How can learning and experimentation improve urban sustainability?

Cities that Work for People and Ecosystems: Demonstration Projects for the Application of Ecological Science

The first Earth Stewardship Initiative took place during the ESA 2014 annual meeting in Sacramento, and focused on the American River Parkway. In 2015, we built off of that success and transitioned the project over to Baltimore, MD for the ESA 2015 meeting. The overall goal of the Earth Stewardship Initiative – to connect communities with ecologists, urban planners, and designers, and student fellows to promote social and ecological resilience and revitalization — builds on the U.N. Millennium Development Goals to provide a vision for a sustainable and equitable future

Kolenkitbuurt in western Amsterdam, Netherlands

Kolenkitbuurt is a neighbourhood in western Amsterdam with a bad reputation. It was built shortly after the second world war as part of a major urban expansion plan, following the garden city principles outlined by Ebenezer Howard. Today, the neighbourhood is characterised by a repetitive pattern of monotonous, four-storey tenement blocks. Ninety-five per cent of the mostly small houses are in the social-rent sector, and they are occupied by some 7,000 people, many of them from large immigrant families.

Built between 1949 and 1953, the neighbourhood wasn’t originally given a name, just a number, so residents began calling it by the same nickname as the church around which it was built: Kolenkit, or “coal-scuttle”. Fifty years on, the area had fallen into despair and in 2004 was proclaimed the least popular neighbourhood in Amsterdam, with all “liveability” indicators in the red: high unemployment, poverty, youth crime and a relatively high rate of high-school drop-outs.

By then an urban renewal programme had started, demolishing more than 1,000 houses and building back bigger homes to diversify the housing stock and attract more wealthy residents. Yet in 2007, when neighbourhood liveability and social security were made priorities on the national political agenda, Kolenkitbuurt was still listed as one of the worst neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. All 40 areas on that list were targeted with an intensified programme to prevent ghettoisation.

The need for a different approach to solving the problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods has been widely supported in theory and practice. Academics argue that “bottom-up” urbanism can respond more quickly to societal needs, compared to a top-down approach. Kolenkitbuurt is an example of this strategy – for the social part of the programme, the district government adopted an unusual approach.

A tender call was put out to garner ideas on improving liveability in the neighbourhood. The eventual winner would be awarded the opportunity (and an operational budget) to execute their plan for a limited amount of time, during which they could prove their value to the neighbourhood.  The tender was won by Cascoland, a small international network of artists, architects and designers formed by Dutch community artists Fiona Bell and Roel Schoenmakers. Cascoland has guided participatory projects in South African slums and in Rio de Janeiro, among other cities; each time it has provided an empty casco (“frame”) of facilitation and artistic skills which is eventually given meaning by local communities.

Four mobile henhouses – with added decoration. Photograph: Mark Weemen

Cascoland had already been working in the Kolenkit area for three years as part of a study by the University of Amsterdam into the role of cultural enterprises in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The fact they were already known by major stakeholders in the area – indeed were residents themselves – created the preconditions for a higher degree of local involvement, which was an advantage over other competitors.

According to Stephen Graham, professor of cities and society at Newcastle University, one of the benefits of bottom-up urbanism is that it highlights creativity – in addition to encouraging entrepreneurship, providing incentives to property owners to maintain properties, and supporting environmentally sustainable development. In this sense, Bell and Schoenmakers have acted as cultural process managers for bottom-up initiatives and ideas.

Due to the open character of their approach, however, no promises could be made about the outcome – which meant policymakers were initially reluctant to accept Cascoland unconditionally. The collective was allowed to run a pilot project for eight months from August 2010, with an operational budget that enabled two or three artists to work in the neighbourhood. The local housing corporation also made two small locations available for free; to gain a better understanding of the local residents and what services or activities were lacking, Cascoland began by organising weekly activities in these locations. The first was an open neighbourhood dinner where ideas were exchanged over an affordable meal.

By hosting activities with a low barrier to entry, Schoenmakers and Bell gathered many participants to share information about what small additions would impact the quality of life in the neighbourhood most efficiently. This research phase revealed that the issue of liveability in itself was not perceived as problematic. Instead, the local families, many originating from rural areas of Morocco and Turkey, expressed a desire to keep small cattle as they had done in their home countries.

