© 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

Eco-tech : Smart for a green

D. Bogunovich School ofArchitecture Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

The paper addresses the issue of environmental of cities and propos- es that must simultaneously heed and deploy Technology. To achieve this, Urban Metabolism must become the central paradigm of both assessing urban unsustainabili~ of the present cities and of seeking a model of the of the future. The paradigm enables us to conceive of cities as dynamic negentropic whose sustainability can be enhanced by better organizing their flows of environmental information. Ecologically inspired schools of urbanism have been with us for a long time but have tended to ignore techno- logical solutions. Our reality is that human habitat is ever more artificial and that technology is all around us. Urbanists should embrace new technologies, A mix of clean environmental technologies (F,T) with information (IT) and communication technologies (CT) is a key part of the solution, Information-rich, knowledge-inten- sive solutions are critical in enhancing the eco-efllciency of the city. An ecologi- cally sound urbanism of the firture will be both ‘green’ and ‘smart’. Presently, the twin trends of ‘ecologisation of urban technology’ and ‘technologisation of ’ are contradictory and marginal. If correct political and consumer choices are made in the near future, the trends will converge and become mainstream. The anticipated intellectual, cultural, and economic shifts suggests the emergence a new design paradigm for all professions invoIved in the production of the physical urban environment - planners, engineers, imchitects,landscape architects. This paradigm - ‘eco-tech design’ – wiHset us free from the binary of the Natural vs the Artificial.

1 Introduction: aim and assumptions

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the contemporary discussion of ‘urban (un)sustainability’ by suggesting that one of the critical obstacles to making our © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

cities more environmentally sustainable lies on our minds, We are generally used to seeing the concepts of and Culture – for our purpose here translating as Ecology and Technology – as two opposites. This intellectual habit of the great majority of the designers and planners of urban systems hinders faster deployment of new technologies in solving urban environmental problems. The theory of sus- tainable urban development is dominated by thinkers and practitioners who auto- matically connect desirable ecological principles with relatively simple, ‘natural’, and localised solutions, The bigger picture - seeing the city as a whole, a whole that lends itself to better organisation in order to resist waste and over-consump- tion - is missing, The proliferation of technologies of information processing and transfer at the end of the 20th century is seen as a separate event, something that has to do with a more efficient economy and a better informed and connected soci- ety but little to do with improving the management of the urban resources, We shall also argue that the paradigm shift that is necessa~ to take place before we can address the issue of urban sustainability in a systemic manner must start with looking at cities as quasi-organisms and with adopting the concept of ‘metab- olism’ from the biological sciences. The concept of metabolism is perfectly appli- cable to the biophysical functioning of the city. Furthermore, it creates a notional link with the , which both in its traditional and the more modern versions carries great relevance for the problem of ‘urban (un)sustainability ’, Towards the end of the paper we shall propose that the growing demand for bringing the fimctioning of our cities more in tune with the laws of ecology by ‘bringing nature back into the city’ is in contradiction with the continued artifl- cialisation and technologisation of our living environment and our daily life expe- riences. The two contradicting trends present us with a typical paradox, which tends to polarise our mind. We face the dilemma whether we should opt for more ‘ecology’ in the city and work towards some vision of ‘eco-city’ in harmony with nature (eco-topia), or we should opt for more ‘technology’ in the city and work towards some economically super-efficient ‘high-tech-city’ which promises a life of super-convenience and social harmony (techno-topia). The possibility of a solu- tion that includes both the ‘eco-’ and the ‘teclmo-’ aspect (techno-eco-topia) escapes us. This discussion is based on a number assumptions that need to be declared. The first assumption of this paper is that the world is facing an ecological crisis and that this is a consequence of human activity on the planet. The global envi- ronment is under threat because of the relentless pressure from a growing, ever more affluent, and ever more mobile population, It will be ultimately up to our political process to determine whether the threat is real or imaginary and whether something needs to be done about this. This matter will not be debated in this paper. The second assumption is that we already live in an urbanism-dominated world, As the number of city dwellers on the planet continues to grow, cities are becom- ing the key engines of the global economy, the chief creators of cultural models, and the ruling centres of political power. At the same time cities are also emerging as the sites of extravagant environmental consurnptions and the principal sources © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

of . Together, the cities of the world now pose the greatest threat of all the times to the global environment. Consequently, cities hold the key to winning or loosing the environmental battle [1]. This makes the goal of achieving some degree of urban ecological sustainability one of the key issues of global political, economic, scientific, and technological agenda. The third assumption is that ‘urban sustainability’ is an ideal, rather than an achievable goal, Cities cannot be literally sustainable in biophysical terms [2]. It is in their nature to be ‘parasites’ of the . However, the goal of making them progressively ‘more sustainable’ than they are now is both feasible and imperative, The cities’ rate of consumption of the natural resources can be reduced and brought in line with the biosphere’s ability to recover and regenerate, It is a huge job, but not impossible,

