solving the normativity of the word ‘good’ by providing theoretical support and ultimately, this will be significant in the analysis of the chosen case studies.

2.1.1 Alternative approaches

My initial research has led me to understand that a recurring problem within sustainable development is that it is not being performed in its entirety or to its full potential, and perhaps only in rhetoric. Firstly it must be acknowledged that different actors will place different meanings to that concept. Sustainable development itself – as discussed in Section 1.3 above – is a highly debated and controversial idea. In fusing urban development projects, chock-full of its own complexities within that intricate concept, will only further obscure the situation of studying and understanding it all. Thus how can a researcher truly implement such a study which does not attract criticisms and a multitude of questions? It is inevitable that there will always be

(10)

[9]

questions and disagreements amongst some, and the goal here is to minimize those situations by providing valuable argumentations.

So how can we best explain SUDs so it can be understood by educated lay-people, while also being in-depth and accurate enough to be agreed upon by people knowledgeable in the field? It has been offered here that the Reader would be best suited to perform that task, yet can it be as simple as that? Unfortunately the answer is no. The theory presented by the Reader has been written by many who are knowledgeable within urban planning or sustainable development and even those that have practical experience with sustainable urban development projects. Although we can place some trust in Wheeler and Beatley as knowledgeable authors in the field with enough experience to reasonably be the editors of such a collection of related works; we cannot be complacent in believing that this is the absolute best resource for this research task, nor is it the only that can be used. What is being presented in the book can have much validity as they were selected to comprehensively form a sort of ‘best’ ideas or practices within the concept. Nonetheless, there will always be opposing viewpoints which can have legitimacy in their arguments and in turn contradict what the book states and what I am advocating. The best option to counter this would be to provide reasonable arguments here which can be backed by other theoretical sources. Some opposing viewpoints as well as alternative approaches to understanding the SUD concept have been explored in order to arrive at a more holistic understanding of the entire theory. Only then can one make a reasonable decision on which approach to use and why.

An important question in debating the value of this main book being used systematically in this research relates to its weaknesses and how those shortcomings can be overcome. The book has received some criticisms, and a few of those need to be discussed, alongside the presentation of ways to minimize those flaws that we will need to be mindful of throughout. To begin this discussion, it must be recognized that the editors themselves concede that; “[u]nfortunately there is no single, universally acknowledged manifesto that by itself sets out a sustainable urban development agenda” (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009: 10). Thus, we cannot initiate this research study on a theoretical foundation that is well-established and difficult to debate. This poses a preliminary problem that needs to be addressed early on in order to surmount its consequences, of which it will be discussed later.

Harriet Bulkeley critiques the book for possibly leaving the impression to an unassuming reader that sustainable development is without controversy and furthermore that it has; “neglect[ed] the struggles which have taken place over urban sustainability and the essentially contested nature of the concept and process” (2005: 1658). This issue has been handled by explicitly offering the reader here an understanding of the evolution of sustainable development including its criticisms and controversies as discussed in the previous section [1.3 above]. Bulkeley (2005: 1657) and Tony Champion (2005: 539) both felt that the editors should have elaborated on the ‘urban’ aspect of sustainable development before leading onto the readings describing the specific dimensions of the unifying concept. In the ensuing section [2.2 - Sustainable Urban Development]; the concept will be expanded on through the utilization of several sources in the Wheeler & Beatley text, coupled with some additional theoretical sources which will aid in surmounting this particular issue.

Another noted issue indicated by Bulkeley and Champion relates to the book’s preference for North American writings and examples. To balance that, the book does offer several international examples and references with a particular focus on Europe within that realm. This can potentially be challenging as this research study is focused solely on European cases and their performance within the SUD concept. The primary question would then shift towards confirming if the seven dimensions offered in the book are suitable for non-North American examples. We understand that although Europe and North America are more similar to each other (culturally, politically and ethnically) than compared with other continents in the world, there are still differences that could render the transferability of concepts across regions problematic. Nevertheless, the selected seven dimensions were not determined with exclusively North America in mind, but rather it focuses on issues moreover relating to the developed world in general (although there are a few references to developing nations such as China and India in the book). In revisiting the seven dimensions with this in mind,

(11)

[10]

one can come to the conclusion that the core issues – for example housing affordability within the social equity dimension, or promoting walkability within urban design – is as relevant and pertinent in North America as it is in Europe. Perhaps what needs to be carefully considered is the background context of those dimensions and how they require different solutions in diverse world regions.