According to Nina Wallerstein, professor of family and community medicine at the University of New Mexico, “empowerment is a social-action process that promotes participation of people, organisations and communities towards the goals of increased individual and community control, political efficacy, improved quality of community life and social justice”. Cascoland’s involvement in Kolenkit increased its residents’ feeling of responsibility about the interventions and services developed in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the empowerment process increased the residents’ happiness with their living environments, because they could replicate some habits and activities typical of life in their home countries.

For example, residents said they wanted more meeting places such as parks in the area. As a result, one of Cascoland’s first interventions focused on a one-acre plot that had been vacant for years: the plot was derelict and surrounded by a fence, and perceived as a source of discomfort. Still, this piece of land was valuable because of its central location and its proximity to shops and the main walking routes in the neighbourhood, so Cascoland began by organising playful activities connected to the boundaries of the site – creating a labyrinth made from the fences so people could interact with the fenced environment in a positive way.

As some residents had expressed a desire to keep chickens, Cascoland also developed four mobile henhouses for the site, which were designed and made in collaboration with the residents. Several neighbourhood families with children were selected to keep the chickens, under the condition that they would feed them and clean the henhouse.

Gradually, the vacant plot developed into a meeting place. The henhouses stimulated commitment from neighbours and encouraged them to take responsibility for the management of their public space. The government saw the success of this intervention and eventually removed the remaining fences, allowing the community to fully reappropriate the unused plot.

Indeed, the mobile henhouses proved such a success that Cascoland could not meet the demand of neighbours interested in keeping chickens. Schoenmakers and Bell saw this as an opportunity to implement another important aspect of their approach: empowerment. They helped these interested neighbours apply for a permit at the district office to enlarge the henhouse project, and ultimately enabled the community to co-operatively design and build a large chicken coop surrounded by fruit trees.

The community-designed and built chicken coop. Photograph: Paul Fennis

Meanwhile, Kolenkitbuurt residents who frequented barbecue spots outside the city expressed a wish to have the same facility within their neighbourhood. At the time, other districts of Amsterdam were imposing stricter regulations to prevent the development of barbecues in parks and squares, but thanks to the moderation of Cascoland and the involvement of the local community, Kolenkit was able to implement this project. The HoutsKolenkit, a publicly accessible area furnished with three barbecue grills and several picnic tables, created a viable place for residents to cook dinner and eat together; it was a valuable social asset to the neighbourhood.

Cascoland’s strategy went further than simply facilitating general requests from residents, however. It was also able to identify less visible problems around the neighbourhood – for instance, children at the local school who were often appearing tired in class.  Upon investigation, this was traced to families letting visiting relatives sleep in children’s bedrooms due to lack of space. The kids, forced to sleep on the couch, were tired the following day. Cascoland and the residents came up with a simple solution: one of the vacant apartments was turned into a neighbourhood guestroom, maintained and managed by neighbours, that can be booked for a small amount.

In all, more than 20 interventions have been implemented since the beginning of the Cascoland project in 2010. Others include the decoration of a formerly dark and dank tunnel by neighbours, the creation of an ice-skating rink and a festive neighbourhood breakfast. Each project has its own purpose, its own planning, management and financing process, and different combinations of artists and residents are involved in each one.

In the beginning, policymakers had been reluctant to agree to such an open-ended approach to the Kolenkitbuurt programme. However, the openness of Cascoland’s strategy – which did not include a precise set of outcomes, only a working method – can be considered its strength. No single “result” should be regarded as the final stage of an urban revival process, and when institutions support the creation of a bottom-up initiative, they should also define how to transmit the management of the process to the citizens themselves.

Cascoland was always focused on empowering the community to keep the programme going in the long term, helping residents to initiate and manage their own projects without outside assistance. In theory, this makes the Kolenkit programme resilient and Cascoland, in itself, redundant – so they can move on and focus on new initiatives.

This is an edited extract from CITIES Foundation‘s new book, We Own the City: Enabling Community Practice in Architecture and Urban Planning, published by Trancity/Valiz and launching from Amsterdam on 27 May. Read more of We Own the City here

In Montreal, Canada, Building Community – Solidarité Communautaire is a project which aims to build a public arena and communal space within which residents and students work together to decide on the priorities of their neighborhood and city. Starting in 2015, this project seeks to encourage community development and organization through popular education and social action.