2 Urban metabolism: The central paradigm

The debate about the cities will be effective and may lead to practicable long term solutions only if correct language is used to diagnose the problem. A number of key terms - such as ‘urban metabolism’, ‘urban ’, ‘regional carrying capacity’, etc – need to be borrowed from basic ecology and adapted to the urban environment, These terms must become a standard vocabulary in all political, theoretical, and scientific debates, They also must enter the language of the professions that create, manage and operate the urban environment. The concept of ‘urban metabolism’ (UM) is of central importance. As an expres- sion, UM is relevant, precise, and economical. It handsomely encapsulates the enormous complexity and the huge scale of the unsustainable processes of con- sumption and transformation of materials, , and life media that is going on in every city of the world. The words were first used by Abel Wolman in a seminal article published in Scientl~c American in 1965, which focused on problems of water supply and in US cities [3]. Later, the concept was widely promoted by Herbert Girardet [4]. The word ‘metabolism’ is borrowed from and biochemistry, Life scien- tists talk about ‘organisms having metabolism’, referring to the process of exchange of energy and matter that lies at the base of the very phenomenon of life. The process of exchange emphasises the fact that living organisms are – in the lan- guage of General Systems Theory – open systems. Organisms are distinct entities but they are not fixed, or static, in their composition. On the contrary, their com- position is constantly in a process of change, however within certain limits. They exist in a condition of ‘homeostasis’ – a dynamic equilibrium. In the sense of ecology of natural systems, cities are not productive, On the con- trary – they consume much more than they produce, In terms of the ecological classification of all organism into producers, consumers, and decomposes, cities primarily quali~ as consumers, Typically, their production of organic matter (’food and energy’) is negligible when compared to the consumption by the human © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

78 III( .sm/,,/tr((/d,>(‘iwII

population of the city. This is why ecologically-minded theorists have referred to the city as a ‘parasite’, not just a ‘consumer’ [5]. Combined, the notions of ‘urban metabolism’ and ‘city as a parasite’ are very usefld if we want to grasp the magnitude of the impact ofurbanisation on the glob- al . Throughout the 20th century the prevailing perception was that big cities were a threat to the immediate regional environment. For example, the untreated polluting the local rivers, estuaries, and bays, or the suburban sprawl of rolling over fertile farmlands and wetlands, were all seen as local or regional issues. Similar was with the more travel-prone air pollution. Bad city air was originally seen and treated as a local problem, Even after acid rain was recog- nised and acknowledged as a trans-regional and eventually trans-national issue, especially in Europe and North America in the 70’s and 80’s, there was still a lag in grasping that urban-sourced pollution of the atmosphere was actually becoming a planet-scale problem, We are only beginning to realise that the problem with the cities of the world is that their overall metabolism is runaway. The volume of their consumption of resources and production of waste has spiraled out of proportion with the Earth’s capacities as both a source and a sink. The global urban civilisation – now encom- passing half the - as it is, is absolutely unsustainable in the long term. Since we cannot stop urbanisation – even less so go back and give up the struc- tures we have been building over some 7,000 years and jetison the way of life that goes with them – we must do something radical about the way urban settlements function and are built. Urbanisation can proceed, but the metabolism of cities must be tamed. In simple terms, ‘taming urban metabolism’ means two things need to be done: (i) UM must be reduced in overall terms (while maintaining, roughly, the current standard of living; otherwise this operation will not be politically acceptable; (ii) UM must be re-integrated with the ecosystem (i.e. the loops that enable natu- ral assimilation and regeneration at the local and the regional scale must be re- established, or re-invented). This suggests a radical overhaul of all the systems that participate in the urban metabolism process. Put simply, this means a complete overhaul of urban infra- structure, architecture, and landscape. To achieve (relative) urban sustainability in these terms, we need to expand the relevance of the concept of ‘urban metabolism’. We must go beyond its usefulness as a descriptive tool and a measure of (un)sustainability. UM enables us to think of cities as ‘systems’ in the sense of the traditional General Theory [6] and the original principles of [7] and Communications Theory [8], as well in the sense of their modem derivatives – , complexity science, non- linear dynamics, emergent systems, artificial intelligence (AI), artificial life (AL), cellular automata, distributed intelligence, etc. Studying cities as dynamic, non-linear, (neg)entropic systems, with vast, but utterly fragmented, and therefore poorly used, intelligence suggests that improve- © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

