Contents Page
List of Figures 04 2.0 Pragmatic Utopia (Where We Are Going) 41
Acknowledgements 09 2.1 Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey 42
Abstract 11 2.2 Critique of Urban Utopia 43
Introduction 13 2.3 Pragmatic Utopia 45
Research Method 16 2.4 Conclusions 47
1.0 The Tripolar Model of Sustainability (Where We Are) 21 3.0 Hedonistic Sustainability (How We Get There) 49
1.1 The 3 E’s 24 3.0 Bjarke Ingels Group 52
1.2 The Sustainability Diagram 28 3.1 Restructuring the Tripolar Model 53
1.3 Issues Surrounding the Tripolar Model 29 3.2 Case Study: Amager Bakke by BIG 57
1.4 Case Study: Strata SE1 by BFLS 31 3.3 Conclusions 67
1.5 Conclusions 39 4.0 Discussion 69
5.0 Conclusion 73
Bibliography 78 List of Figures
Figure 00 Front and Back Cover (Author’s Own, 2017) Figure 10 Three Pressure Waves by Elkington: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from (Elkington, 2004) Available at: http://www.johnelkington.com/archive/timelines-wave-diagram.htm. [Accessed 08/01/2017]
Figure 01 Bjarke Ingels. (BIG, 2009:34) Figure 11 Corporate Characteristics: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from (Elkington, 2004:11)
Figure 02 Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, Speaking at COP 16. (UN Climate Talks, 2010) Figure 12 Venn Diagram of Sustainability: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from (Moir et al., 2004:1480)
Figure 03 Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscars Acceptance Speech: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from AP Images (Sutherlin, 2016) Figure 13 Tripolar Model Diagram. (Author’s Own, 2017) Available at: http://footwearnews.com/2016/fn-spy/awards/oscars-2016-celebrities-react-leonardo-dicaprio-win-la- dy-gagas-performance-198310/. [Accessed 05/03/2017].
Figure 04 Diagram of Deductive Research: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from Research Methodology (2016). Figure 14 Strata SE1 Turbine. Photo by Will Pryce. (ArchDaily, 2010) Available at: http://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/research-approach/deductive-approach-2/. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. [Accessed 10/10/2016] [Accessed 22/02/2017]
Figure 05 Writing Structure. (Author’s Own, 2017) Figure 15 Diagram of Strata SE1. (ArchDaily, 2010) Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. [Accessed 22/02/2017]
Figure 06 Strata SE1 by BFLS. (urban75, 2011) Figure 16 Strata SE1 Turbines. (ArchDaily, 2010) Available at: http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-rarely-spinning-turbines-of-the-strata-tower-south-london/. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. [Accessed 22/02/2017] [Accessed 22/02/2017]
Figure 07 3D Visualisation of Amager Bakke by BIG. (Dezeen, 2013) Figure 17 Strata SE1 Affordable Homes: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from (ArchDaily, 2010) Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/05/amager-bakke-waste-to-energy-plant-by-big/. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. [Accessed 10/10/2016] [Accessed 22/02/2017]
Figure 08 View from Strata SE1 by BFLS. Photo by Will Pryce. (ArchDaily, 2010) Figure 18 Strata SE1 Turbines Diagram. (ArchDaily, 2010) Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. [Accessed 22/02/2017] [Accessed 22/02/2017]
Figure 09 Strata SE1 by BFLS. Photo by Will Pryce. (ArchDaily, 2010) Figure 19 ‘Urbanism’, New York City. (Author’s Own, 2016) Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. [Accessed 22/02/2017] 6 7 List of Figures
Figure 20 Henri Lefebvre. Photo by Sophie Bassouls (Merrifield, 2006) Figure 31 Analytical Criteria. (Author’s Own, 2017)
Figure 21 David Harvey. (Alchetron, 2014) Figure 32 Amager Bakke Ecosystem: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from lecture slide (TEDx Talks, 2011, 16:40) Available at: https://alchetron.com/David-Harvey-602675-W. [Accessed 25/02/2017]
Figure 22 Characteristics of Urban Utopia. (Author’s Own, 2017) Figure 33 Loop City. (BIG, 2017) Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/5242776378/in/photostream/. Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-loop. [Accessed 07/03/2017] [Accessed 27/02/2017]
Figure 23 3D Aerial View of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) Figure 34 3D Visual of Amager Bakke Ski Slope. (BIG, 2017) Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. [Accessed 27/02/2017] [Accessed 27/02/2017]
Figure 24 3D Visual of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) Figure 35 3D Visual of Steam Ring. (BIG, 2017) Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. [Accessed 27/02/2017] [Accessed 27/02/2017]
Figure 25 Bjarke Ingels, Yes Is More. (BIG, 2009:12) Figure 36 Chimney Diagrams. (BIG, 2017) Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. [Accessed 27/02/2017]
Figure 26 Restructuring the Tripolar Model 1: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from (Findeli, 2008:309) Figure 37 Amager Bakke Under Construction. (Klausen, 2016) Available at: http://www.licitationen.dk/article/view/301296/amager_bakke_er_ved_at_na_toppen#. [Accessed 06/02/2017]
Figure 27 Restructuring the Tripolar Model 2: (Author’s Own, 2017) Figure 38 3D Visual of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. [Accessed 27/02/2017]
Figure 28 Hedonistic Sustainability Model: Author’s Own (2017) Image adapted from (Findeli, 2008:311) Figure 39 Comparison Table. (Author’s Own, 2017)
Figure 29 Little Denmark Ecosystem. (BIG, 2017) Figure 40 3D Visualisation of Amager Bakke from the Harbour. (BIG, 2017) Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-ldk. Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. [Accessed 27/02/2017] [Accessed 27/02/2017]
Figure 30 3D Visualisation of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) Figure 41 Characteristics of Urban Utopia. (Author’s Own, 2017) Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects-arc. [Accessed 27/02/2017] 8 9 Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my supervisor, David Grierson for his expert advice and encouragement throughout this dissertation process.
I would also like to show my appreciation to my friends and family for their encouragement and contribution to my emotional well-being throughout the completion of this dissertation. Abstract
Issues surrounding sustainability and the environment have received more attention and discussion in recent years than at any previous time. The emergence of political summits and policies to tackle global environ- mental problems indicates a growing awareness of environmental issues, as well as a positive shift from the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) towards the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). Despite this increase in aware- ness, sustainability as a concept is still often perceived with negative connotations. As Ingels says, people ask, “How much of our existing quality of life do we have to sacrifice in order to be sustainable?” (2011). The reason for this is that popular approaches to sustainability such as the Tripolar Model (otherwise known as the 3P or 3E Model) are driven by reactions to the negative situations regarding earth’s fragile environment. These re- active methods of sustainability are not doing enough to progress mankind any closer to a pragmatic urban utopia.
Hedonistic Sustainability is an approach to sustainable design which provides a new perspective on how buildings can be designed with human experience and enjoyment in mind. This approach could be the next step in pushing sustainable design forward by proactively working towards a pragmatic utopia, rather than by reacting to the current negative situation of global warming. By doing this, it is possible to demonstrate that human lifestyles do not need to be adapted to suit sustainability, rather sustainable design can be adapted to improve human lifestyles.
With reference to the work of Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey as a socio-political critique of utopia, exam- ples of the Tripolar sustainable design method and Hedonistic Sustainability are examined. This is to under- stand and identify how Hedonistic Sustainability offers a more positive contribution to the New Ecological Paradigm through societal-environmental interaction.
Strata SE1 by BFLS and Amager Bakke by Bjarke Ingels Group are respectively used as examples of the Tripolar and Hedonistic Models of sustainability. A comparison of these examples against a critique of urban utopia, suggests that the ambitions of Hedonistic Sustainability offer a more positive contribution to the NEP than cur- rent models of sustainable design theory, and that furthermore we do not have to adapt ourselves to sustain- able design, but rather sustainable design can be adapted to suit and improve our lives.