A final critique that will be discussed relates to the selection of the actual seven dimensions as the basis of the SUD concept to be applied in the case study analyzes. Even the choices of literature within the book to help explain those dimensions can be debated alongside my own selection of this book as the main source of theory to employ in my analytical framework. Selectivity and subjectivity are two aspects that pose real challenges throughout this research and can only be transcended through good argumentation and sound theoretical backing. In reference to the Reader, Mark Lapping states that; “[o]ne person’s view on what is an essential reading may differ considerably from that of another” (2006: 335). This illustrates the nuances with those selections, although he does go on to mention that the book “make[s] for a formidable readings list for a solid course in sustainable planning” (Ibid). In that regard, Pizzaro declares that, “[…] this is a carefully crafted synthesis of the major themes associated with sustainable urban development”, and that the selection of authors is a vital asset of the book (2006: 516). Champion also admires the book for its choice of writings (2005: 538). In my personal view, I believe the book does offer some of the most pertinent literature available on the topic, hence my decision to utilize it as part of this in-depth research study.

Returning to the actual selection of the dimensions; a central question that requires discussion is whether these seven actually ‘best’ represent the sustainable urban development concept. There is no unified description of SUD and that concept itself is made up of the vague notion of sustainable development and the complex subject of urban development projects; thus it is not a simple task to complete. Firstly, since the SUD concept is pillared by both sustainability and urban development, it could be useful to place the seven dimensions within the respective category it mostly relates to. Land use and urban design [1]; and Transportation [2], are more closely related to urban development and planning; while, Urban ecology and restoration [3]; Energy and materials use [4]; and, Green architecture and building [7], are closely associated with sustainability. Finally, Environmental justice and social equity [5]; and Economic development [6], appear to be equally grounded within both concepts and perhaps this indicates that they are fundamental aspects that deserve more attention throughout the analysis. It is reassuring to perceive that the dimensions appear balanced between the two. Nonetheless, there does seem to be a strong emphasis on environmental sustainability and this can be challenging amongst a framework that needs to equally reflect social and economic considerations and planning principles as well. It is imperative that this research acknowledges those limitations and ensures that all aspects relating to SUDs are equally and impartially deliberated.

Previous research into case study projects have demonstrated that some projects labelled ‘sustainable development’ uniquely focused on environmental aspects like energy-efficiency, and thereby those projects would perform poorly if evaluated through this paper’s analytical framework. It is then important to choose projects that appear to truly represent the holistic nature of SUDs, although it is acknowledged that they may not achieve complete success; hence, the purpose of analyzing them through the evaluation system put forth herein. Those cases that at least initially appear to be lacking the essential qualities that would render them as truly SUD projects should not be utilized as part of this study and thus cannot be based on these criteria for assessment.

There are of course alternative theories available to help analyze SUD projects that could have been applied in this research. Many have been explored and considered for usage in the analytical framework. Those reviewed had offered certain qualities required for the proper analysis of the case studies, yet they had eventually been discounted due to deficiencies in some other areas. Simply to mention a few reviewed: Principles of Intelligent Urbanism, Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Principles of Green Urbanism. Although they individually had provided interesting theories or ideas, they were dismissed for a variety of reasons such as being too American-focused (i.e. suburban concentration), centered mainly on urban design or on

(12)

[11]

environmental sustainability exclusively, focusing considerably on the Eco-city concept (scaling issues) or purely lacking theoretical-based arguments and positions. Conversely, these methods could reasonably be explored further to provide additional insights into SUDs when applicable. Ultimately, Wheeler and Beatley’s seven dimensions were chosen as it provides the best approach to analyze the case studies even if admittedly, it is recognized as not being perfect.