7/1<,.511s[(/;11([/?/(’(‘It>’II 79 ments are possible. The flows of environmental information could be enhanced and reinforced in order to increase organisation. Increased organisation (which also assumes the capability for environmental learning and accumulation of envi- ronmental knowledge) should lead to higher eco-el%ciencies, and thus to higher levels of sustainability. (Vice versa: un-sustainability is directly correlated with dis-organisation.) In simplest possible terms, cities must get ‘smarter’ before they get ‘greener’. That cities should get ‘smarter’ by enabling better eco-informatic feedback is not just a normative theoretical proposition. Nowadays we actually do have at our disposal technological means for an ecologically-inspired informatisation of the city as whole. The technological capability is there; what is missing is political will and an overall design concept.

3 Ecological urbanism: green, compact, and smart

Ecological approaches to have been with us for over thirty years. Ian McHarg’s Design wilh Nature [9]is generally regarded as the seminal work in this school of thought. Other writings followed in the 70’s and 80’s - F, Steiner’s The Living Landscape [10]; M. Hough’s City and fhe Natural Process [11]; R, Arendt’s Rural by Design [12], and so on. Almost all of these normative theories have been based on the same idea - ‘land suitability’ should be the key criterion for limiting the physical extent of development - and differed only in details of methodology and technique, The need for ecologically sensitive planning of urban development was also acknowledged by the influential movement for New Urbanism in North America, although with a lesser emphasis on ecological issues and more focus on building the sense of social community [13; 14; 15]. The other important offspring of McHarg’s theory have been the attempts to harness the spectacular development of computer cartography in the 90’s and use the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the ecologically sensitive allocation of urban land uses. With the introduction of computer technology to everyday practice, urban and entered the inforrnatic age and encountered information technology (IT). It could be said, just like design became computer-aided-design - CAD, so planning became ‘CAP’ - computer-aided-planning. Despite this relatively quick intake of IT in the planning process, the very sub- ject of that process – cities and their biophysical environment – remained far away from anything that might suggest ‘CAC’ - computer-aided-cities. Thirty years later, we can say with confidence that McHarg’s theory and the method have had a great positive impact on urbanism and planning They made the notion of ecological urbanism widely respected, if not widely practiced. The recent addition of IT in the form of GIS to the method has made the whole approach more practicable, accurate, reliable and inexpensive than ever before. However, this is not suficient to resolve the issue of urban sustainability, The land suitability analysis-based approach to urban planning and design is limited to © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

the physical pattern of . While it surely is of huge strategic importance for a growing city to at least distinguish where development should go and where it should not go, this does not tackle the overall urban metabolism of the city, For example, this approach has little impact on of huge consumption of fossil fuels and the associated pollution. If anything, it exacerbates it. By allocation large areas of waterways, wetlands, forests, pretty landscapes as ‘values’ which must be protected tiom future development, the McHargian method tends to make cities even more extensive and therefore even more dependent on huge energy con- sumption to overcome distance. Clearly, this method is too crude to encompass the enormous complexity of urban metabolism, In this respect, the early organic theories of the city, such as those of and Lewis Mumford (which after all inspired McHarg and many of his followers), are more useful. We should have a second look at them and recognise and acknowledge the connections - usually implicit rather than explicit - with the General Systems Theory, The views of the city as a quasi-organism have been present in the literature for a long time. The fact that cities possess that resemble living organisms did not go unnoticed with many authors. Usually, the use of the term was metaphorical: when the city was described as ‘an organ- ism’ almost everyone made sure inverted comas were in their place, Unfortunately, today the view of the city as a quasi-living entity view survives in the two reductivist versions, both focused on the physical layout of the urban system (its spatial pattern of development), One version is the the ‘Landscape Planning’ approach of the followers of McHarg. The other is the ‘compact city’ philosophy, which can roughly be attributed to the New Urbanists and the Smart Growth movements in US, the Oxford Brookes circle in UK, and the earlier work of the Newman-Kenworthy team in [16]. Two basic prototypes of the city can be deduced from the two approaches. One is the ‘green city’, with a lot of presewed natural open space, The other is the ‘energy-efficient city’, with reduced travel/commuting distances. Both are useful and certainly contribute to the better sustainability of cities. Neither, however, is as comprehensive as we would wish them to be in terms of tackling the totality of urban metabolism and seeking an overall entropy-minimizing solution, If we adopt the systems view of the city as an open, dynamic, and, at present, rather disorganized (and for that very reason so environmentally wastefid) entity, then we are closer to thinking of cities as not just quasi-living entities, but also as quasi-intelligent entities, This is a crucial mental leap, It means conceiving cities as rather ‘chaotic collections of individuals’ who constantly make decisions which are unwise t?om an ecological point of view. They do it all the time because they do not know better. They do not know better because they lack adequate environ- mental information. Consequently, if we network the city in such a way that envi- ronmental information becomes widely available, then we can expect to see ever better decisions, followed by ever wiser behavior. The point is that sustainable cities camot be just ‘green’ (literally, in the McHargian sense) or just ‘compact’ (in the New Urbanists sense). They have to be ‘smart’ too. The way to make them smart is to provide them with some form of © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