Figure 01|Bjarke Ingels. (BIG, 2009:34) 11 INTRODUCTION
1412 Figure 02|Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, Speaking at COP 16. (UN Climate Talks, 2010) 1513 Introduction Introduction
“Sustainability is often associated with some puritan concept where you’re not supposed to take long warm showers or take long distance flights for holiday –because it’s not good for the environment. So gradually, you get the idea that sustainable life is less fun than “normal” life!” (Ingels, 2009:34)
Issues surrounding sustainability and environmental awareness are more prevalent in today’s society than at The threat of climate change should not be ignored; however, the question arises as to whether this negative any other time in history. From green architectural practice (Ragheb, 2015) and sustainable business devel- or even scaremongering approach is effective in convincing people to opt for sustainable lifestyles. opment (James, 2016) to the emergence of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC, 2014), and its annual Conference of Parties (COP) events. Twenty-two COP events have been held The author proposes that instead of reacting to the negative environmental situation, sustainability should be around the world over the past 26 years, apparently without significant achievement: focused on the positive goal of developing urban utopias which are pragmatic and improve the quality and enjoyment of human life. Hedonistic Sustainability, the latest variation of sustainable design theory, provides “…11 December [2015], when the Paris COP 21 officially ends, will mark to the day the 25th anniversary of the a new perspective on designing buildings and urban environments with an increased focus on human expe- start of these negotiations. Let that fact sink in: we have now been talking about an international agreement rience and enjoyment compared to other models of sustainability. This approach proactively works towards for a quarter of a century. We have no agreement. And there is none in sight. One has to wonder if all the hot the goal of a pragmatic utopia. By doing this, it is possible to demonstrate that human lifestyles do not need air that has been generated by all this talk was worth the carbon cost of all our globe-trotting to these COPs.” to be adapted to suit sustainability, rather sustainable design can be adapted to improve human lifestyles. (Najam, 2015)
While the responsibility for sustainability does not rest solely on the shoulders of architects and designers, is The aim of this research is to define the term ‘Hedonistic Sustainability’ and identify how it offers a more posi- there a way for the architectural profession to improve upon current approaches to sustainability? Sustain- tive contribution to the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) than current models of sustainable design theory, by ability, for the most part, has been a response to the negative situation of climate change we find ourselves creating architecture that produces a positive impact on human lives through societal-environmental inter- experiencing and as a result, it is often perceived with negativity and the belief that in order to be sustainable, actions. The author intends to demonstrate how sustainable design can be tailored to meet the needs of and one must sacrifice quality of life (Ingels, 2011). This negativity, though unintentional, comes as part of the focus improve human life, getting us away from the mindset of “How much of our existing quality of life do we have on everything that has gone and is still going wrong with the environment on a planetary scale (Figure 03). to sacrifice in order to be sustainable?” (Ingels, 2011)
16 Figure 03|Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscars Acceptance Speech, 2017. 17 Research Method Research Method
The author will use a deductive approach to researching the chosen topic. The hypothesis has been stated The primary method of investigation for this dissertation will be the analysis and study of literature on the that Hedonistic Sustainability can provide a more positive contribution to the NEP than current models of existing Tripolar Model (otherwise known as 3P or 3E model), as well as the adaptation of that model into He- sustainable design theory and that furthermore, we do not have to adapt ourselves to sustainable design, donistic Sustainability and the idea of a pragmatic utopia. Case studies on both built and conceptual works but rather sustainable design can be adapted to suit and improve our lives. The research that follows will be will provide examples of current sustainable design and Hedonistic Sustainability, supplying an analysis on the a strategy of case studies and analysis of sustainable design theories compared against the ideas of utopia issues and merits of both models. Beyond reading and reviewing literature within the field of sustainability, provided by Lefebvre and Harvey to test the author’s hypothesis. researching the works of two political and sociological theorists will inform the author’s study surrounding the idea of utopia and what a pragmatic utopia looks like. It is the author’s intent to explore and review the work of David Harvey and Henri Lefebvre, both writers and philosophers. The intent is to examine Harvey’s work on Lefebvre’s idea of ‘right to the city’, to understand how their ideas inform a critique of urban utopia. Through close inspection, it is the hope of the author to identify how these socio-political ideologies might form the basis of the Hedonistic Sustainability movement, and its manifesto for producing urban environments which exist as a middle ground between (unrealistic) avant-garde idealism and capitalist pragmatism. Providing a pragmatic utopianism in which our quality of life is part of and improved by a productive and profitable urban ecosystem. In providing a critique of pragmatic utopia, it will be possible to discern how Hedonistic Sustaina- Figure 04|Diagram of Deductive Research, 2017. bility offers a more positive contribution to the NEP than the current Tripolar Model.
The research will be structured as a journey from where we are (current models of sustainability) to where Analytical criteria are required for the proposed observation and testing within the deductive research ap- we want to be (pragmatic utopia) and how we get there (Hedonistic Sustainability). proach. These criteria will be employed in each case study and in the socio-political critique of urban utopia. This allows for the outcomes of the case studies to be measured against the critique of urban utopia, and confirm or reject the hypothesis that Hedonistic Sustainability offers a more positive contribution to the NEP. The analytical criteria, which are defined in each chapter, fall under the headings of Ecology, Economics and Equity.
Figure 05|Writing Structure. 2017.
18 19 Research Method Research Method
The research comprises the following chapters: Hedonistic Sustainability (How we get there)
The Tripolar Model of Sustainability (Where We Are) Defining Hedonistic Sustainability as a restructuring of the Tripolar Model (Ecolomy - a hybrid of ecology and A summary of the Tripolar Model and an investigation economy – Collective Equity and Human Creativity) into the issues surrounding the three aspects of the and explaining the core ideas that lie behind it, using model: Ecology, Economics and Equity. A case study is the critique of the Tripolar sustainable design model as also undertaken within this chapter, demonstrating the the starting point and the critique of a pragmatic ur- Tripolar Model in a design capacity and critiquing the ban utopia as the eventual goal. BIG’s Amager Bakke failures of 2010 Carbuncle Cup Winner Strata SE1 by Waste-to-Energy Plant will be used as a case study of BFLS; a sustainable design which has caused negative Hedonistic Sustainability and its potential to change reactions from the public. societal-environmental interaction and positively af- fect the NEP.
Pragmatic Utopia (Where We Want To Be) Figure 06|Strata SE1 by BFLS. (urban75, 2011) Discussion Figure 07|3D Visual of Amager Bakke by BIG. (Dezeen, 2013)
In this chapter, the author attempts to define the term ‘pragmatic utopia’. The analytical criteria used in The intent of the author is to compare each case study to the outcomes from the critique of urban utopia, the case studies are employed here to provide a socio-political critique of urban utopia by examining both discussing how Hedonistic Sustainability might place us closer to a pragmatic utopia, by changing people’s the ideas of Henri Lefebvre and the work of David Harvey. The pragmatic aspect of such a utopia will also negative perceptions of sustainability to being positive. be explored in relation to Bjarke Ingels ideas of Hedonistic Sustainability. By creating this critique within the framework of the analytical criteria, the outcomes of the case studies can be compared against the idea Conclusion of a pragmatic utopia. This allows for the determination of whether Hedonistic Sustainability is better able to achieve a pragmatic utopia than the current Tripolar Model. Summarising the findings of the research and identifying the limitations of the study and scope for further research.
20 21 [ Chapter One|Where We Are ] THE TRIPOLAR MODEL OF SUSTAINABILITY
20 Figure 08|View from Strata SE1 by BFLS. Photo by Will Pryce. (ArchDaily, 2010) 21 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
The Tripolar Model is currently one of the most prominent approaches to sustainable design and develop- ment. This chapter introduces and investigates issues surrounding the three comprising aspects of the mod- el: Ecology, Economics and Equity. The Strata SE1 residential tower by BFLS in London is used as a case study within this chapter, demonstrating the Tripolar Model in a design capacity and critiquing a building which promised sustainable, affordable living, but which has actually caused negative reactions from the public and is accused of not living up to its goals (Martin, 2010).
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (WCED, 1987:41)
The Tripolar Model is a model of sustainable development used across the board for sustainable projects, in- cluding sustainable design. Sometimes referred to as the ‘3 E model’ or ‘3 P model’, the basis for this method of sustainable development is founded on three pillars or core ideas: Ecology or Environment (Planet), Eco- nomics (Profit) and Equity or Social Equity (People). These three aspects will be summarised in this chapter in order to provide a better understanding of the model and the issues surrounding it.
The basic concept of the Tripolar Model first materialised in a document called Our Common Future, pro- duced by the World Commission on Environment and Development, otherwise known as the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). The aim of the report was to provide “A global agenda for change” (Brundtland, from WCED, 1987:5), proposing long-term plans for countries around the world to enact sustainable develop- ment. This was the first attempt to rationalise the exceedingly complex concept of sustainable development into a simple model which would clearly express its core aspects. These aspects were to be later refined and referred to as the Triple Bottom Line by John Elkington in 1994 (Elkington, 2004). The following explanation of the Tripolar Model and its components finds its basis mostly in the work of John Elkington, alongside the work of others.
22 Figure 09|Strata SE1 by BFLS. Photo by Will Pryce. (ArchDaily, 2010) 25 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
The 3 E’s The 3 E’s and variations thereof are widely used in sustainable projects (James, 2016). They are intended to exist without hierarchy (Moir et al., 2012) but are seen as equal aspirations in the practice of sustainability. The definitions for the 3 E’s are as follows:
• Ecology (Environment) – Our relationship the environment. • Economics – Our production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. • Social Equity – Otherwise labelled Social or Society, our society and culture.
Ecology
In the context of design, sustainable projects must increase public awareness of environmental issues while attempting to effectively preserve nature through the use of energy efficient design and sustainably sourced materials. It is important to consider environmental issues within a historical context to grasp the notion of ecology within the Tripolar Model. Developed by author and entrepreneur John Elkington, this graph (Figure 10) depicts environmental events from 1961 to 2001 as waves of public opinion. Three great waves of public pressure shaped the environmental agenda between 1961 and 2001 (Elkington, 2004). Each wave caused the roles and responsibilities of governments to adapt and evolve as the public showed greater interest in the environment. It is obvious from the graph that following each peak of public interest there is a trough of lowered public concern, however, the trend in the graph is positive, showing that overall public concerns are higher than they ever have been regarding the environment.