2.2 Sustainable urban development

This section will concisely explore the integrated concept known as sustainable urban development (SUD). There are different resources available that attempt to explain how the complex concepts of sustainable development and urban planning relate and intersect with each other within the realm of urban development projects. In order to obtain a clearer understanding, the Reader will be supportive in providing an overview of the concept and this will be joined by other theories alongside knowledge acquired through the interviewing of well-informed participants in the field. Therefore, how can we truly describe SUDs and what are its main elements? The Reader makes the case for the relation between the seven dimensions and how those elements collectively make up the notions of the concept. More specifically, one of the book’s authors (Wheeler) straightforwardly defines SUDs as that which “[…] improves the long-term social and ecological health of cities and towns” (2004: 43); while in my interview he reiterated it as, “creating communities that enhance long-term social and ecological welfare” (Personal interview, 2014). Two closely described meanings that provide the basis of what is significant. The central importance of social and ecological considerations in developing our communities and cities which have often languished behind economic motives (Personal interview: Lehmann, 2014). Tim Dixon of the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, also referred to Wheeler’s ideas while exploring the concept in which he reaffirms that sustainable urban developments “[…] must be compact, promote efficient land use; have less automobile use, and better access; efficient resource use; less pollution and waste; restore natural systems; provide good housing and living environments; a healthy social ecology; a sustainable economy; community participation and involvement; and preservation of local culture and wisdom” (2010: 4). Other knowledgeable contributors interviewed have mentioned similar views including the ideas of limiting resource consumption, leaving a better built legacy, balancing sustainable strategies, healthy and affordable communities and reducing our ecological footprint while improving liveability (Personal interviews, 2014).

To take a more detailed approach, the dimensions described below focus on a variety of aspects that jointly make up the main concept. It is argued that every aspect is needed to holistically embody the complete meaning of a development following the principles of sustainability. Those requirements take root in environmental, social and economic foundations that are built in with the principles of good urbanism. This is in line with the studies of Steffen Lehmann (2007) and Petter Næss (2001), which make the case for the cohesive integration of these various elements which cannot be effective as a sustainable strategy if attempted in silos and addressed individually. Therefore what are the main elements? As mentioned earlier, one solid description utilizes the following seven components, of which each will be outlined in the following chapters: Land use and urban design, Transportation, Urban ecology and restoration, Energy and materials

use, Environmental justice and social equity, Economic development; Green architecture and building.

Another query that needs to be deliberated particularly within this context is in understanding at which scale is ‘urban’ on? Although it can be discussed at lengths as to which scale urban applies to in general and thereby at which level should intervention occur; this paper is studying neighbourhood-scale projects within medium to large cities. Thus, for this research the realm of urban is beset within those spatial limits, understood to be within the context of European cities focusing on projects that are not suburban, nor rural in nature.

What isn’t sustainable urban development? In some ironic way, this may be even more difficult to define. There are many different ideas or development models that claim to be following sustainable

(13)

[12]

principles, but are they? What about Transport-Oriented Development (TOD), Smart Growth, LEED Neighbourhood Developments, New Urbanism and Low or Zero-carbon communities for example? (Personal interview: Townsend, 2014). This in itself could be another research stream in understanding the different development models that proclaim to be a proponent of SUDs, but perhaps are not. Of course in considering that SUD is not a universally distinct topic, of which different actors place different meanings, it can be problematic to argue exactly which fit and which don’t. Hence, the focus here will simply be on those key elements discussed earlier encompassing the essence of the term and the idea that it is not merely a reduction of energy use or public transport connectivity or resource conservation methods; it is in fact the combination and inclusion of all those aspects and more as described earlier and explained in the following sections. To reiterate, this research paper will use the aforementioned book´s framework of what embodies the principles of SUDs, and although those are open to debate, their significance will be nonetheless proven within the next chapters.

2.3 Seven dimensions of sustainable urban development

A theory of what constitutes the fundamental principles of sustainable urban developments has been made explicit by Wheeler and Beatley in their Reader and has been categorized by seven dimensions. Through the extraction of ideas and notions from the combined works of many notable theorists and academics (including themselves), they have assembled a list that arguably represents the essence of SUDs. A possible research option could have been to develop my own list of dimensions and principles by utilizing relevant ideas from a multitude of research literature and assemble them to provide my own comprehensive framework. Although this could have been a fascinating endeavour, given certain research limitations, this would have been a massive undertaking which could have detracted from the equally important aspect of analyzing the case studies. Therefore, after extensive literature review, the work of Wheeler and Beatley (2009) has been chosen to provide the main theoretical framework for this thesis. Their ‘seven dimensions of sustainable urban development’ captures the essence of what is generally understood to be both good planning values and good sustainability principles. Their theory constitutes a fusion of both concepts which fits perfectly into this research’s analytical framework dealing with the link between those concepts and urban development projects. In fact the authors examine the links between not only those main concepts, but within the seven dimensions themselves and how they interrelate and affect each other. “Indeed a leading reason for unsustainable urban development in the past is that planners, elected leaders, and citizens often have not made such linkages” (Ibid, 82).