This project is inspired by the field of “social ecology”, which considers a dual and simultaneous approach to addressing social and environmental problems, rooted in community development.  It aims to create awareness of the ecological and democratic dimensions needed for societal change in the Anthropocene. The project focuses on solutions to local as well as global problems; although no challenge is too large to think about and discuss, solutions are always concrete and community based.

The members of the executive committee are culturally diverse, inter-generational, and gendered-balance. The process involves a close commitment to direct democracy and participatory decision making processes. The meetings are open to long-time residents as well as students living in the area.

Since the project was founded, multiple projects have been realized, such as a mobilization on the right to housing of homeless and low income people in the city,  as well as a community discussion around local solutions to climate change. Ongoing projects and involvement include an upcoming public assembly of the future of Hotel Dieu, a community workshop on the principles of social ecology as well as the preparation of a presentation at the World Social Forum this summer in Montreal.

Building Community – Solidarité Communautaire is a project still in its beginning stages. Its mission statement and governance structure have only recently been developed, and many of the projects goals and actions are still in the realm of potentiality and imagined ideas. It has a small number of active members and is seeking to reach out to the community to create more social, positive inertia. Its objectives are vast and diverse, and there is no telling exactly how the project will evolve in the coming years. Aspirations include promoting cooperatively managed local renewable energy sources and reducing dependency on external sources of food through urban agriculture projects such as green roofs.

Considering its strong emphasis on local actions and participatory processes, the structure of Building Community – Solidarité Communautaire can easily be reproduced in other neighborhoods around Montreal and around the world. The vision of the organization is to inspire others rather than to scale up; ideally this could create a network of grassroots initiatives working at the neighborhood or municipal level. Each one can then adapt and respond to their own socio-ecological challenges, wherever they may be. The resulting sense of empowerment is central to this approach, so that confident and organized citizens can progressively learn how to build a resilient community.

The project also has its own barriers and challenges. Creating a long-term momentum requires dedicated activists and students, which can be hard in most cities where so many young people come and go. The absence of sustained participation and funding can slow down the momentum of these types of community-based projects.

Perhaps this project’s greatest innovation is its strong devotion to organize itself internally through egalitarian, just and participatory principles. This process reflects Ghandi’s famous advice to, “be the change you want to see in the world”. While it is hard for one person to make the change they want to see, as a community, the impact can be far greater.  Building Community – Solidarité Communautaire is about creating a simultaneously hopeful and pragmatic future for Montreal and beyond.

Workshop hosted by ‘Building Community’ in February 2016. The aim of this event was to come together and discuss actions to reduce local dependence on fossil fuel.  Photo provided by the organization.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA: A MODEL FOR HOW CITIES CAN LEAD THE ENERGY TRANSITION

Featured by Anna Kusmer  

Over half of the world’s population lives in cities, and rates of urbanization continue to increase. In the Anthropocene, cities are significant players. Dense concentrations of people and resources, while sometimes environmentally taxing, are also fertile grounds for cooperation and models of sustainability.

Melbourne, Australia started turning heads in 2015 when they put forward a simple, yet revolutionary, model for renewable energy transition. Thirteen of the largest institutions in the city (including the city government itself) put their heads together and signed an agreement to purchase their energy from a new large-scale renewable energy projects.

The “revolutionary” aspect of this was an unlikely partnership among prominent institutions from all over the city. Members of this consortium range from the Melbourne city government, Australia Post, National Australia Bank, and University of Melbourne, among others. This group of buyers plans on purchasing 110 GWh worth of energy from new large scale renewable energy facilities through a “group purchasing model”.  A group model allows for investment at a much larger scale than any of this institutions could do on its own.

There are many benefits of this group purchasing model. Firstly, a renewable energy project of this size is predicted to offset up to 138,600 tonnes of CO2 each year. It also secures a long-term market for renewable energy production project, which is a needed step for the development of large-scale projects.

Currently, the consortium is in the process of accepting applications from potential developers. There are two successful tenders so far, both large-scale wind farms.

The most exciting aspect of this model may be its replicability. Other large cities from around the world have expressed interest in Melbourne’s model, notably members of the C40 Cities climate Leadership group, which consists of many of the world’s largest, and most influential mega-cities such as London, Beijing, Paris and New York, who are committed to addressing climate change.

