Get Past the Past: Climate Change Adaptation In & Around New York

From 20-26 September 2010 was Climate Week in New York. The week is organized by the Climate Group, an independent non-profit organization aiming “to show that cutting carbon makes good sense not just for the environment, but for jobs and economic growth.” I attended the meeting on climate change adaptation in and around New York. The meeting was hosted by the New York Academy of Sciences, and was moderated by Alyssa Katz of the Pratt Center for Community Development.

There were three presentations: Gary Yohe (Wesleyan University) talked about his work with the New York Panel on Climate Change, and the way in which the panel was prioritizing a series of targeted adaptation projects. Megan Linkin of Swiss Re was also part of the Panel. She explained how the insurance industry considers natural hazard risks and the possible implications of climate change. The last presenter was Christopher Zeppie of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He explained how the Port Authority was working on the reduction of risks for the harbor.

The presenters gave the impression that adaptation in New York is only at the beginning. The City is working towards a list of 44 prioritized projects, the Port is modifying its engineering procedures to reflect climate change, but there is no major concerted effort to safeguard the city from the impacts of climate and climate change. And yet, the risk seems to be there; especially the presentation of Megan Linkin of Swiss Re underscored –at least to me- the need for urgent action. She pointed out that New York is among the top 10 of port cities in terms of population exposed to coastal flooding, and New York is second only to Miami in terms of assets exposed to coastal flooding. And the ‘potential worst case scenario’ she painted for New York is a hurricane that would cause an insured loss of 100 billion and an economic loss of 200 billion US$, about three times the loss caused by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf.

Where does this leave us? From a Dutch planner’s perspective, the need for a major city protection program is obvious. I mean, Rotterdam’s risks were considerably less than those of New York, but its protection continues to be a major effort, involving city, harbor and national planning and infrastructure agencies. And the Dutch Delta Commission has made a comprehensive nation-wide adaptation program. But things get done in a different way here.

“Climate Change Adaptation in New York City – the New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 Report” analyses the city’s risks for climate change and extreme events in a convincing and comprehensive way. In doing so, it does get us ‘past the past’ – but it is only the beginning of getting the city ‘ready for the future’. The next version of PlaNYC 2030, the long-term sustainability plan for New York, will need to address that challenge.

Virus and Antibody

New York - Still number 1 in Foreign Policy's 2010 Ranking

At Schiphol Airport, on my way from Amsterdam to New York, my eye was drawn to Foreign Policy , the magazine on global politics, economics and ideas. On its cover a massive public housing complex in Hong Kong and the heading “METROPOLIS NOW – half the world already living in cities. Is that a good thing?”. Next to it, the front page of strategy+business read “BUILDING GREENER CITIES” and termed cities “the last best hope for combating climate change”.

To me both magazines not known for their focus on urban development and climate change, and I tend to see their focus on city and climate change, as a trend. It is similar to the interest of companies like Philips, IBM and Siemens in the city, and confirms that cities are increasingly recognized as important objects for addressing climate change.

Strategy+business (Autumn 2010) is published by Booz & Company, a global management consulting firm headquartered in New York. Nick Pennell, Sartaz Ahmed of Booz & Company and Stefan Henningsson of WWF, wrote its main feature article “Reinventing the City to Combat Climate Change”. Its central statement is that how the world’s cities develop their infrastructure will determine the future path of global warming. The article argues that the $350 trillion that the world’s cities will spend on infrastructure in the coming 30 years are the most efficient if spent on reducing lifetime operation costs and improving sustainability. The article gives an overview of emerging innovative practices and concludes that successful practices towards low-carbon cities mostly view these practices “through a lens of livability, finding synergies between initiatives that promote quality of life and ecological and economic health”.

Foreign Policy (September/October 2010) has less of a climate focus – it discusses the urbanization challenges that China, India and other regions are facing. The “Prime Numbers” that the magazine gives are staggering: in terms of floor space needed, China has to build ten New Yorks over the next 20 years and India four. Energy, traffic, education and housing will require huge investments in both countries.

Dubbed “Chicago on the Yantze”, the magazine paints a picture of Chongquing, for me rightly called ‘the biggest city you’ve never heard of’: 32 million and counting. The magazine also includes an article by Joel Kotkin, the author of “The Next 100 Million – America in 2050”. He counterbalances the talk about cities, and argues “suburbs, not cities are the answer”. He seems a bit too keen to argue against the city, and statements that “Ancient Athens and Rome didn’t start out as undiscovered artist neighborhoods” are not necessarily convincing. But I’ll postpone that analysis until I finished reading his book. I do think he has a point – there are a lot of ‘non-city suburbs’, they play an important role in the geography of America, and enhancing the sustainability of these areas is a key challenge in the US.

“Beyond City Limits”, the article by Parag Khanna in Foreign Policy to me was the most radical. He compares the independence of contemporary cities with the late Middle Ages, when Arab, Muslim and Chinese cities flourished in independence. He terms Dubai and other regional port centers as ‘the Venices of the 21^st century’, and refers to the Hanseatic League along the Baltic Sea as an early example of city collaboration. He argues that cities will take increasingly independent positions, and that cities are the true daily test of whether we can build a better future. Khanna concludes that what happens in our cities, simply put, matters more than what happens anywhere else: “They are both the cancer and the foundation of our networked world, both virus and antibody. From climate change to poverty and inequality, cities are the problem – and the solution. Getting cities right might mean the difference between a bright future filled with HafenCitys and Songdos – and a world that looks more like the darkest corners of Karachi and Mumbai”.

Peter Hall – Great Planning Disasters (1980)

Our concept report on Livable Cities was presented to the second meeting of the Philips Think Tank on Livable Cities. One of the feedbacks that our team received was that the report could include more examples of successes and failures in making cities livable. The successes was not such a problem (although the sustainability of success is not always clear), but I had difficulty thinking about the failures.

It made me think of the book published in 1980 by Peter Hall titled "Great Planning Disasters". It analyzed what Peter Hall considered the great planning disasters of the 1970’s. His selection of great disasters included the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sydney’s Opera House. The book analyzes the decisions of the professional bureaucrats, community activists, and politicians involved in the planning process. He draws on an eclectic body of theory from political science, economics, ethics, and long-range future forecasting to suggest ways to forestall such grand mistakes in the future.

Thirty years forward, time has given these projects a more positive place in history. According to Wikipedia, the Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2007, as one of the most distinctive buildings of the 20^th century. And its despised architect Jorn Utzon received the Pritzker Prize, architecture’s highest honor, in 2003. The Pritzker Prize Citation stated “There is no doubt that the Sydney Opera House is his masterpiece. It is one of the great iconic buildings of the 20th century, an image of great beauty that has become known throughout the world – a symbol for not only a city, but a whole country and continent”. And while the BART-system is not so highly appreciated, it has become to be seen as one of the more successful public transport projects in the USA, and has helped to shape the Bay area into a daily urban system that has been successful and brought prosperity to generations of Bay Area residents.

Does this mean that Sir Peter Hall was wrong? Probably not; his analysis still makes sense, and he is and continues to be one of the best writers on urbanism and urbanization. But it does suggest that success and failure are not easy targets in the history and future of cities.