Below, each of the seven dimensions will be explored further and connected to the main concept of SUDs. This will derive from the book’s chapters, of which each separate dimension is accompanied by three or more essential readings. Additional theory from primary and secondary data sources will be included when necessary to support those claims. The end of each section will also demonstrate a list of the main indicators extracted from every principle and subsequently utilized as part of this paper’s analytical framework’s evaluation system [See: Section 2.4 & 3.4.4.].

2.3.1 Land use and urban design

An integral part of successful sustainable urban developments is the optimal use of land and the inclusion of thoughtful urban design. In the Reader, land use and urban design are considered one of the key ingredients needed to create new types of urban arrangements, the end result being more liveable and ecological cities. Jane Jacobs fittingly underlined the importance of ‘place-making’ while emphasizing the significance of daily life within our urban realm (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009: 87). New developments or more appropriately, redevelopments and infill sites should not simply be a collection of buildings and infrastructure juxtaposed onto a location and expected to function as described on a plan. These need to encompass the right elements,

(14)

[13]

having gone through a process which gathers its inputs from all stakeholders and ultimately turns into genuine places as Jacobs sought to accentuate.

Shifts in the mindsets of many urban planners at the end of the last century transformed into a collective idea to make cities ‘liveable’ again, while managing urban growth and thereby avoiding the pitfalls of sprawl which in turn was the start of some contemporary ‘urban’ movements like New Urbanism (Ibid: 88). Nevertheless, many new projects in the 1980’s and 90’s that promoted sustainability, in essence lacked some of the crucial elements of SUDs; i.e.: affordability, green architecture, appropriate location, etc…. Thus, was resurrected the idea of creating neighbourhoods rather than subdivisions, as the spaces in which society should continue to live in. Encouraging the ideas of towns rather than sprawl, Peter Calthorpe stated that:

“Our communities must be designed to re-establish and reinforce the public domain, that our districts must be human-scaled, and that our neighbourhoods must be diverse in use and population. And finally, that the form and identity of the metropolis must integrate historic context, unique ecologies, and a comprehensive regional structure” (Calthorpe, 1993: 90).

He puts a strong emphasis on the rejection of urban sprawl; however, the question must be asked then: What is a suitable alternative? Calthorpe uses a simple approach, visualizing a modern version of a simple town; “where neighbourhoods of housing, parks and schools are placed within walking distance of shops, civic services, jobs and transit” (Ibid: 91). The point is then clearly made that the key player in the idea of the neighbourhood realm is conceivably the pedestrian; for it is the individual person experiencing urbanity at that scale who creates the place for meaningful communities and public spaces.

The notion of creating cities based around the psychological needs of the pedestrian is how Jan Gehl (1980) based his [now famous] ideas of urban design. In focusing on how people experienced and used their social and spatial surroundings, he was able to appreciate human’s instinctual need for stimulation (Ibid). This stimulation was activated through chance encounters and social activities in particular. Good public spaces were noted for encouraging interaction between people living in a community, which in turn fortified the need for human contact with one another. Gehl argues that ‘living cities’ are more stimulating and abundant in experiences in contrast to ‘lifeless cities’, which become dull due to less human contact (Ibid: 102). Zoning for single use will tend to create spaces that offer no incentives for interactions and promote individualistic behaviours. Whereas, multi-use urban areas have quite the opposite appeal and offer a range of social activities. Therefore the case is given that since physical planning directly affects patterns of activity, it must produce environments that stimulate interactions and facilitate community growth (Ibid). Studies by Barton (2005) and Marmot & Wilkinson (1999) corroborate with those ideas and add that these environments that offer community interactions also helps to improve our general health and well-being.

A significant challenge within sustainable urban development relates to building midst the existing urbanized area. Infill development – relating to reuse and rehabilitation of land and buildings – becomes an important development model to focus on. However, land that has already been built-on is considered a more complex and costly form of development than urban sprawl and there where the central problem lay. Wheeler claims that infill could progressively help communities fulfill their needs for jobs, housing and servicing, while reducing the increasing ecological footprint caused by greenfield developments (2002).

“In many ways infill development represents the opposite of sprawl, in that it can help create compact and vibrant communities with a diverse mixture of land uses, well connected street patterns, and much-needed community resources such as parks, child care centers, shops, cafes, restaurants, schools, and walkable public spaces” (Ibid: 105).