“Wave 1 brought an understanding that environmental impacts and natural resource demands have to be limited, resulting in an initial outpouring of environmental legislation. The business response was defensive, focusing on compliance, at best.
Wave 2 brought a wider realisation that new kinds of production technologies and new kinds of products are needed, culminating in the insight that development processes have to become sustainable – and a sense that business would often have to take the lead. The business response began to be more competitive.
Wave 3 focuses on the growing recognition that sustainable development will require profound changes in the governance of corporations and in the whole process of globalisation, putting a renewed focus on gov- ernment and on civil society. Now, in addition to the compliance and competitive dimensions, the business response will need to focus on market creation.” (Elkington, 2004:7)
Elkington has yet to update the graph, but he has since made reference to a “Sustainability Wave” which started in 2005 and peaked in 2012 (James, 2016).
26 Figure 10|Three Pressure Waves by (Elkington, 2004) 27 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Economics Corporate Locusts
Economics play a large part in sustainable design. Architects and designers need to effectively work with lo- The first type of corporation referred to by Elkington is the corporate locust. These are corporations which, just cal economies. To allow this to take place, however, an understanding of businesses and corporations within like locusts, act as a force of destruction on social and environmental value. Some of the characteristics of the context of the Tripolar sustainability model must be gained. Elkington’s proposal for dealing with the econ- such corporations are defined as: destructive to social and natural capital; consuming resources at an un- omy aspect of the Tripolar Model is based on a theory of his own devising, entitled ‘The Chrysalis Economy’ sustainable rate and being unwilling or unable to see the negative effects of their system. These corporations (Elkington, 2001). In his book, ‘The Chrysalis Economy’, Elkington postulates that for a sustainable economy to require strict regulatory enforcement from the government and environmental protection agencies (Elking- emerge, there must be an in-tense technological, social, political and economic metamorphosis (Elkington, ton, 2004). As the above table explains, locust corporations have the highest degenerative impact of all four 2001). His proposal outlines four types of corporations, the effects they have on the environment and the groups. necessary steps to transform them into sustainable businesses. Elkington likens these four types of corporations to locusts, caterpillars, butterflies and honeybees; as a means of rating their capacity for de-generation or Corporate Caterpillars regeneration of the environment. Corporate caterpillars are the second type of corporation. Though they are less impactful than the corpo- rate locust, caterpillars are nonetheless a degenerative force in economics. Corporate caterpillars have a tendency to impact on a localised scale with the following characteristics: unsustainable use of resources; operate using a business model that will be unsustainable in the context of a higher world population but has the potential to become more sustainable with the right support and funding provided by governments (Elkington, 2004).
Corporate Butterflies
The majority of corporate butterflies are comparatively small according to Elkington but are often of a high profile. “Think Ben & Jerry’s, the Body Shop and Patagonia” (Elkington, 2004:12). Corporate butterflies are companies which: practice a sustainable business model; have disproportionate influence over consumer priorities given their small scale and whose agendas are aligned with corporate social responsibility and sus- tainable development (Elkington, 2004).
Corporate Honeybees
The last type of corporation is the high impact, regenerative corporate honeybee. According to Elkington their impact in terms of economics, environment and society are the most sustainable of any type of cor- poration. Their characteristics are as follows: a sustainable business model based on innovation; sustainable production of natural, social and economic capital; ethics based business principles and the capacity to Figure 11|Corporate Characteristics (Elkington, 2004:11) positively influence the other three types of corporation (Elkington, 2004)
28 29 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Social Equity
Social equity can be considered as the fair treatment and equal distribution of • Doctor/GP surgery resources within the community, at both a local and global scale (Dempsey • Post office et al., 2009) as well as preparation for the needs of future generations (WCED, • Chemist 1987). Social equity is manifested in various ways which all pertain to the idea • Supermarket of equality. In an urban context, an equitable society is one which prevents • Bank/building society social and environmental exclusion (such as racism or ageism) to any indi- • Corner shop vidual within the community (Dempsey et al., 2009). In a wider geographical • Primary school sense, social inequity is evident in areas of deprivation and lower standards • Restaurant/café/takeaway of living. Social equity in this context is achieved by governmental schemes • Pub which ensure that poorer areas get their fair share of resources that are re- • Library quired for growth and access to necessary public services (WCED, 1987). One • Sports/recreation facility of the most fundamental measures of social equity is accessibility (Dempsey • Community centre et al., 2009). The list to the right includes services and facilities of everyday life • Facility for children to which people need equitable access on a local scale. • Public open/green space. (Dempsey et al., 2009:293)
It is important to note that while not all of the items on Dempsey’s list can be considered essential, they are services that are used by people on a regular or at least semi-regular basis. Hospitals and secondary schools are not on the list as they cover larger catchment areas as opposed to local areas (Dempsey et al., 2009). Within the context of sustainable design, it is the role of architects to provide suitable accessibility in the built Figure 12|Venn Diagram of Sustainability. (Moir et al., 2004:1480) Figure 13|Tripolar Model Diagram. (Author’s Own, 2017) environment, as well ensuring that their designs contribute to allowing for communities to interact and work together. Issues Surrounding the Tripolar Model The Sustainability Diagram The Venn diagram shown above makes the Tripolar Model seem simple, palatable and far easier to under- stand and is a very common method of representing the model, however herein lies the largest issue: the These three aspects of the ecology, economics and equity are intended to be effectively dealt with by any simplicity of the diagram. Misleading at best, this oversimplification could lead to underestimation of the sig- project aspiring to be sustainable. Furthermore, these three aspects are supposed to be seen as forces which nificant task that is achieving sustainability. While all aspects of the model are meant to be addressed by any drive the Tripolar Model as described by Findeli (2008): the force of ecology (respecting the environment and sustainable project, the definition and meaning of each aspect are entirely open to interpretation by who- preserving the planet for future generations); the force of economics (producing more); the force of social ever is undertaking the project. “The abstract character of the terminology makes it almost impossible to find equity (fighting poverty and distributing resources fairly). Within this section of the chapter, the relationship a consensus on what exactly is meant by ‘society’, ‘environment’ or even ‘economics’” (Findeli, 2008:304). between these three aspects of sustainability is portrayed, examining how these three forces are intended to The author’s own experience in attempting to define the three aspects of sustainability matches Findeli’s work together in any given sustainable project. statement. Researching each aspect revealed that many different definitions exist, often depending on the background of the authors defining them. For instance, someone investigating the Tripolar Model froma Using a model or diagram is a very efficient and useful way of demonstrating and explaining a complex con- business point of view might define the three terms differently to someone examining the effects of the model cept such as sustainability. The most common diagrammatic representation of the Tripolar Model is often a on communities. Worse yet, this ambiguity creates the possibility for deliberate misuse of the Tripolar Model, Venn diagram (Figure 12) displaying three equally sized and spaced circles which represent the three equal which was designed as a pragmatic guide to sustainability, but could be used as a deceitful guise to promote aspects of sustainability (ecology, economics and equity). For this research, the model will be represented any enterprise or project regardless of true intent. “The catchphrase has become evocative and convincing as the three poles (Figure 13) to allow the restructuring of the model in Chapter Three to be easily depicted. enough to justify any enterprise whose aims are closer to political, economic, ecological, or personal ambi- tions than to sustainable developmental constraints” (Findeli, 2008:304). 30 31 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Case Study: Strata SE1 by BFLS Strata SE1, designed by BFLS was the first step in beginning the regeneration of central London’s Elephant and Castle neighbourhood (Pearson, 2010). The challenge set for the design team was to develop a high-rise residential building with a focus on providing sustainable living through energy efficiency (ArchDaily, 2010).
The purpose of this case study will be to examine Strata SE1, which was designed with the Tripolar Model and to determine the project’s success in addressing the three aspects of ecology, economics and equity. This will be done by using the following analytical criteria to measure how well the project has dealt with each of the three aspects:
Ecology:
Environment and Energy Production/Saving How has the design responded to the environment on a wider scale and to its context at a local scale?
Economics:
Production and Capital Has the design been economically successful in terms of how money invested in the project has helped the local economy?
Equity:
Society and User Requirements How does the design deal with the social aspect of sustainability and impact its users? How does it meet their requirements and what is its impact on society in the surrounding area?
30 Figure 14|Strata SE1 Turbine. Photo by Will Pryce. (ArchDaily, 2010) 33 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Ecology - Environment and Energy Production/Saving How has the design responded to the environment on a wider scale and to its context at a local scale?