‘artificial intelligence’, or, perhaps, better said, some form of ‘artificially net- worked intelligence’, Again, nowadays such technologies are at our disposal, The city which is both ‘green’ and ‘smart’ is absolutely technically possible. Our immediate task is to start planning, designing, and constructing anew layer of urban – an infra- structure devoted to better flows of environmental information. The single objec- tive of such a project would be to increase the ecological intelligence of our cities.

4 Ecology and technology: overcoming the binary

In suggesting technological solutions to urban environmental problems we must be clear what we mean by ‘technology’. In this case we are assuming three fami- lies of technologies: (i) environmental technologies (ET) - which encompass a rather broad range of technologies used to tap natural resources and sinks, and process materials and life media (in simple terms, we could describe them as ‘technologies of ener- gy, water, and waste’); (ii) information technologies (IT) - which include the well known range of com- puter-based hardware and soflware, but should in this particular case also include the environmental sensing technologies (the instruments we use to gather environmental data); (iii) communication technologies (CT) - which comprise of a range of technolo- gies that enable the transfer of environmental data, information, knowledge, and decisions; their overall purpose is to overcome spatial distance and the resulting time lag, and enable the flow and availability of environmental infor- mation in real time, Developing combinations of these technologies - ‘technology hybrids’ - will be a particularly challenging task in the near future if we want to make fast progress towards urban sustainability. As the [T and CT grow in the number of their envi- ronmentally dedicated applications, and as the ET increase the ‘smart’ content in its internal solutions, the convergence of the three families will be increasingly obvious, Whichever way things go in fhture, we already are witnessing the trend towards technologies becoming environmentally friendlier. This is happening in almost all industries and all walks of life, Examples range from the greening of automobile engines to the eco-friendly chemical contents of house paints. The pressures come both from the government regulation end and from the market demand/competi- tion end, The process is broad and encompasses cultural, economic, and political origins and consequences, The trend is perhaps not as strong and fast as some of us would wish but it evidently exists, It is certainly slow and weak in the domain of the technologies which support the functioning of our urban architecture, infra- structure, and landscape, But signs of change are there. The growing movements for the ‘greening of urban infrastructure’ and for ‘green architecture’ are particu- larly visible, We shall call this trend the ‘ecologisation of urban technology’. © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

The trend of the greening of technology appears to be leading in exactly the opposite direction of the general trend towards the increasingly artificial (techno- logically generated and technologically operated) content of the typical urban environment. Cities are ever larger and ever taller; there is ever more machinery in them; their consumption of technologically-harvested forms of energy is grow- ing; we increasingly communicate via non-natural means; even our machines now communicate among themselves, etc. While little of this swell of technology in our cities is going in an environmentally sensible direction, the fact remains that we are busy constructing an ‘artificial urban ecology’ as never before. We are generating an urban techno-world which in the last instance does qualifies as an artificial urban eco-system, regardless of how respectfid it is of the laws of eco- logical health. We shall call this trend the ‘technologisation of urban ecology’. The symmetry of the two trends is striking. On one hand we have the dominant and rather worrying trend of technologisation of urban ecology; on the other hand we have the weak, but Wowing, and certainly encouraging, trend of ecologisation of urban technology. The use of the two expressions in the analogous-inverted manner is deliberate, This should be an enticement to contemplate the possibility of convergence of these two processes. (It certainly is a possibility, but not really a probability. At current rates, and barring political intervention, the ‘technologisation’ will win over the ‘ecologisation’. In this scenario we are highly unlikely to achieve the goal of reasonably sustainable urban development in the foreseeable Mure.) A bal- anced convergence of the two trends would mean continued technologisation of the urban environment, albeit with far more respect for natural ecological oppor- tunities and constraints. As long as we tend to think in terms of Technology and Ecology as two oppos- ing forces and resist the idea that technologies could be ecological, we shall not be able to even imagine the solution. This dichotomy must be overcome, Technology and Ecology are at odds for his- torical, not ontological reasons. We must embrace and theoretically evolve the concept of Eco-Technology, as the proto-idea of something constructed artificial- itybut in such a manner that it complements the natural ecological process, instead of eroding and destroying them, In our cities we must progressively weed out the obsolete, environmentally detrimental technologies and replace them with envi- ronmentally friendly technologies, Our new urban technologies must emulate and mimic biological processes and exist in harmony with ecological processes.