Successful infill projects are well-integrated within the existing urban fabric and offer much needed housing and amenities, which attempts to meet the necessities of both current neighbours and new workers or

(15)

[14]

residents. Unfortunately, some infill projects have been the cause of displacements through the gentrification process which forces socio-economically disadvantages communities to move in favour of more affluent citizens. This can destroy social networks and seriously affect housing affordability and accessibility for the more vulnerable segments of society (Ibid: 106). Thus, to help lessen the possibility and negative outcomes of displacement, “cities must make a strong commitment to public involvement in planning new infill developments” (Ibid). Wheeler argues that infill projects can fill the void of development requirements if urban sprawl can be halted. As infill may relate more closely to single site/building interventions, brownfield redevelopment offers the same benefits to a much larger extent. This most often adheres to the necessity of optimizing land use and providing infrastructure that is centrally located and accessible. Further to the complexities of redevelopment projects, one major issue faced are the high costs associated with brownfields in contrast with greenfields. The unfortunate reality is that the negative externalities experienced by sprawl/greenfield developments are often harder to quantify in monetary terms and thus are given an unfair advantage when determining which model to pursue. When contemplating the sustainable development model with its equal and reasonable consideration for the social, environmental and economic realms; it can be well understood why this holistic method is better suited for our future development needs.

2.3.2 Transportation

With the introduction of the automobile came a steady increase in traffic volume and congestion which has been associated with a sharp decline of civic life in many urban regions globally. In the last few decades, vehicle ownership and the amount of distance travelled have increased exponentially, particularly in the developed world (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009: 115). Roberto Cervero has extensively explored the issue of sustainability within the transportation domain and has determined that there is a serious threat cause by the automobile as in, “air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels, destruction of open spaces by roads and suburban sprawl” (115). In order to help alleviate these issues, it is maintained that cities should adapt their urban landscapes to become more supportive to non-automobile transportation systems. Cervero states that approaches to reduce car-use in urban regions must be a combined effort which includes the planning provision for “land use, public transit, alternative travel modes and pricing [strategies]” (1998: 118). This can have many positive outcomes including community development, liveability improvements, ecological footprint reductions and the achievement of social objectives as in affordable housing strategies (Personal interviews: Crawford; Lehmann; Litman; Newman, 2014). In regards specifically to public transit modes which can be adapted, expanded, or rendered more efficient; Cervero identifies bus transit, trams, light rail, heavy rail, and underground metro as the main options available, which needs to be properly integrated in order to obtain the full benefits (1998). Multi-modal options with good connectivity and frequency, servicing neighbourhoods directly form part of a successful urban transit network.

At the end of each section [2.3.1 to 2.3.7] a list will be revealed of the four main indicators extracted from each of the seven dimensions and subsequently utilized as part of this paper’s analytical framework’s evaluation system [See: Section 2.4 & 3.4.4 for more details]. Those indicators were produced primarily through the knowledge obtained from the Reader – associated to numerous scholars – with the support of additional theory and knowledge gained through the expert-interview process.

1) Land Use and Urban Design:

1.1 Efficient use of scarce lands: redevelopment of underutilized land, brownfields, urban infill projects. 1.2 Open and inviting public spaces.

1.3 ‘Smart’ location: proximity to amenities, facilities and services.

(16)

[15]

Encompassing the challenges faced in dealing with urban sustainability issues, the domain of transportation plays a crucial role due to scaling issues. The transportation infrastructure spatially dominates our landscapes and thus becomes central to the sustainable development debate. Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy, both well known for their academic work relating to transportation (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009: 123); had presented over 15 years ago five approaches to help against automobile dependency which still hold much validity today. Their ideas include: [1] improved public transit, biking and walking provisions; [2] traffic calming measures; [3] improvements in land use; [4] growth management strategies; and [5] economic incentives as in the efficient taxing of transportation (Ibid). Traffic calming strategies are signaled as the most imperative to implement from a policy perspective which help to “[…] create more urban humane environments better suited to other transportation modes” (Ibid). Studies conducted back in the 1980’s have clearly suggested that a reduction in automobile traffic would offer cities the benefits of better economic and spatial environments (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). This helps to reason with advocates for large reductions of automobile infrastructure provisions and usage. Proponents of car-free cities point out their economic, social and environmental benefits, thus aligning them with the principles of sustainable development (Crawford, 2002); however it is suggested that only a paradigm shift in our belief that cars are not integral to our daily lives could allow for such a radical change to occur (Personal interview: Crawford, 2014). Focusing on strategies as in the promotion and supporting of car-sharing and electrical vehicle charging stations through policies, incentives and infrastructure provisions have been offered as possible short term solutions (Personal interviews: Crawford; Kushner; Litman, 2014).