Strata SE1 employed a sustainability strategy to minimise its impact on the environment by reducing the total energy consumption of the development. The strategy included: integrated wind turbines for on-site renew- able energy generation (NMBCW, 2010); low energy features and design, such as a bespoke high performing facade and the decision to save more than 2000m3 of concrete by using 200mm thick post-tensioned con- crete floor slabs, thereby saving 1800 tonnes of CO2 (ArchDaily, 2010); harvesting and recycling rainwater (NMBCW, 2010). (Figure 15)
The most notorious sustainable design feature is the set of three wind turbines integrated into the structure of the building. With a diameter of nine metres, the turbines are rated at 19kW and were intended to provide 8% of the building’s yearly estimated energy consumption (ArchDaily, 2010). However, this projection was based on the turbines running for a full twenty-four hours per day, which has not been the case (NMBCW, 2010). Despite efforts to acoustically separate the turbines from the apartments below, residents living in the upper floors complained about noise and vibration from the turbines (urban75, 2011), meaning that the turbines are rarely run (martin, 2010). Therefore, the £1.5 million spent on producing and installing the turbines (Insider Lon- don, 2015) has resulted in a much smaller percentage of renewable energy than anticipated.
“A skyscraper is an energy-greedy building form, both in terms of construction, and the power needed to take people to their front doors in a lift. To top one off with some wind turbines is the worst sort of greenwashing.” – Ellis Woodman, Telegraph architecture critic and judge on the 2010 Carbuncle Cup panel. (Moore, 2010)
Strata SE1 was certainly ambitious in its attempt to effectively deal with the ecology aspect of the Tripolar Model but ultimately was unable to reach all its goals. Most crucially it failed in the bold move of its wind turbines as an icon of sustainability. Rather than symbolising sustainability and a hope for a better future, the static turbines atop this tower are a failure.
“But are they just a tokenistic green gimmick? Or will they propel us towards a new urban architecture, one that's cinematically thrilling and ecologically sound?” (Glancey, 2010)
34 Figure 15|Diagram of Strata SE1. (ArchDaily, 2010) 35 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Economics – Production and Capital Has the design been economically successful in terms of how money invested in the project has helped the local economy?
The Elephant and Castle regeneration scheme was granted £1.5 billion (Pearson, 2010) after being identified as one of the Mayor of London’s Energy Action Areas. Part of this investment was the £113.5 million Strata SE1 residential tower which would provide 408 high-quality apartments for more than 1,000 residents (NMBCW, 2010). Eventually, Strata SE1 will be joined by two other residential towers and a group of low-rise develop- ments (Pearson, 2010).
Despite the huge investment of the building, with only a quarter of the apartments actually being dedicated affordable housing (ArchDaily, 2010), it is private investors who bought up the majority of the apartments that are benefiting the most from Strata SE1, with comparatively little benefit to the community.
One major failure in terms of investment is the installation of the wind turbines at the top of the tower. £1.5 million was spent on these great symbols of sustainability that cannot be used because of noise and vibra- tion (Insider London, 2015). The fact that the turbines are not being used as intended has meant that far less money is being saved on energy than originally proposed. Altogether Strata SE1 is not particularly successful in an economical sense. Large amounts of money were wasted, through the failed turbines, and little of the economic benefits of new property were actually seen by less well-off residents of the surrounding area.
34 Figure 16|Strata SE1 Turbines. (ArchDaily, 2010) 37 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Equity - Society and User Requirements How does the design deal with the social aspect of sustainability and impact its users? How does it meet their requirements and what is its impact on society in the surrounding area?
Strata SE1’s sustainability strategy makes an effort to tackle the social aspect of the Tripolar Model. Strata SE1 offers 408 apartments in the form of market and affordable housing (ArchDaily, 2010). As the first move in the regeneration of Elephant and Castle, Strata SE1 had to have an iconic form and bold expression in order to become a landmark and serve as a catalyst for the ongoing improvement of the area (ArchDaily, 2010). However, it seems as if the project has turned into an opportunity for capitalistic investors as opposed to a catalyst for social regeneration. The scheme attempts to provide housing for people of varying wealth and socio-economic class with a quarter of the apartments being affordable housing, but only 20 apartments having been reserved for residents of Heygate, a nearby estate (ArchDaily, 2010). Many of Strata’s apart- ments were bought off-plan by investors before its construction had even begun (Glancey, 2010). “This is a shame: the whole idea of the tower is that it should be a guiding light for new inner-city residential develop- ment. This is meant to be a home for local people, not a machine for property market profiteering.” (Glancey, 2010). Every apartment boasts floor-to-ceiling windows, leaving no external indication as to hierarchy of social standing within the building’s organisation, however, a hierarchy of wealth does in fact exist. Residents of nearby council estates aren’t, in fact, being housed within the residential tower but are instead being housed in a three-storey pavilion adjacent to the tower (Glancey, 2010).
“…it’s more like an old-fashioned transatlantic liner with its complement of first-, second- and third-class pas- sengers.” (Glancey, 2010)
Furthermore, the building seemingly turns its back on the city and the very area it’s meant to be regenerating. The open, entirely glazed front of the building faces away from the City of London and places its most closed off elevations to Elephant & Castle. Although Strata SE1 attempts to overcome socio-economic differences in its local area, it does not manage to do so effectively.
36 Figure 17|Strata SE1 Affordable Homes. (ArchDaily, 2010) 39 Chapter One|Where We Are The Tripolar Model of Sustainability
Conclusions Strata SE1 was an ambitious undertaking of sustainable design which set out with many hopes and good intentions, especially regarding ecology and social equity, but ultimately failed to meet many of its targets. Most notably it failed in its attempt to become an icon of sustainability. Rather than symbolising sustainability and a hope for a better future, the static turbines atop this tower are a failure economically and ecological- ly, further perpetuating the negative view of sustainability through their near constant state of non-use. The notion of sacrificing to be sustainable (Ingels, 2011), could be articulated in the case of Strata SE1 and its res- idents as “How much noise are we willing to put up with in order to be sustainable?”. Lastly, in terms of social equity, Strata SE1 attempts and fails to effectively overcome socio-economic differences in Elephant and Castle. This could leave less well-off members of the community feeling jaded and being lead to the assump- tion that high-quality sustainable living is only for those who earn more than £60,000 per year (Glancey, 2010).
38 Figure 18|Strata SE1 Turbines Diagram. (ArchDaily, 2010) 41 [ Chapter Two|Where We Are Going ] PRAGMATIC UTOPIA
40 Figure 19|‘Urbanism’, New York City. (Author’s Own, 2016) 41 Chapter Two|Where We Are Going Pragmatic Utopia
In chapter one, the Tripolar Model of sustainability was explained and exemplified, with the case study of Critique of Urban Utopia Strata SE1, as a current method of sustainable design. In this chapter, the author takes a step away from where we are in terms of sustainable design theory, and explores the eventual goal of a pragmatic utopia. It is the author’s intention to provide a critique of urban utopia from the socio-political standpoint of David A definition of the term ‘pragmatic utopia’ is derived firstly through the examination of ‘Right to the City’ (an Harvey’s work on The Right to the City using the same analytical criteria that were identified and utilised in idea proposed by Henri Lefebvre and further explored in the work of David Harvey) with a view to providing a chapter one. The purpose of applying these criteria to his work is to break it down into outcomes which form socio-political critique of urban utopia and why it should be our goal. The analytical criteria used in the case a list of what urban utopia should look like according to Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey. These outcomes studies are employed here to provide a socio-political critique of urban utopia to which the outcomes of the can be used as a comparison to the case studies to case studies can be compared. The pragmatic aspect of such a utopia will also be explored in relation to determine if Hedonistic Sustainability does offer a Bjarke Ingels ideas of Hedonistic Sustainability. more positive contribution to the NEP, and move us closer to an urban utopia as defined by Lefebvre and Harvey. Henri Lefebvre (Figure 20) Henri Lefebvre was a French Marxist philosopher and sociologist born in 1901 who dedicated his life to philos- Human rights have become a political and ethi- ophy (Elden, 2004). This autobiographical summary of his own life from Elden (2004) provides a very personal cal focus in recent decades and this can be seen and succinct description of Lefebvre and his beliefs: through the various movements that have occurred such as civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT and minor- ”Born in 1901, of a family belonging to the middle class. A strongly religious (Catholic) education. Youth tor- ities rights (Harvey, 2013). In Harvey’s essay, he ex- mented, rebellious, anarchistic. Found balance around his thirtieth year in and through Marxism. Has not fol- plores the idea that our right to shape our lives and lowed a regular career, either University or otherwise. Currently in charge of research in the Centre National our urban conditions, the right to the city, is “one of de la Recherche Scientifique, sociology section. Sees philosophy as a critical conscience on real life. Places the most precious yet most neglected of our human theatre above philosophy (as he conceives it, not as it is!) Has only accomplished a small part of the pro- rights.” (Harvey, 2013:4). It is important to note that Harvey fundamentally agrees with the three pillars of gramme of life and work that he has planned. Doesn’t hope to arrive at the end.” Figure 20|Henri Lefebvre. Photo by Sophie Bassouls (Merrifield, 2006) (Lefebvre, cited in Elden 2004) the Tripolar Model but suggests six key aspects (DAC, 2014) which fit within the model that characterise an David Harvey (Figure 21) urban utopia rooted in the idea of the right to the city, in which cities, societies and businesses are sus- David Harvey is a Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at The Graduate Center, City Uni- tainable. versity of New York (Harvey, 2012). Harvey has been a prominent author and lecturer in his time. Beginning as Marxist geographer before exploring issues of urbanisation and social justice in his writings.