In an article from last year, the Guardian referred to Melbourne’s energy plan as a ‘blue-print’ for other cities to follow.  In the absence of global leadership on climate action, solutions may come from cities, through unlikely partnerships and cooperation.

Photos by Anna Kusmer; Info-graphic from City of Melbourne

The City of Melbourne, together with other local governments, cultural and educational institutions, and private-sector corporations launched a competitive tender in April 2016 to purchase large volumes of renewable energy through a group purchasing model, to purchase 110 GWh worth of energy from new large-scale renewable energy facilities. This amount of renewable energy will save up to 138,600 tonnes of CO₂ each year, which is the equivalent of planting more than 160,000 new trees and is enough energy to power 28,475 Melbourne households.  Through a group tender process through Procurement Australia, they sought proposals from the market to deliver renewable energy at an attractive price for a 10-year term, and to demonstrate a range of community and economic benefits.

The Melbourne renewable energy project, conceived and managed by the city council, has been two years in the making. Thirteen major institutions operating in the city have formed a consortium that will sign an agreement to purchase a large chunk of their electricity from a new large-scale renewable energy project.

The consortium members are the city of Melbourne, Australia Post, National Australia Bank, the University of Melbourne, RMIT, data centre operator NEXTDC, Zoos Victoria, the city of Port Phillip, Moreland city council, the city of Yarra, Citywide, Melbourne convention and exhibition centre and Bank Australia. If the project goes ahead, it will reduce Melbourne’s carbon emissions by 138,000 tonnes per year.

The strategy will give a would-be project the chance to secure a buyer for the electricity it would produce but it also overcomes the reality that none of those 13 organisations would be big enough on their own to sign such a large-scale energy agreement.

A tender process is underway to find a proponent to provide 110GWh of renewable energy each year, enough to power 28,000 homes. The tender deadline is 20 June and, as the process is confidential, the council has not revealed which energy companies have submitted proposals.

Hypothetically a proponent might already have an advanced plan to build a large-scale solar or wind energy plant somewhere outside Melbourne but still need to secure a long-term buyer of the electricity before an investor will come on board with money for construction. If the Melbourne consortium were to sign a 10-year purchase agreement with that proponent, the proponent would have the certainty required to go ahead with its project.

The strategy is revolutionary, as it is the first time in Australia that a group of buyers has joined forces to purchase large-scale renewable energy. In fact, the council says it is not aware of a similar model anywhere in the world, especially under the leadership of a city council.

“We don’t often talk about government being the innovators but this is a really innovative project driven by the city of Melbourne,” Wood says.

The council has set itself a target to source 25% of the municipality’s energy from renewables by 2018. Right now, that figure sits at 12% and Wood says, even with the 110GWh project, a lot more will need to be done to reach the target. The project is the biggest step so far in the city of Melbourne’s overall wide-ranging efforts to mitigate climate change, including partnering with businesses to make buildings more sustainable and working to replace the city’s streetlights with LED lighting.

Bringing together an group of completely unrelated businesses and institutions to purchase 110GWh of renewable electricity might seem like a maverick idea but the City of Melbourne’s chief executive, Ben Rimmer, says the council has studied the economics closely.

“We have done a lot of very careful homework, including the request for information process,” Rimmer says. “This is not something that we have dreamed up in a couple of weeks. It’s something that we’ve been doing for some time with professional advisors. We are very confident that it is going to be a good financial deal.”

YACHAY CITY OF KNOWLEDGE: A NEW CITY OF TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

14 February, 2017by Anna Kusmer

“New Cities” are planned cities, generally conceptualized and constructed in partnership between government and corporate actors. While this phenomenon has resulted in a mixed-bag of mostly non-sustainable boondoggles, there is […]

BAYOU GREENWAYS

5 January, 2017by Garry Peterson

Houston’s Bayou Greenways – using swamps for recreation, transportation, social connections, & water regulation

SAND MOTOR

21 December, 2016 by Garry Peterson How can infrastructure work with ecological dynamics?   The Sand Engine (Zandmotor), is an human-created sand peninsula that is designed to gradually erode in a way that sustains a coastline against coastal […] climate change, design, europe, infrastructure, sea-level rise