Another alternative offered to the automobile is the bicycle. Considered as a cheap, simple and pollution-free option; cycling has been gaining in popularity worldwide, particularly in northern European countries (Pucher et al., 1999: 130). More than 30% of local trips in the Netherlands for example, are taken by bicycle, with even higher percentages in the main cities like Amsterdam which have benefited from much public spending on cycling infrastructure (Rietveld & Daniel, 2004). The objective to increase cycling as a main mode of transportation instead of merely for recreational use would require various steps. According to Pucher et al., these would need to be based on the following seven approaches: “[1] increase cost of auto use, [2]clarify cyclists’ legal rights, [3] expand bicycle facilities, [4] make all roads bikeable, [5] hold special promotions, [6] link cycling to wellness, and [7] broaden and intensify political action” (1999: 133-135). In adopting these or similar proposals, cities can help increase this healthy mode of transportation and help reduce the negative outcomes posed by the automobile.

2.3.3 Urban ecology and restoration

Integrating the development of our cities with nature had been a practice largely ignored for the greater part of the last century. Throughout more recent years however, professionals like planners and landscape architects, and practitioners have tried to introduce more natural landscapes into our urban spaces, which were often previously ignored by developers (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009: 139). In order to achieve successful SUDs, it is believed that embracing the natural habitat of our physical environment is crucial. Spirn (1984) reflects that we are living in a world with very little connection to the natural ecosystem and this affects us humans even though that is not always evident. A paradigm shift would be needed in her opinion, where the city must accept that it is part of nature and needs to be designed with that condition (141). Having analyzed the role of different natural elements within urban settings, she asserts that;

2) Transportation:

2.1 Accessible and multi-modal public transportation options within close proximity. 2.2 Promotes cycling and provides necessary infrastructure.

2.3 Encourages automobile-reduced environments: car-free, reduced or no parking.

(17)

[16]

“[t]he city is neither wholly natural nor wholly contrived. It is not ‘unnatural’ but, rather, a transformation of ‘wild’ nature by humankind to serve its own needs […]The belief that the city is an entity apart from nature and even antithetical to it has dominated the way in which the city is perceived and continues to affect how it is built” (Ibid).

Yet have we seen any real consequences attached to this conventional way of perceiving cities? And have cities begun to shift their mindsets to adapt to these notions that our urban spaces are embedded with our natural world? Spirn offers concrete examples of those regions that have successfully embraced natural developments of the city and those cities which can be considered as examples of failures, of which government officials need to learn from both ends of the spectrum. Amongst those failing regions are: Los Angeles whose poor air quality is a direct result of their almost exclusive reliance on the automobile and their sprawled urban form; Mexico City which also suffers from high-levels of air pollution and their inadequacy in identifying the connection between sea level and ground firmness which have resulted in the city sinking some 25-feet causing much infrastructural damage; Hong Kong with its colossal landslides due to poor urban development; and the City of Houston, which is overwhelmed by floods caused by “urbanization upstream” (Ibid: 142). Quality of life for these city dwellers have all suffered due to this neglect in respecting our relationship with ‘Mother Nature’. There are however cities that can be perceived as positive examples of integrating with nature and those include Stuttgart, which has positioned parkland to push clean air into its overcrowded downtown; Woodlands, Texas, whose open spaces have been arranged to act as an active storm drainage system; and cities like Zurich and Frankfurt which have “manage[d] their urban forests for timber production as well as recreation” (Ibid).