In 1968, an essay entitled The Right to the City was written by Henri Lefebvre (Harvey, 2013). This essay ex- pressed Lefebvre’s idea of the right to the city as both a cry and demand for group or individual access to urban liberties (Harvey, 2013). The cry, according to Harvey, was a response to the experiential pain of mo- notonous day-to-day life in the city and the demand was, in turn, a response to the cry, calling for people to create a new, meaningful and playful urban life (2013). It is Lefebvre’s idea of the right to the city that David Harvey later began to explore and refine in the context of our post 20th-century world.
Figure 21|David Harvey. (Alchetron, 2014)
44 45 Chapter Two|Where We Are Going Pragmatic Utopia
Ecology - Environment and Energy Production/Saving In terms of Economics, social inequalities created by the competitive nature of capitalism (DAC, 2014) would How should the environment be dealt with and responded to in a utopian urban condition? be overcome and new production systems which are free of capitalist ambitions would have replaced cur- rent capital driven production. The first point Harvey makes is that we should view the city as a living ecological system and as such, cities are a part of the natural world which grows ever more dominant (DAC, 2014). This implies that beyond the Equity - Society and User Requirements importance of social equity and providing a certain quality of life to humans within the urban condition, it is What effect should a utopian urban condition have on individuals and society as a whole in terms of quality our responsibility to ensure that the quality of the greater ecological condition on which we depend is given of life and access to urban resources? equal attention. It is our place as caretakers to protect nature and to work with nature. Harvey’s final two points are closely linked within the aspect of social equity. Our quality of life and our day-to- Secondly, Harvey states that technology is critical to the ecology of cities (DAC, 2014). What he means by day experiences are major factors in the shaping of our urban environments (DAC, 2014) and our experiences this is that the development and implementation of sustainable technologies in our cities is crucial to making of our urban environments create mental conceptions of how the world should be, says Harvey (DAC, 2014). them ecologically sound. Older, unsustainable and fossil-based technologies used in our everyday lives, like It is our job as designers to shift people’s perspectives towards sustainability using architecture to provide new transport, household appliances and water provision, need to be replaced with greener, eco-friendly tech- examples of urban life and new urban experiences, which explore improved ways to interact with each other nologies. and with nature. By doing this, it is possible to make a positive contribution to the NEP by demonstrating that quality of life does not need to be sacrificed for sustainability. Sustainable design can be adapted to improve In terms of ecology, an urban utopia would treat cities as living ecosystems which embrace new, sustainable human lifestyles and experiences within the urban environment. technologies in an effort to exist in harmony with the environment by respecting and preserving all life on earth. In an urban utopia, the urban environment is defined by and designed around the equal quality of life and improved urban experiences. The urban utopia should encourage social interaction, increase the quality of Economics – Production and Capital life and promote positive attitudes towards sustainability and the NEP. How does economics fit into an urban utopia and how does capitalism affect the goal of an urban utopia? Pragmatic Utopia Harvey’s third and fourth points are in regards to social relations, division of labour and the organisation of pro- duction systems and their impact on division of labour (DAC, 2014). These points are very closely linked with In this section of the chapter, the idea of a pragmatic utopia is considered, asking the question: How can an ideas of social equity, which is indicative of how sustainability is achieved, working simultaneously on each idealistic utopia be made viable in a world of capitalist pragmatism? aspect rather than focusing on any particular one. This is where Bjarke Ingels’ ideas of Hedonistic Sustainability come into play. Ingles suggests that architecture is Firstly, social relations and division of labour affect our relation to nature (DAC, 2014). Over the past century typically divided into two unfertile extremes: eccentric curiosities born of avant-garde utopianism and boring urbanisation has been driven by capitalist growth, but the competitive nature of capitalism, which is averse boxes of capitalist pragmatism (BIG, 2009). To operate in the fertile overlap between the two fronts is to prac- to sustainable practices, has given rise to social inequalities in terms of race and gender for example (DAC, tice pragmatic utopian architecture (BIG, 2009). The Danish architect proposes that it will only be possible 2014). These inequalities are part of our current social relation but by using sustainable architecture to form for ecological initiatives to flourish if they are able to perform as viable economic models and that likewise, new urban experiences, new social relations and relations to nature can be created. businesses that deplete natural resources are not practical models for long-term growth (BIG, 2009). As such, both Ingels (2009) and Findeli (2008) propose a strategy of merging economy and ecology as part of a new Secondly, how we organise our production systems has an impact on the division of labour (DAC, 2014). Polit- model of sustainability to generate a practical way towards urban utopia. Therefore, the pragmatism of a ical economic systems which have capitalist interests at heart are currently in place, and these put competi- ‘pragmatic utopia’ lies in the practicality of the methods used to obtain an urban utopia. tion and generation of capital above everything else. This means that current production systems are geared towards the generation of capital, making them inefficient for producing sustainable urban environments. New production systems need to be put in place to create a more sustainable form of urbanisation than the capitalist driven urbanisation of the past century (Harvey, 2013).
46 47 Chapter Two|Where We Are Going Pragmatic Utopia
Conclusions Moving forward into an analysis of Hedonistic Sustainability, it should now be clear that these six aspects pre- sented by David Harvey characterise the desires and aspirations of an urban utopia in which cities, societies and businesses are sustainable (DAC, 2014). By applying the same analytical criteria that was used in the Strata SE1 case study (which will also be used in the Amager Bakke case study) to David Harvey’s work on the idea of right to the city, a comparison can be made between the two models of sustainability (Tripolar and Hedonistic) and the goal of a pragmatic utopia.
In terms of ecology, cities should be treated as living ecosystems which embrace new, sustainable technolo- gies to peacefully coexist with the environment by respecting and preserving all life on earth.
In terms of economics, social inequalities created by the competitive nature of capitalism (DAC, 2014) would be overcome and new production systems which are free of capitalist ambitions would be put in place. Thus, replacing current capital driven production and positively affecting the environment through the cessation of destructive urbanisation.
In terms of equity, the city should be designed around the quality of life and improved urban experiences. The urban utopia should encourage social interaction, increase the quality of life and promote positive attitudes to sustainability and the NEP.
“What matters here, is how these six elements co-evolve over time, when change occurs in one of the ele- ments it does not take very long before all of the other elements begin to shift too. The city should be seen, therefore, as an ensemble of practices across all these dimensions. The prospects for making and re-making the city in a different image and according to a different logic are omnipresent. We need to seize these pros- pects in order to transform the city to our heart’s desire.” (Harvey, cited in DAC 2004)
The next step will be to examine how Hedonistic Sustainability might offer a more positive contribution to the NEP by comparing it to this critique of pragmatic utopia, and identifying whether a model of Hedonistic Sus- tainability might be a means to achieving pragmatic urban utopia.
46 Figure 22|Characteristics of Urban Utopia. (Author’s Own, 2017) 49 [ Chapter Three|How We Get There ] HEDONISTIC SUSTAINABILITY
48 Figure 23| 3D Aerial View of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) 49 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
In this final chapter, Hedonistic Sustainability is defined through a restructuring of the Tripolar model (Ecolomy - a hybrid of ecology and economy – Collective Equity and Human Creativity) as proposed by Alain Findeli (2008) and Bjarke Ingels (2009). This chapter uses the critique of the Tripolar sustainable design model in chap- ter one as the starting point for defining Hedonistic Sustainability. BIG’s Amager Bakke Waste-to-Energy Plant will be used as a case study of Hedonistic Sustainability and its potential to change societal-environmental interaction and positively affect the NEP.
50 Figure 24|3D Visual of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) 53 Hedonistic Sustainability
Restructuring the Tripolar Model The Tripolar Model, that was analysed in chapter one, forms the starting point for the Hedonistic Model of sustainability as proposed by Bjarke Ingels. Hedonistic Sustainability is a restructuring of the Tripolar Model, turning the three E’s of Ecology, Economics and Equity into Ecolomy - a hybrid of ecology and economy (BIG, 2009), Collective Equity and Human Creativity (Findeli, 2008). The ability of this restructured model to be more productive and offer a more positive contribution to the NEP will be evaluated within the final discussion.
Findeli proposes that one of the major problems with the Tripolar Model is the separation of the ecological pole from the economic pole (2008). Ecology and economics share much of the same principles and logics in terms of dealing with resources, production and consumption, therefore the task of managing our impact on the environment should not be dealt with solely under the umbrella of the ecological pole, but should be shared between the two (Findeli, 2008). Bjarke Ingels postulates that ecological initiatives are only able to flourish if they are able to perform as viable economic models and that likewise, any business models which deplete the earth’s natural resources are not practical models for sustained growth in the long run (BIG, 2009). Here both Findeli (2008) and Bjarke Ingels (2009) agree that the next logical step forward in the evolution of sustainability is to merge ecology and economy into one pole – Ecolomy. (Figures 26 &27)
Bjarke Ingels Group Danish architecture practice, Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), founded by Bjarke Ingels in 2005 operates under an intriguing philosophy which encompasses concepts such as pragmatic utopianism and Hedonistic Sustainability (BIG, 2017). Ingles suggests that historically, archi- tecture has typically been divided into two unfertile extremes: eccentric curiosities born of avant-garde utopianism and boring boxes of capitalist pragmatism (BIG, 2009). BIG believe that pragmatic utopian architecture occurs when architects work within the fertile overlap between the two fronts (BIG, 2009).
