7 principles for building better cities | Peter Calthorpe


Translator: Eyad ElSwedy Auditor: Riyad Almubarak Let me add to the complex situation In which we find ourselves. That at the same time that we are addressing the impacts of climate change, We will build cities for three billion people. This is the weakness of the current civilization environment. If we don’t do it right, I am not sure that all climate solutions in the world will save humans, Because many of them depend on how our cities are formed: Not just the environmental impacts, But on our social welfare, And the vitality of our economy, Our sense of community and our connection to it. Basically, the way we shape cities is an expression About the human culture that we apply. So if I do it right, I think, And give it urgent priority.


To a certain degree, mastering it will help us solve climate change, Because at the end of the matter, It is our behavior that causes the problem. The problem is not because of something specific, It is not in Exxon Mobil, nor in oil companies. The problem is with us, and the way we live. The way we live. There is a reason for this problem. It’s called random urban crawl, and I’m going to talk frankly about that. But it’s not the kind of random urban sprawl that most people know or know, Like low-density societies Outside the areas of overpopulation. In fact, I think this urban sprawl can happen anywhere, in any form of intensity. Its main characteristic is that it isolates people. It isolates people in economic provinces Residential and social complexes. He separates them from nature. It is not allowed to mix cultures, Nor the interaction between people, Which makes cities great places It makes societies thrive.


So the cure for this random urban sprawl is what we have to think about, Especially when dealing with this huge amount of construction. So let me give you one training. We developed a California model So that they can reduce carbon emissions. We developed a whole series of scenarios for how the state grew, And this is just a very brief template. We have combined different rudimentary development models And we assumed that it would reach us until 2050, 10 million new crew in California.


The first was urban sprawl. It is an expansion of what exists: marketing centers, residential districts And public parks. The second thing is its basic idea, not that everyone should move to Medina But just a compact development, This is what we are used to seeing in the neighborhoods where trams abound Neighborhoods to walk in, Integrated low-rise residential and commercial environments. And the results were amazing.


Not surprising because of the size difference In the transformation of the way we build cities But also because each method represents a group of common interest, A group of mutual interest defends its interests Sequentially. They did not see, what I call, the “co-benefits” of the urban form That allows them to join with others. For land consumption: Environmentalists are concerned about that, And so are the peasants, And a large group of people, And of course, neighborhood residents who want open spaces next to them. The version with urban sprawl in California Green spaces, walking lanes and public transportation multiplied. Greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced, Because in California, the largest carbon emissions come from cars, And cities that are not dependent on cars much It has much lower emissions.


Miles of transportation: which is exactly what I was talking about. Just reducing an average of 10,000 miles per household per year, Down from about 26,000 miles to the family, It has a huge impact, not only on air quality and carbon reduction But also on family expenses. Driving this much is too expensive, And as we saw, How the middle class suffers to maintain its position. Health Care: We were talking about how to fix what we have destroyed And clean the air. Why do not we stop polluting the air? Why don’t we go hiking or biking more? This is the task of those forms of cities that we are building.


Home costs: 2008 was a milestone. And not just because of the incomprehensible behavior of financing banks We were trying to sell a lot of wrong kind of housing: With large areas, for one family, far from urbanism, And very expensive that middle-class families can not afford Frankly, it has become inappropriate for their way of life. And for you to reduce inventory, You can deduct and sell financing. I think this has often happened. Reduced cost by 10,000 dollars Remember that the average in California is 50,000 This is a big factor. This is only the cost of cars and utilities. Thus, affordable housing advocates, who often sit in their silos Separate from ecologists, separate from politicians, Everyone quarrels with each other, Now they start seeing a common goal, And I think the common goal is what really brings change.


As a result of these efforts, Los Angeles, I decided to turn To an environment more concerned with pedestrian places and public transportation. In fact, since 2008, They allocated 400 billion dollars to develop public transportation And stop building highways for cars. What a turn: Los Angeles became a city for public transport and pedestrians, It is not a car city. (clap) How did this happen? Take out unwanted lands and small spaces It adds walking spaces and public transportation Then you create houses, commercial and entertainment centers, And thus meet the new housing demands And make all the neighborhoods around it Intertwined with one another, More fun and easy to walk. Here is another type of random urban crawl: China, a high-intensity random crawl, which seems paradoxically, But there is the same problem: everything is isolated in huge neighborhoods And of course this smog which was just talked about. 12 percent of China’s GDP is now spent On the health effects of this. Of course, the history of Chinese cities is ancient. Like anywhere else. The community was a small local supermarket Local services, neighbors walking and interacting with each other.