Riley (1998) discusses restoration in regards to urban ecosystems which can encompass many initiatives including brownfield redevelopment, reforestation, and restoring watersheds. Firstly, the term ecological restoration needs to be better understood, in which the following definition was offered; “[…] the process of intentionally compensating for damage by humans to the biodiversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems by working with the sustaining natural regenerative processes in ways which lead to the reestablishment of sustainable and healthy relationships between nature and culture” (Ibid: 150). The restoration process however can be difficult to implement and at times its necessity is simply not well understood (Beatley, 1994). Best practice is to rely on local experts who are acquainted with the local ecological conditions to ensure restoration is properly performed. Every so often however, “[…] restoration can be knowing when not to act” (Riley, 1998: 151). Working with known experts while planning for developments is a key component that should to be addressed at the project’s onset. The sensitivity of the natural environment to abrupt changes can have serious consequences which need to be considered. This not only affects our surroundings, but can impact human’s wellbeing in both direct and indirect manners (Spirn, 1984: 144). There are several examples to illustrate this idea of the environment affecting the livelihood of human populations; one intervention that has been mentioned is how planners and developers approach rain/stormwater treatment and sewage management. One solution being offered to rain/stormwater treatment specifically is the application of green roofing. Noted for its multiple benefits (reducing urban heat island effect, improving air quality, insulating buildings, providing a local habitat for city-dwelling species, etc…), employing green roofs can become a successful strategy for cities to reduce rain/stormwater discharges and overflows, thus purifying the water and reducing infrastructural system failures (Grant et al., 2003; Riley, 1998).

Urban agriculture has been noted as an important link between humans and the ecological system they are a part of. Although it has been in existence since the foundation of cities themselves, over time as cities evolved and industrialization flourished, agriculture along with raising livestock was relegated to the rural farmlands. While urban agriculture in the form of gardens have never left the city completely, only recently have sustainably-conscious groups advocated for more locally grown food to be produced in our cities (Grant et al., 2003; Peck, 2008) By incorporating urban agriculture within a city, this satisfies vital

(18)

[17]

environmental conditions while giving back to the community in terms of edible, locally grown, organic produce (Personal interview: Crawford, 2014). Local food production in the form of agriculture can be included within development projects in several ways. Whether that includes private or communal gardens, green/garden roofing, greenhousing or food co-ops, it has been associated with improvements not only to the local ecology while promoting biodiversity, thus helping the environmental realm; it is also known to support local economic and social development and growth (Beatley, 1994; Grant et al., 2003).

2.3.4 Energy and materials use

This section will describe the notions of material and energy usage within our urban regions. A major challenge to our sustainability objectives relates to managing of inputs and outputs of resources within our cities.

“The flow of natural resources into cities and wastes out of them represents one of the largest challenges to urban sustainability. Many argue that cities must ‘close the resource loop’ by recycling, reusing, re-manufacturing, and otherwise diverting materials from their usual destination in landfills and incinerators. Reducing consumption in the first place is perhaps even more important. Likewise, more efficient urban uses of energy can be sought to reduce dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels, and [develop] renewable energy sources […]” (Wheeler & Beatley, 2009: 157).

The case is given for the reduction of important resources being consumed within our cities, but also there needs to be better control over the excess that remains which can be even more harmful to the planet. On the one hand, we have the extraction and by-products of energy usage, and on the other we have the same for materials, which will be subsequently discussed. Energy requirements are a big consumer of resources and although renewable sources are gradually increasing throughout the world, the sheer volume of daily consumption is seriously burdening our natural resources (most notably fossil fuels). This is leaving a scared legacy on the earth’s surface, with the outputs having even worse consequences for our entire atmosphere. There are two distinct solutions that can help facilitate this strenuous situation which relates to either reducing our energy consumption patterns and/or replacing our energy source with renewable ones. Girardet (1999) offers various solutions for substituting our non-renewable sources and these include the application of solar power, wind power, biomass conversion, geothermal, and co-generation; nonetheless his primary suggestion is in our collective reduction of consumption. For if we conserve energy, we also reduce the negative outputs; and it always takes energy to produce energy. A better understanding of our how our ecosystems function would be required in order for us humans to appreciate how our living patterns affect the environment and therefore directly ourselves, and why it is imperative to find immediate solutions (Ibid: 158). Girardet claims that in order to help assure our long-term survival, cities need to be modeled after ecosystems which use their own resources and function within a looping system (circular metabolism). Whereas now cities function in a linear motion, effectively resources enter in and get pushed out without much care to its origins or final destinations (Ibid). Those ideas have been also discussed at lengths through research by Roseland (2000, 2007) which confirm the importance of the ecological interconnected systems as part of the wider eco-city framework which they propose as the next step in the sustainability movement.

Kusher believes that in order to conserve resources in the development of urban projects, that policies and laws that discourage energy consumption and reward conservation are necessary (Personal interview, 2014). Girardet thus provides many great examples on how our cities can reduce and even reuse

3) Urban Ecology and Restoration:

3.1 Restoration and/or preservation of local urban ecology

3.2 Promoting urban agriculture: local food production, community gardens 3.3 Rain/Stormwater treatment and sewage management