Don’t try this at home

Margaret O’Mara teaches twentieth century American history at the University of Washington in Seattle. Her book “Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon Valley”, explored how Silicon Valley came to be. In Foreign Policy, under the title “Don’t try this at home” she gives a great summary of why Silicon Valley is unique. The article is on-line but here are some of her “words of advice for the next set of global urban planners who come calling”:

“Give a lot of money to brilliant people and stay out of their way” – O’Mara explains that the US Government was the Valley’s first venture capitalist through research grants and defense contracts, but that Washington refrained from micro managing;

“Find a top-notch university, preferably one with room to spare” –Stanford University continues to be central to the Valley, not only as a research center, but also as a networking hub, a cultural behemoth and a ‘wheeler-dealer landlord’;

O’Mara indicates that Silicon Valley was a success “because it had the qualities that attracted people who had the education, economic resources and social advantages to live anywhere they chose”. A vibrant city nearby, outdoor activities, good weather, good schools, sought-after real estate are among the attractions. She argues that isolated research parks don’t have the same success because they can’t lure talented people – they’ve got to be somewhere where the world’s most talented people actually want to live.

So that is a major issue – where the most talented people want to live. O’Mara might be right about what that means for ‘the next big thing’: “The ideal environment for today’s aspiring entrepreneurs may well be more gritty and urban than the lush grass and quiet office parks of Santa Clara Valley”.

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.

Livable Cities

“How can the cities of the future be livable” – it is a big question for such a small group of experts. We were six, flown into Singapore from all over the world, for a week of intense thinking and collaboration. Isocarp, the International Society of City and Regional Planners, organized the gathering in the form of a UPAT, an Urban Planning Advisory Team. These teams normally deliver strategic planning advice to cities, but our meeting was to focus on livable cities in general, and to come up with recommendations on how the cities of the future can be livable.

Our client was Philips, more specifically the Think Tank on Livable Cities established by the Philips Center for Health and Wellbeing. Philips joins Siemens, IBM and other large companies focusing some of its innovation capacity on how future cities can be green, smart, sustainable or livable. The terminology depends on who is talking, but the trend seems clear: the future is urban, and technology companies are increasingly keen to contribute to the innovation of the city’s systems and workings.

Jeremy Dawkins, an Australian planner currently based in Sydney, led the team and Martin Dubbeling, a Dutch planner specialized in sustainable planning issues, was the rapporteur and Awais Piracha, Nadia Nilina, Antonia Cornaro and myself completed the team. Paco Perez contributed the Isocarp perspective.

the team left to right: Martin Dubbeling, Jeremy Dawkins, Awais Piracha, Antonia Cornaro, Nadia Nilina

For me personally, the link to Philips was an added benefit. I grew up in Eindhoven, the hometown of Philips and my father worked for the company for 43 years. The Philips van der Willegen Study Fund paid for my education as an urban designer, so it was an opportunity to pay back some of the urban intelligence the company enabled me to acquire.

the humble beginnings of Philips - Eindhoven

It was an interesting week of discussions, and very rewarding to take the time out to discuss such crucial but generic issue. I am not sure if we found ‘the’ answer to the question. The team is compiling a magazine style report to summarize the findings. That will be available on-line in a matter of weeks. As a preview – some of our thoughts:

Livable City Lens

The team investigated the challenges of the urban spectrum in relation to concepts of livability. We discussed the attributes and characteristics of livable cities at various levels and in a range of different contexts. Our conclusion was that it is not possible, or even desirable to produce a closed and worldwide definition of the term “livable”. Livable is a combination of ingredients that changes over time and depends on culture, history, development stage, geographical conditions etc. Its attributes and characteristics form a ‘tag cloud’ rather than a closed definition. Therefore, the team has applied ‘livable city’ as a lens – something to look through, allowing focusing on specific aspects of urbanization.