Figure 26|Restructuring the Tripolar Model 1 (Findeli, 2008:309) Figure 27|Restructuring the Tripolar Model 2 (Author’s Own, 2017)
52 Figure 25|Bjarke Ingels, Yes Is More. (BIG, 2009:12) 55 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
After the amalgamation of the ecological and economic poles into a single “ecolomical” pole, what remains Hedonistic Sustainability, therefore, is not an entirely new method of sustainable design, rather, it is an evolu- now is a bipolar model in which one pole deals with aspects of both ecology and economics and one that tion of the Tripolar Model which expands the role of the architect into something much greater. In the words deals with the social aspect of sustainability. This aspect of social equity is subject to the most varying interpre- of Bjarke Ingels, architects become more than designers of buildings, but designers of ecosystems (TEDx Talks, tations of any of the original three poles (Findeli, 2008), and without proper definition, it is difficult for designers 2011). These should be systems of ecology and economy (Fig. 14) in which we control how people and re- to effectively address the social aspect of sustainability. Findeli states that the social dimension needs to be sources move through cities and buildings, turning our urban environment into perpetual motion engines of further scrutinised and broken down (2008), to allow for a better understanding of the social role in sustainable sustainability (TEDx Talks, 2011). design and development. As expressed within Lefebvre’s idea of the right to the city (Harvey, 2013), it is both an individual and a collective right and responsibility to enact positive change in our urban environments. A This model of sustainability provides a new perspective on designing buildings and urban environments, by collective movement, however, starts with the movement of forward-thinking and innovative individuals. As integrating our patterns of consumption into the environments we live in (TEDx Talks, 2011), with an increased such, Findeli (2008) states that the pole regarding the social aspect of sustainability should be divided into two focus on human experience and enjoyment compared to the Tripolar Model. poles of collective equity and human creativity (Figure 28). Collective equity being the social impact and hu- man creativity being, the innovative driving force behind the model which seeks to improve and experiment.
56 Figure 28|Hedonistic Sustainability Model (Findeli, 2008:311) Figure 29|Little Denmark Ecosystem. (BIG, 2017) 57 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
Case Study: Amager Bakke by BIG Amager Bakke, nicknamed Copenhill, is a Waste-to-Energy Plant in Copenhagen designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). Copenhagen is a very ecologically progressive city in terms of its waste and energy manage- ment: just 4% of waste is landfilled, 42% is recycled and the remaining 54% is converted from waste to energy (TEDx Talks, 2011). Amager Bakke is one of these waste-to-energy plants that provides energy for Copenha- gen and it will be both the largest and tallest building in Copenhagen (TEDx Talks, 2011).
BIG’s Amager Bakke Waste-to-Energy Plant will be used as an example of Hedonistic Sustainability and its po- tential to change societal-environmental interaction and how we perceive sustainability. The purpose of this case study will be to examine a sustainable building designed with the Hedonistic Sustainability model and to determine the project’s success in addressing the three aspects of ecolomy, collective equity and human creativity.
As the model of Hedonistic Sustainability is based on a variation of the Tripolar Model, it is necessary to rear- range the analytical criteria from the previous case study into the following structure (Figure 31) of Ecology and Economics under the heading of Ecolomy, and Collective Equity and Human Creativity under the head- ing of Equity. This is to allow for effective comparison between the Tripolar Model, the critique of urban utopia and the Hedonistic Sustainability model in the discussion further on.
56 Figure 30|3D Visualisation of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) Figure 31|Analytical Criteria. (Author’s Own, 2017) 59 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
Ecolomy Ecology - Environment and Energy Production/Saving How has the design responded to the environment on a wider scale and to its context at a local scale?
The response of Amager Bakke to the environment and especially to its local environment is innovative and iconic. Intended to be the cleanest waste to energy plant in the world (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015), Am- ager Bakke works as its own ecosystem as well as forming an ecosystem with the city of Copenhagen (Figure 32). This is the realisation of Bjarke Ingels proposed evolution of architects into designers of ecosystems (TEDx Talks, 2011) and most likely a precedent for not only future architects but contemporary architects as well.
At an architectural scale, Amager Bakke acts as an ecosystem through its various energy saving techniques. (Figure 32)
At an urban scale, Amager Bakke is part of Copenhagen’s existing waste-to-energy ecosystem. District heat- ing accounts for 97% of Copenhagen’s heating needs (TEDx Talks, 2011) and by giving plants like Amag- er Bakke their waste, people get heating and electricity in return. According to Babcock & Wilcox Vølund (2015), renewable energy technology designers and suppliers who are collaborating with BIG, Amager Bakke is capable of processing 400,000 tonnes of waste per year. That amount of waste per year will result in:
• 99% energy efficiency. • District heating for 160,000 households. • Electricity for 62,500 households. • 100 million litres of spare water recovered through flue gas condensation. • 90% reuse of metals from waste amounting to 10,000 tonnes of metal a year. • Rainwater harvesting is used for irrigation of façade planters as well as any water needs other than • 100,000 tonnes of bottom ash reused as road material which saves large amounts of gravel. drinking water. (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015) • Excess energy from the waste firing process goes to heating and electricity in the building. • The building makes use of stack ventilation in the main atrium space to save on mechanical ventilation. • The building envelope is made up of a series of interlocking planters which act as a natural filter to heat and light from the sun. These planters also provide the building with a green exterior in the summer months as a symbol of its environmental friendliness. • In the summer months, no snow is needed for the ski slope, rainwater is passed through humidifiers and blown through the surface of the slope, making it frictionless and allowing regular skiing equipment to be used on it. 58 Figure 32|Amager Bakke Ecosystem (TEDx Talks, 2011, 16:40) 61 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
Ecolomy Economics - Production and Capital Has the design been economically successful in terms of how money invested in the project has helped the local economy?
Amager Bakke should be economically successful for many of the reasons that it is ecologically sustainable. The plant is designed to be economically sustainable at an architectural scale by using rainwater harvest- With a high-speed metropolitan metro, the ing, natural ventilation and excess energy from the waste firing process to save money on irrigation, venti- maximum travel time on the ring would be 40min. lation, heating and lighting (TEDx Talks, 2011). This new plant will also cost less to maintain than the previous waste-to-energy plant that Amager Bakke is replacing (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015).
At an urban scale, being a part of an ecosystem with the city and providing 99% energy production efficiency (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015), Amager Bakke is saving money on energy production and preventing the city from paying fuel costs (which would be required with coal or gas-powered plants) and reducing “tipping fees” for landfilling waste (TEDx Talks, 2011). Another way the plant proves economically beneficial to the city is the large amount of ash which is produced as a by-product of the waste firing process. This ash can be used as road material, thereby saving money on the purchasing of gravel (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015).
The total price of the plant is around 3.5 billion Danish kroner (approx. £400 million) according to Babcock & Wilcox Vølund (2015). This is a worthwhile investment for the city of Copenhagen. For that price, the city is not only receiving a new, efficient waste-to-energy plant which serves as an icon of renewable energy, but it is also gaining a new landmark which tourists will flock to see.
It is worth mentioning that Amager Bakke is the first project of the loop city (Figure 33), a scheme which aims to join all the most prosperous businesses in the region of Denmark and Sweden using a light rail combined with energy exchange, waste management and water treatment strategies (BIG, 2017).
60 Figure 33|Loop City. (BIG, 2017) 63 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
Equity Collective Equity - Society and User Requirements How does the design deal with the social aspect of sustainability and impact its users? How does it meet their requirements and what is its impact on society in the surrounding area?
Amager Bakke is set to become an integral part of Copenhagen’s urban environment. Located near a new residential area, the opera and the Queen’s Palace (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015), Amager Bakke will become a new public attraction for locals and tourists alike. BIG have made Amager Bakke a place for both social and educational activities, as well as providing a space for one of Copenhagen’s much-loved activi- ties by turning the flat land into a man-made mountain for skiing (TEDx Talks, 2011). Amager Bakke will have a positive effect on the NEP through its contribution to Copenhagen’s society by showing people how attrac- tive sustainability can look and more importantly how fun it can be.
62 Figure 34| 3D Visual of Amager Bakke Ski Slope. (BIG, 2017) 65 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
Equity Human Creativity - Creativity and Innovation How does human creativity and innovation drive the project? How is it inspiring to others?
The innovation and creativity of BIG can be seen in nearly every aspect of Amager Bakke. BIG replicated a Swedish ski slope on the roof and placed the highest climbing wall in the world on one of the elevations (TEDx Talks, 2011). These are moves which greatly enhance the social impact of the plant and change people’s thoughts and opinions on what is usually perceived as an unattractive typology. The most creative and inter- esting move, however, is the chimney which releases CO2 steam rings, visually depicting CO2 emissions and giving them shape and scale, helping to raise environmental awareness. (Fig First prototype of steam ring generator.)