5 Conclusion: towards eco-tech design

Seeing Ecology and Technology as mutually inclusive categories rather than oppo- sites is, from a purely theoretical aspect, an epistemological problem, From a more practical aspect, this is a problem of Design. Assuming that social and political pressure for determined action to prevent global ecological disturbance will rise, and assuming that the pivotal role of cities and their metabolism will be recognised and given priority, we can expect funda- © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

mental changes in the way we view the city. Then will follow fundamental changes in the way we plan and design for cities. It is no exaggeration to assert that the issue of design is at the heart of the prob- lem of urban sustainability, By ‘design’ in this context we mean all aspects of the physical production of the city - urban master planning, infrastructure engineer- ing, architecture, landscape, construction, In other words, all those creative pro- fessions involved in the mentioned city-generating activities - planners, engineers, architects, landscape architects, surveyors - are ‘designers’. And all their design decisions ultimately lead to choices of technologies, It is in their heads that the rec- onciliation of the concepts of Ecology and Technology must take place first and foremost if we are to achieve a profoundly ‘Green Urbanism’ (instead of one that is literal and superficial). Planners, architects, and engineers have to seriously reconsider design para- digms with which they lived through the 20th century. The idea that the subject of design is an inert, static, non-living c}bjectmust be replaced with the idea that the subject is a dynamic, evolving, quasi-living entity, This goes with the spirit of the times. If was the dominant cognitive paradigm of the 20th century, it is now increasingly obvious that biology – itself embedded in the broader notion of ecology – will be the dominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century. This can- not leave our notion of the city unatiected – we will have to revert to the organic theories of the city. Understanding the city infrastructure and building stock as quasi-organisms, and seeing the entire city as an artificial ecosystem, opens the way for anew approach to design of all urban structures, This approach begins and ends with the concept of urban metabolism, Such approach explicitly mandates sustainable rates of metabolism as one of the key performance criteria. The reali- sation of such metabolism will only be possible with mass deployment of eco- technological solutions, These solutions will comprise of all sorts of combinations of ET, IT, and CT, As conclusion, five short statements: (1) The future is urban, (2) The urban fi,ture is ecological, (If the urban fhture turns out not to be ecolog- ical, there will no future.,,) (3) The future of urban ecology is technological. (4) If we learn how to make urban technology ecological, we can look into the future with hope.

References

[1] O’Meara, M,, Reinventing Citiesfor People and the Planet. The Worldwatch Institute: Washington, D.C., 1999. [2] Girardet, H., Sustainable Cities - A contradiction in terms? Architectural Design, 67(1/2), pp. 8-13, 199?, [3] Wolman, A,, The Metabolism of cities, $’cientijic American, 6(2), pp. 179-190, 1965, © 2002 WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. All rights reserved. Web: www.witpress.com Email [email protected] Paper from: The Sustainable City II, CA Brebbia, JF Martin-Duque & LC Wadhwa (Editors). ISBN 1-85312-917-8

[4] Girardet, H., The Gaia Atlas of Cities, Anchor Books/Doubleday: New York, pp 20-27, 1992. [5] ibid, pp 86-116, [6] Von Bertalan@, L. General System Theory Braziller: New York, 1968. [7] Wiener, N., Cybernetics (2nd cd.), MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1965. [8] Weaver, W. and Shannon, C.E., The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press: Urbana, 111,,1949, [9] McHarg, I., Design with Nature. Doubleday~he Natural History Press: Garden City, N.Y., 1969, [10] Steiner, F,, The Living Landscape (2nd ed) McGraw-Hill: New York, 2000. [11] Hou@M,, Cities and Naturai Process. Routledge: London and New York, 1995. [12] Arendt, R. et al, Rural by Design. American Planning Association: , 1994. [13] Duany, A. and E.Plater-Zyberk, Towns and Town Making Princ@les. Rizzoli: New York, 1991. [14] Calthorpe, P., The Next American , Princeton Architectural Press: New York, 1993. [15] Katz, P., The New Urbanism - Toward an Architecture of Community. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1994. [16] Newman, P and Kenworthy, J. Sustainabili~ and Cities. Island Press: Washington, D,C., 1999.