Focus on Non-city Rapidly Urbanizing Region

At the start of our considerations were two trends: rapid urbanization and an ageing population. The team concludes that, to a large extent, these developments are seen in different types of cities, in different geographic places. We discuss these as ‘archetypes’:

‘non-city rapidly urbanizing regions’: The places where rapid urban development is taking place are not, and will not become, ‘cities’ in the classical sense of the word; they are large regions of urban tissue – places that look like cities, but that have a significantly different scale. The characters, problems and expectations of these urban regions are in some respects different than anything we know so far.

'mature cities’: Many of the cities in Europe, North America, Russia and Japan are entering a new phase in their development. Instead of continued growth they are now facing stability, stagnation or even a reduction of population, combined with an increasingly ageing population. This poses challenges that are new for their planning authorities – how to manage ‘decline’ with instruments which are designed for growth.

There are all sorts of mix forms, and even combinations of the above into one urban region, but the team decided to highlight livability issues of the rapidly urbanizing regions as a focus of the UPAT.

More to follow..

definition of urban design at Singapore's urban info center

Skypark Singapore

Architect’s dream

From the window of my hotel room it looks as if an architect’s dream has accidentally been realized: a big, long elegant ship on top of three major high rise buildings. It is the hottest new attraction of Singapore, and when I go to visit the skypark on top of the ship, there is a long line of Singaporeans (and some tourists) to pay the $20 entrance fee into the park.

The three towers form a huge hotel; the Marina Bay Sands, and the ship on top of it has a park, view decks, a 150 meter long swimming pool and restaurants (which are not yet opened). The complex also includes a casino, shopping center, conference facility and an uncompleted building that looks like a huge lotus flower.

Redefining the skyline

It looks a bit too obvious from a distance, but it is definitely redefining the Singapore skyline; everywhere in the city, this flying object gives a sense of direction. Upon approach, it is actually quite elegantly made; the hotel has an enormous public lobby at the ground floor, up to 15 floors high, with daylight streaming in. Good materials, nice seating areas and a classic music combo to complete the ambiance.

360 degrees of Singapore

After paying the entry fee, the elevator takes me to the 58^th floor, from which you can directly step out onto the bow of the boat. The bow has a nice wooden deck, and gives a huge view over what must be about all of the City-state of Singapore, with bits of Malaysia and Indonesia in the distance.

The views are phenomenal and allow for a 360-degree perspective on Singapore. In addition to the big deck on the bow of the boat, the center of the ship has a shaded park that will boast restaurants and cafes. Next to it is a 150 meter long ‘endless’ pool for hotel guests. Must be great to swim there, but also for non-swimming visitors it gives the roofscape a special touch.

Marina Bay

Marina Bay Sands is but the first step, with many more developments underway. The complex is part of Marina Bay, the city’s newest development on reclaimed land. The plan involves closing off the Marina Bay to create a fresh water resource for the city. Around the Bay, the plan calls for a thriving and energetic place where people will live, work and play. In the words of the website “it will usher in a new concept of city living that embraces all the opportunities and activities that the city has to offer”.

Cleancycling the Southwest Brooklyn Waterfront

As a Dutch urban designer who is based in New York, I have always had a keen interest in the Southwest Brooklyn waterfront. I got to know New York through bicycle trips, and it was on one of those trips that I ended up in the area, first in Red Hook and later in Sunset Park. I liked the wide-open views – low skies we say in Dutch – the massive waterfront buildings, the clear skies and the occasional view of Manhattan in the background, so close and yet so far. And I was surprised how underutilized the waterfront was. Despite the big chunky buildings suitable for just about every use, not very much seemed to be happening in the area. Even now that I understand the complexities of New York waterfront development better, I am surprised at how little of the potential of the area is as yet used.

So I was very keen to be part of a Dutch-American team to think about the area’s future. In my Dutch planning practice I have always worked on the regeneration of waterfronts, and the industrial not-working-so-well-anymore waterfronts are my favorite places. I see them as a huge potential for the cities, almost as a promise that new and better futures lie within the boundary of the cities. The invitation came from the City of Rotterdam, which has a cooperation agreement with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The program consisted of a three-day workshop to develop proposals for the long-term perspective of the Southwest Brooklyn Waterfront. The assumption is that such a typically Dutch urban design exercise can provide a breath of fresh air and deliver useful insights for the area’s future. My professional practice in New York is based on the same assumption and I was keen to prove its correctness. The team that was assembled for the occasion consisted of around twenty urban planners, landscape designers, port managers, development and sustainability experts, about half from the Rotterdam and half from New York.