“On one hand we like it because it’s the ultimate artistic expression of Hedonistic Sustainability. You take the symbol of the problem – the pollution, the chimney, and turn it into something playful. But more importantly, one of the main drivers of behavioural change is knowledge. If people don’t know, they can’t act. When my nephews ask me, “What’s a tonne of CO2?” I have to say, “I don’t have a clue.” In [2017] I can tell them to count ten smoke rings, and when they’ve counted ten of them, we’ve just emitted one tonne of C02.” (Bjarke Ingels - TEDx Talks, 2011, 17:48)
Innovative and creative moves like these help Amager Bakke to stand out as an icon of sustainability and turn sustainability into something fun and desirable, thereby having a positive effect on the NEP.
64 Figure 35| 3D Visual of Steam Ring. (BIG, 2017) Figure 36|Chimney Diagrams. (BIG, 2017) 67 Chapter Three|How We Get There Hedonistic Sustainability
Conclusions Amager Bakke is an innovative design which responds well to every aspect of the Hedonistic Model of sustain- ability. BIG’s ambition to design not only a power plant, but a sustainable ecosystem at an urban scale that works for the people of Copenhagen, has resulted in a socially sustainable landmark which draws attention to Copenhagen’s world-leading effort to reduce fossil energy and waste (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015). Most importantly, in Amager Bakke, BIG have designed an aesthetic answer to what is traditionally an ugly and unwanted typology. Instead of trying to hide the waste-to-energy plant, it will become an icon of sustainable design. At the architectural scale, this state of the art waste-to-energy plant sets a new bar for ecological performance, energy production and waste treatment (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015). Ole Hedegaard Madsen, the Director of Technology and Marketing at Babcock & Wilcox Vølund explains:
“It is a multi-purpose plant that is already catching the eyes of the world because of its local appeal. The plant provides energy and waste treatment, and will be an architectural landmark and a leisure facility. The novelty of the project is the combination of ingenious technology and innovative architecture in a project dedicated to the local community” (Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, 2015)
As good as Amager Bakke looks on paper as an example of Hedonistic Sustainability, it is important to note that at the time of writing, construction on the plant has not yet finished. (This is addressed in the next section entitled ‘Discussion’). Should this project be successful in reaching its goals of ecological, economic and so- cial sustainability, Amager Bakke will become an icon of sustainability and a beacon of hope for the future of sustainable design. In turn, Amager Bakke will have a positive influence on the NEP by transforming sustaina- bility into something fun and desirable, showing people that sustainable design can be adapted to improve our lifestyles.
66 Figure 37| Amager Bakke Under Construction. (Klausen, 2016) 69 DISCUSSION
Figure 38|3D Visual of Amager Bakke. (BIG, 2017) 68 69 Discussion Discussion
The intent of the author is to compare each case study to the outcomes from the critique of urban utopia, discussing how Hedonistic Sustainability might place us closer to a pragmatic utopia by changing people’s negative perceptions of sustainability to being positive.
The table (Figure 39) compares the case studies of Strata SE1 and Amager Bakke to the outcomes from the critique of urban utopia based on the work of David Harvey.
By comparing Amager Bakke (as an example of Hedonistic Sustainability) and Strata SE1 (as an example of the Tripolar Model) to the requirements of an urban utopia (as defined by David Harvey), it is possible to see how Hedonistic Sustainability could get us closer to a pragmatic utopia and offer a more positive contribution to the NEP. In each of the three areas, the Hedonistic design compares much better to the critique of urban utopia than the Tripolar design, suggesting that Hedonistic Sustainability is overall a much more well-rounded method of sustainable design. As Hedonistic Sustainability focuses on improving the quality of life, it can offer a much more positive contribution to the NEP by showing people that sustainability does not have to mean sacrificing quality of life.
70 Figure 39| Comparison Table. (Author’s Own, 2017) 73 CONCLUSION
72 Figure 40|3D Visualisation of Amager Bakke from the Harbour. (BIG, 2017) 73 Conclusion Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to confirm the author’s hypothesis that Hedonistic Sustainability can provide a more positive contribution to the NEP than current models of sustainable design theory and that further- more, we do not have to adapt ourselves to sustainable design, but rather sustainable design can be adapt- ed to suit and improve our lives. This was done by examining where we are now (Tripolar sustainability), where we want to be (pragmatic utopia) and how we get there (Hedonistic Sustainability). Analytical criteria were required for the proposed observation and testing within the deductive research approach. These criteria were based on the three aspects of Ecology, Economics and Equity and were employed in each case study and in the socio-political critique of urban utopia. The outcomes of the case studies were then measured against the critique of urban utopia to confirm the hypothesis that Hedonistic Sustainability offers amore positive contribution to the NEP.
Where We Are Despite increasing awareness of environmental issues, sustainability as a concept is still often perceived with negative connotations, with people asking, “How much of our existing quality of life do we have to sacrifice in order to be sustainable?” (Ingels, 2011). The reason for this is that popular approaches to sustainability are driven by reactions to the negative situations regarding earth’s fragile environment. The Tripolar Model is based on three aspects of sustainability: Ecology, Economics and Equity, and is currently one of the most prominent approaches to sustainable design and development. Figure 41| Characteristics of Urban Utopia. (Author’s Own, 2017) The Strata SE1 residential tower by BFLS in London was used as a case study within the first chapter to demon- strate the Tripolar Model in a design capacity. Strata SE1 was an ambitious undertaking of sustainable design which set out with many hopes and good intentions, especially regarding ecology and social equity, but How We Get There ultimately failed to meet many of its targets. Most importantly, its failure to become an icon of sustainability In the final chapter, Hedonistic Sustainability was defined as a restructuring of the Tripolar Model into Ecolomy would have resulted in a negative impact on the NEP. The integrated turbines which crown the tower sit (a hybrid of ecology and economy), Collective Equity and Human Creativity (a division of social equity into dormant as a display of economic and ecological failure, rather than symbolising sustainability and hope for collective equity and the human creativity that drives innovation), as proposed by Alain Findeli (2008) and a better future. In the case of Strata SE1 and the residents who got the turbines shut down with complaints Bjarke Ingels (2009). BIG’s Amager Bakke Waste-to-Energy Plant was used as a case study of Hedonistic Sus- about the noise and vibrations, the notion of sacrificing to be sustainable (Ingels, 2011) could be articulated tainability and its potential to change societal-environmental interaction and positively affect the NEP with as “How much noise are we willing to put up with in order to be sustainable?”. The project promised sustain- its focus on improving the quality of life. This model of sustainability provides a new perspective on designing able, affordable living, but has caused negative reactions from the public and is accused of not living up to buildings and urban environments, by creating ecosystems which integrate our patterns of consumption into its goals (Martin, 2010), including failure to effectively overcome socio-economic differences in Elephant and the environments we live in (TEDx Talks, 2011). Castle. Amager Bakke, nicknamed Copenhill, is a Waste-to-Energy Plant in Copenhagen designed by Bjarke Ingels Where We Are Going Group (BIG). Amager Bakke is an innovative design which responds well to every aspect of the Hedonistic Pragmatic utopia was defined within the second chapter through the examination of David Harvey’s work Model of sustainability. BIG’s ambition to design not only a power plant but a sustainable ecosystem at an on ‘Right to the City’ (an idea proposed by Henri Lefebvre) and Bjarke Ingels ideas of Hedonistic Sustainabil- urban scale that works for the people of Copenhagen, has resulted in a socially sustainable landmark which ity. This was done using the analytical criteria from the case studies as a framework for the critique of urban draws attention to Copenhagen’s world-leading effort to reduce fossil energy and waste (Babcock & Wilcox utopia, allowing a comparison to be made between the two models of sustainability (Tripolar and Hedonistic) Vølund, 2015). Amager Bakke is an aesthetic answer to what is traditionally an ugly typology which will allow and the goal of a pragmatic utopia. This chapter established that according to David Harvey, there are six it to become an icon of sustainable design. At the architectural scale, this state of the art waste-to-energy aspects which must work together to characterise a sustainable urban utopia (DAC, 2014). The characteristics plant sets a new bar for ecological performance, energy production and waste treatment (Babcock & Wil- of a pragmatic urban utopia are: cox Vølund, 2015).
76 77 Conclusion
In conclusion, it is the author’s belief that Hedonistic Sustainability offers a more positive contribution to the New Ecological Paradigm than the current Tripolar Model of sustainability. This is because Hedonistic Sustain- ability focuses on increasing the quality of life and improving human enjoyment by turning the urban environ- ment into something exciting, playful and enjoyable to engage with. Amager Bakke is a perfect example of this in the way it creates a sustainable ecosystem on a local scale which provides public leisure facilities and produces clean energy. The comparison between examples of Tripolar and Hedonistic Sustainability against the critique of urban utopia, suggests that the ambitions of Hedonistic Sustainability offer a better way to get us to a pragmatic utopia, where ecology is economically viable and vice versa.
Limitations to the study and opportunities for further research
In the first chapter, referencing Elkington’s Three Pressure Waves (Elkington, 2004), it was stated that overall, public concerns for the environment are higher than they ever have been. Possible further research could be undertaken to examine why, if the public concern is up, efforts in saving the environment haven’t been more successful?