It may look like an ideal society, but it is not. It’s actually what people really want. As for these huge new neighborhoods, These neighborhoods, which can accommodate 5,000 units, It has gates, of course, and nobody knows where. Of course, there is no side walk, nor shops on the ground floor It is a very sterile environment. I found this case in one of these huge neighborhoods Where people set up stores illegally in their parking garage So they can provide this kind of local service economy. The desire exists for people to have orderly environments. We just have to bring planners and decision makers together on one goal. OK. And some technical planning. Chongqing is a city with about 30 million people. It is roughly the size of California. This is a small growth area. They wanted us to test alternatives to random urbanization In several cities in China. This region accommodates about four and a half million people. The thing from this picture, Each of these circles are places to walk About passenger transport stations Massive investment in metro stations and high speed bus lines, And distributed in a way that allows everyone That his work be near these stations.


The red zone is a terrible congestion zone. Suddenly, our principles called for green spaces To maintain the importance of environmental features. Then these streets became car-free streets So instead of shoveling and leveling the site And building to the edge of the river, This green ledge was not a standard thing in China So this group of practices started They are tested there. This architectural style, small neighborhoods, About 500 families in the neighborhood. They know each other. The area around the street has shops Thus there are local destinations. And the streets themselves are getting smaller, There are so many of them. Simple form, Simple urban design. And now, we have something that I love so much. Think logic. If only a third of people have cars, Why do we allocate 100 percent of our streets to cars? What if we allocate 70 percent For car-free streets, for everyone else, So that the movement and movement becomes easy, So they can walk, can they ride bikes? Why do we not have …


(clap) Geographical equality In our movement system? In fact, the cities would be better off at the time. And no matter what they do, Regardless of the number of circular roads constructed in Beijing, They will not be able to completely get rid of crowding. So these are car-free streets, with homes and shops on either side. It has public transportation in the middle. I am happy to make these self-driving vehicles, But maybe I will have a chance to talk about that later. So there are now seven principles that have been adopted From the highest authority in the Chinese government, And now they seek to apply it. They are simple principles, And globally, I think they are universal principles The first is the preservation of the natural environment, history And important crops.


The second is confused. Mixed use is common, but when I say mixed, I mean different income, different age groups As well as the diversified use of land. Walking. If you find a wonderful city and you will not enjoy walking in it. You will not want to go to it. Vacation places are the place to go. Why not make it everywhere? The bike is the most efficient of the means of transportation that we know of. China has now adopted a 6-meter-wide lane construction policy In every way. They are serious about going back to their cycling history.


(clap) This is a complex scheme. Connectivity. It is a road network that provides many roads Instead of the single end It provides many types of streets instead of only one. Mobility. We have to invest more in public transportation. There is no magic solution. Autonomous vehicles will not provide us with a solution. In fact, it will increase the mileage and the traffic. More options are available. And finally the focus. We have a city pyramid system built on public transportation Instead of highways. It’s a big paradigm shift, But these two things must be reconnected Through means that develop the shape of the city. So I’m full of hope. In California, the United States and China, these changes are well accepted.


I am optimistic for two captives. First, most people know now. They understand essentially The look of the wonderful city should look like. The second is that this type of analysis we can apply now It allows people to understand and connect points, It allows people to form political alliances It did not exist in the past. That allows them to bring the kinds of societies we all need into existence. thank you. (clap) Chris Anderson: Okay, self-driving, self-driving cars, Many people here are excited about it. What are your concerns about it? Peter Calthorpe: Well, I think there’s a lot of buzz about this. First, everyone says that we will get rid of a lot of cars.


What they do not say is that we will travel many miles. You will find many cars moving on the streets. There will be more congestion. Chris: Because she’s so attractive … You will be able to sleep or read while driving. Peter: Well, there are several reasons. The first: If they are private cars, people will travel greater distances. It will be a new cause of random crawling. If you can work while you are going to work, Then you can live far away. This will revive urban sprawl In a way that makes me fear, Taxis: About 50 percent of the surveys say people will not take part in it And if they don’t share it, We will find an increase of about 90 percent in mileage. And if they ride it, There will still be a 30 percent increase in the number of distances covered. Chris: Sharing them means riding multiple people at once In one of the smart participatory transportation? Peter: Yes, like participating in wheelbarrows like Uber. In fact, the potency of compounds is With or without a steering wheel, it does not matter.


They claim to be the only ones who have efficient electric cars, But this is not correct. But really walking, biking and public transportation It is the way cities and societies thrive. And put people in their own bubbles, Whether they have a steering wheel or not, It is the wrong direction. And frankly, Photo of the self-driving vehicle, on its way to McDonald’s, to receive the order Without the presence of its owner, Just sending these vehicles on this kind of random mission It really terrifies me. Chris: Well, thank you for that and I have to say, the pictures I showed The mixed-use streets are truly inspiring and beautiful. Peter: Thank you, Chris: Thank you for your effort. (clap) .

We acknowledge that this video belongs to the author and thank them for its use.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing..

(Visited 3 times, 1 visits today)

About The Author

You Might Be Interested In

Channels Have This Video