We had three days to map out a long-term future for the area, but obviously had to start with an introduction into the area. We picked a beautiful day for the site visit, and although I knew the area from my bike trips, I gained some new perspectives. Highlights were a visit to the roof terrace of the Fairway building (with great views over Red Hook) and a visit inside the Brooklyn Army Terminal – what a phenomenal building. But the best way to grasp the area’s potential is to see the area from the water. The trip on the Water Taxi allowed us to realize the proximity to Manhattan, and at the same time see the enormous size of the spaces that are available. We were also briefed by community groups, which helped us to understand the social and cultural importance of the waterfront, and to appreciate some of the reluctance and even frustration with a long history of largely unsuccessful regeneration efforts for the area.

The team was subdivided in groups, addressing the regional economy, environmental aspects, transportation issues, climate change and community linkage. I was assigned to the economic team, which I liked because in my view the programmatic question (‘what to do in this area’) is the key to its future. We came up with a proposition that is rather close to the Rotterdam Stadshavens’ “Clean Tech Delta” concept. It is a proposal for a working waterfront, focusing on innovation for clean recycling and clean and renewable energy for 21^st century New York. We termed it “Green Tech Brooklyn” and the proposal suggests that Red Hook develops into innovative mixed use urban research lab city area and that the Sunset Park waterfront becomes the New York center for clean recycling or ‘cleancycling’.

To me, “Green Tech Brooklyn” may well be the right direction for the area for two main reasons. Firstly, I think that it is good for this particular waterfront to move away from a reliance on residential development as the ‘savior’ for waterfronts. In the case of the Netherlands, particularly in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, regeneration used to primarily consist of the conversion of industrial harbor areas into prime waterfront real estate for residences. It took a while, but recent proposals have broadened, also addressing the need to deliver jobs and to innovate the urban economy. That is a positive development, and one that also fits the Southwest Brooklyn context.

The second reason I think that “Green Tech Brooklyn” will be good for New York is that it is an economic proposition that looks forward rather than backward. One of the key lessons the Dutch harbor regeneration specialists have learned over the last decade is that most attempts at keeping ailing industries alive against the economic tide can only be successful if the industries transform thoroughly. I was surprised about the insistence in some of the discussions to try to keep distribution logistics in the area, although the scale of the area –and the employment benefits for that matter- are clearly limited. It seems to me that proposing large scale logistics as a future for the area would be looking the wrong way. “Green Tech Brooklyn” is the more viable option; it looks ahead and delivers business opportunities and jobs that suit the area and its future.

The “Green Tech Brooklyn” approach delivered the broad framework for the workshop, and other groups built their suggestions on its basis. One of the teams introduced the pearl necklace as a reference for developing community spaces along the river. Other suggestions included oyster beds to reduce storm surge impacts; a strategy to use the greenway not only as a bike path but as a neighborhood park that would also improve the flood resilience of Red Hook; and a research and development campus that would be an anchor for the regeneration of Red Hook (with reference to Rotterdam’s daring RDM campus development). One team went as far as suggesting putting the Gowanus Expressway at ground level and ‘burying’ it in a superlevee. The levee would simultaneously provide flood protection and facilitate safe community connections to the waterfront.

The key of the proposals was that each of the ‘urban interventions’ was trying to serve multiple objectives. Flood safety and environmental quality, neighborhood access to the water and stimulating the local economy, research facilities and urban regeneration – the proposals were multipurpose in the best meaning of the word. This represents a key innovation in recent urban planning and design – a solid economic proposition and the design of smart urban interventions that realize not just singular improvements, but work to deliver multiple values and results for a whole range of communities and stakeholders. If such approaches are applied to the Southwest Brooklyn Waterfront, I am quite sure that the area has a great future ahead of it – not only as a port, but also as employment provider for Brooklyn, a source of joy for the people of New York and as a crucial facility for the sustainable future of New York City.