The comparison within the discussion was carried out using analytical criteria based on the Tripolar Model. The research could be undertaken again using analytical criteria based on the Hedonistic Model and a compar- ison made again, but as the new model is only a variation of the Tripolar Model, the result of the comparison would not differ drastically.
In regards to the choice of the case studies, Strata SE1 was chosen as a case study of the Tripolar Model because it set out to offer a positive contribution to the NEP but failed to do so. Unfortunately, Strata SE1 is typical of a wave of recent large-scale projects claiming to be sustainable but failing to live up to the label (Mehaffy et al., 2013). Amager Bakke is useful as a case study as it is the first project to embody all the ideas of Hedonistic Sustainability and journeying towards a pragmatic utopia. The big drawback, however, is that at the time of writing, Amager Bakke is still under construction and won’t be completed for another few months. In theory, it is a great evolutionary step in sustainable design towards a pragmatic utopia. However, in theory, Strata SE1 was also going to be a successful sustainability icon with integrated wind turbines generating onsite renewable energy. It is important to note that just as mistakes were made with Strata SE1, there is always the possibility that the same could occur for Amager Bakke. Further research of Amager Bakke can and should be undertaken once it is fully operational, to identify how well it has lived up to the design intentions of BIG. Once it has been operational for a length of time, it will be a truly effective case study for analysing the suc- cess of the Hedonistic Model of sustainability in pushing us towards a pragmatic utopia.
78 Bibliography Bibliography
Alchetron. (2014) David Harvey. [Online]. Glancey, J. (2010) ‘Spin city: London’s Strata tower’. The Guardian, 18 July, [Online]. Available at: https://alchetron.com/David-Harvey-602675-W. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/jul/18/strata-tower-london-green-architecture. [Accessed 25/02/2017] [Accessed 24/02/2017]
ArchDaily. (2010) ‘Strata SE1/BFLS’. ArchDaily, 25 July, [Online]. Harvey, D. (2012) Interviewed by Matt Mahon for The White Review, May. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/70142/strata-se1-bfls. Available at: http://www.thewhitereview.org/interviews/interview-with-david-harvey/. [Accessed 22/02/2017] [Accessed 25/02/2017] Harvey, D. (2013) Rebel Cities: From Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso. Babcock & Wilcox Vølund. (2015) ARC, Copenhill / Amager Bakke, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Online]. Insider London. (2015) When London Buildings Go Wrong. [Online]. Available at: http://www.volund.dk/Waste_to_Energy/References/ARC_Amager_Bakke_Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.insider-london.co.uk/when-london-buildings-go-wrong/. [Accessed 28/02/2017] [Accessed 24/02/2017]
BIG. (2009) Yes is More: An Archicomic on Architectural Evolution. Copenhagen: Bjarke Ingels Group. Iwaro, J., Mwasha, A. (2013) The Impact of Sustainable Building Envelope Design on Building Sustainability Using Integrated Perfor- mance Model. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, [Online]. 2 (2), pp. 153–171. BIG. (2017) Bjarke Ingels Group. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212609014000132. Available at: http://www.big.dk/#projects. [Accessed 06/01/2017] [Accessed 27/02/2017] James, A/ The John A. Dutton e-Education Institute. (2016) BA 850: Sustainability-Driven Innovation. [Online]. Cleary, J. (2012). Hedonistic Sustainability. Available at: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ba850/. Available: http://www.naturalhabitats.co.nz/our-news/blog/Hedonistic-sustainability. [Accessed 06/01/2017] [Accessed 04/10/2016] Klausen, J. (2016) ‘Amager Bakke er ved at nå toppen’. [Online]. Danish Architecture Centre (DAC). (2014) David Harvey: The Right to the City. [Online]. Available at: http://www.licitationen.dk/article/view/301296/amager_bakke_er_ved_at_na_toppen#. Available at: http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/experts/david-harvey-the-right-to-the-city/. [Accessed 06/02/2017] [Accessed 26/02/2017] Madge, P. (1997) Ecological Design: A New Critique. Design Issues, [Online]. 13 (2), pp. 44-54. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511730?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2009) The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social [Accessed 06/01/2017] Sustainability. Sustainable Development, [Online]. 19 (5), p. 289–300. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.417/full. Martin, E. (2010) ‘Residents hit boiling point at the eco tower where turbines don’t turn.’ London Evening Standard, [Online]. [Accessed 09/01/2017] Available at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/residents-hit-boiling-point-at-the-eco-tower-where-turbines-don-t-turn-6503753.html. [Accessed 07/08/2010] Elden, S. (2004) Understanding Henri Lefebvre. 1 Edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Mehaffy, M., Salingaros, N. (2013) ‘Toward Resilient Architectures 2: Why Green Often Isn’t’. Metropolis Magazine, 4 April, [Online]. Elkington, J. (2001) The Chrysalis Economy: How Citizen CEOs and Corporations Can Fuse Values and Value Creation. 1st Edition. Ox- Available at: http://www.metropolismag.com/Point-of-View/April-2013/Toward-Resilient-Architectures-2-Why-Green-Often-Isnt/. ford: Capstone. [Accessed 04/03/2017]
Elkington, J. (2004) ‘Enter the Triple Bottom Line’, in Henriques, A., Richardson, J. The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up. 1st Edition. Merrifield, A. (2006) Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction. 1 Edition. New York: Routledge. London: Earthscan. Moir, S., Carter, K. (2012) Diagrammatic Representations of Sustainability - A Review and Synthesis. Smith, S.D (Ed) Procs 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, [Online]. pp.1479-1489. Elkington, J. (2004) ‘Three Pressure Waves’. [Online]. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/28990572.pdf. Available at: http://www.johnelkington.com/archive/timelines-wave-diagram.htm. [Accessed 05/01/2017] [Accessed 08/01/2017] Moore, M. (2010) ‘Strata tower in Elephant & Castle named ugliest new building of the year’. The Telegraph, 12 August, [Online]. Findeli, A. (2008) Sustainable Design: A Critique of the Current Tripolar Model, The Design Journal, 11 (3), p. 301-322. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/news/7940897/Strata-tower-in-Elephant-and-Castle-named-ugliest-new- building-of-the-year.html. Frearson, A. (2013) ‘Amager Bakke Waste-to-Energy Plant by BIG’. Dezeen, 5 March, [Online]. [Accessed 24/02/2017] Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/05/amager-bakke-waste-to-energy-plant-by-big/. [Accessed 10/10/2016] Najam, A. (2015) ‘I’ve seen 21 years of COP failures. Paris needs to deliver action, not talk’. The Guardian, 30 November, [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/25-years-cop-failures-paris-climate-change-pakistan-binding- agreements. [Accessed 06/01/2017] 80 81 Bibliography
Newman, P. (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Extending the Metabolism Model. Landscape and Urban Planning, [Online]. 44 (4), pp. 219–226. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204699000092. [Accessed 05/01/2017]
NBMCW. (2010) Strata SE1, First Residential Building with Wind Turbines. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nbmcw.com/reports/project-site-report/20080-strata-se1first-residential-building-with-wind-turbines.html. [Accessed 24/02/2017]
Oscars. (2016) Leonardo DiCaprio winning Best Actor. [Online Video]. 23 March 2016. Available at: https://youtu.be/xpyrefzvTpI. [Accessed 06/01/2017]
Pearson, A. (2010) Strata SE1, London. [Online]. Available at: http://www.building4change.com/article.jsp?id=473#.WK9EOvmLRhF. [Accessed 23/02/2017]
Ragheb, A. (2015) Green Architecture: A Concept of Sustainability. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, [Online]. 216, pp. 778- 787. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815062552. [Accessed 06/01/2017]
Research Methodology. (2016) Deductive Approach (Deductive Reasoning). [Online]. Available at: http://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/research-approach/deductive-approach-2/. [Accessed 10/10/2016]
Sutherlin, M. (2016) Celebrities React To Leo’s Win, Lady Gaga’s Performance & Other Oscar Moments. [Online]. Available at: http://footwearnews.com/2016/fn-spy/awards/oscars-2016-celebrities-react-leonardo-dicaprio-win-lady-gagas-perfor- mance-198310/. [Accessed 05/03/2017]
TEDx Talks. (2011) TEDxEastSalon - Bjarke Ingels - Hedonistic Sustainability. [Online Video]. 17 May 2011. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogXT_CI7KRU&t=1018s. [Accessed 05/10/2016]
UN Climate Change Newsroom. 2014. Background on the UNFCCC: The international response to climate change. [Online]. Available at: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php. [Accessed 06/01/2017]
UN Climate Talks. (2010) Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, Speaking at COP 16. [Online]. Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/5242776378/in/photostream/. [Accessed 7 March 2017] urban75. (2011) ‘The rarely spinning turbines of the Strata Tower, South London’. urban75, 8 December, [Online]. Available at: http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-rarely-spinning-turbines-of-the-strata-tower-south-london/. [Accessed 22/02/2017]
World Commission On Environment and Development, (1987) Our Common Future (Oxford Paperbacks). 1 Edition. Oxford University Press.
82