Self-sufficient neighbourhoods – Starting point for sustainable Urbanism - Niels van der Salm (2015)

Self-sufficient Neighbourhoods Starting point for sustainable urbanism

Architectural Theory Thesis Niels van der Salm 4020642 16-01-2015

Tutor: Dr.ir. Heidi Sohn

1

Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................. 3 Introduction........................................................................................................ 4 1. Sustainable urbanism: Jane Jacobs traditional urbanism, technological ingenuity and urban density. .................................................................................... 7 2. Decentralized utility systems and production requires a key role for neighbourhoods in order to create sustainable urbanism. ........................................ 10 3 - Decentralized production by 3d manufacturing and the Internet of things ...... 12 4. Beyond the human - ecology dichotomy from the global to the neighbourhoodscale...................................................................................................................... 14 5. The use of Commons governing to create sustainable local-based economy .... 16 6. The impact of technological innovation and economy on the spatial organization of cities. ................................................................................................................ 20 Conclusion........................................................................................................ 22 Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 24

2

Abstract The way we organize cities and their economy is both problem as solution for our global sustainability problem, with climate change, peak oil and increasing urbanization. Although the problem is of a global-scale, the solutions may lie in smaller ―nested‖ scale-levels. The neighbourhood-scale seems the most promising scale-level for implementation of sustainable solutions. Neighbourhoods have the right mass, density, amount of population and mix of functions that is required to effectively implement sustainable solution, create synergies and create the ability to share surpluses between different people, business and utilities. The neighbourhoodscale also facilitates a sustainable form of economy, where local businesses and citizens share, produce and consume their local assets, products, services, resources and utilities in a very efficient way, thereby reducing their energy and material use; and reducing the need for ownership and consumption. The transition towards clean energy and sustainable utilities requires the deployment of smaller, more efficient and better manageable utility systems that are capable to work as one supportive neighbourhood eco-system. This whole-system strategy also includes the use of local waste streams as energy source and landscape features that help to temper the climate, reduces energy loads, support utility systems and the local ecology. These local decentralized forms of utilities require new forms of management, enabling people to manage their own local utilities, services, waste-streams, assets, resources and locally generated energy. The commons, a way of governing where common people collaboratively manage their communal interests, play a key role in managing local sustainable utility systems and economic activities on the neighbourhood-scale.

Keywords: Sustainability, urbanism, neighbourhoods, decentralization, commons

3

Introduction After a long period of cheap abundant fossil fuel, which was the main driver of industrial revolutions, urbanization and economic and population growth, we now enter a time in which we face many challenges such as climate change, peak oil, pollution, declining biodiversity, demographic change. All these problems raise the urgency for a sustainable world, away from fossil fuel dependency. (Droege, 2012) Cities are both problem and solution in this challenge to have a sustainable future (Calthorpe, 2012, p.14). Most of the world population nowadays lives in cities and by 2050 it‘s estimated that this percentage will be about 70% (Droege, 2012). Because Cities have the greatest impact on climate change and consumption of resources, sustainable solutions in cities will also have the greatest impact on tackling the sustainability problem ―If all the problems are urban problems, why should we not expect the answers to be urban answers?‖ (Pawley, 2001 cited in Ingersoll, 2012,

p.588)

Where conventional urban theory had a clear separation between the urban and the non-urban and the human and the ecological, sustainable urbanism has a different perspective in which the human and the natural are both part of the same global ecosystem. Ecologic crises can no longer be seen as external problems separate from human activity; instead they must be seen as an integral part of the way we organize our political and economic relations (Brenner & Schmid, 2011).

While in modern times the city was seen as a mechanical industrial machine, the new approach is to look towards cities as ecological systems (Gandy et al., 2014), where the urban-fabric extends its influence to a global scale (Brenner & Schmid, 2011). ―While city-based agglomeration remains an essential aspect of urbanization, the extended operational urban fabric, emanating from cities and reaching to every corner of the globe, has become an increasingly integral part of global urbanization‖ (Fard, A. 2014 p.52).

Although the problem considering sustainability is clearly one of a global scale, most of the solutions that must bring a sustainable world, especially the one addressing the built environment, need to be implemented on nested scales, all the way down to the neighbourhood-scale, where these implementations are manageable (Swyngedouw, 2013). Self-sufficiency must be arranged as far down to the building and neighbourhood-scale in order to create self-sufficiency on the larger scale levels. The (nested) neighbourhood-scale works as part of an interconnected and interdependent web within a metropolitan region that on his term is also part of a global web of metropolitan regions (Swyngedouw, 2013, p.17). ―each scale depends on the other and only a whole system approach, with each scale nesting into the other, can deliver the kind of transformation we need now to confront climate change‖ (Calthorpe, 2012, p.14)

The observation and theories of Jane Jacobs in her book ―The death and life of great American cities (1961)‖ have highly influenced urbanism and planning and also refer to the neighbourhood-scale. Jane Jacobs described a range of theories on how to create good working neighbourhoods within cities. According to Jane Jacobs (1961) a walkable human scale, density and diversity are needed to create vibrant lively urban areas. Nowadays those ideas not only seem to contribute to a more interesting city-life but also contribute to more sustainable cities and neighbourhoods (Calthorpe, 2012).

Peter Calthorpe defines a general definition of Sustainable urbanism: ―A thoughtful

4

combination of good urbanism with renewable energy sources, state-of-the-art conservation techniques, new green technologies and integrated services and utilities‖ (Calthorpe, 2012, p.12).

Great changes in economy, society, climate and environment will all affect urbanism and the way we cope with sustainability. The centralized oil dependent society will need to take place for a more collaborative decentralized society where local and social connections together with global access to information will influence the way of living (Rifkin, J. 2014). Especially the transition towards renewable energy enables people to produce clean energy within their neighbourhoods and share surpluses in energy into smart-grids (Rifkin, J. 2011). New theories on how to combine ecological processes and landscape features with the urban fabric to create synergies between human and natural systems give opportunities to create more sustainable cities (Fraker, 2012). Droege, P. (2012) describes that autonomous and self-sufficient regions, cities or neighbourhoods can be achieved only by ―seeing buildings as more than just places that serve movement, security and comfort‖; they now must also be seen as distributors and generators of renewable energy (Droege, 2012, p.601).

Instead of centralized utility systems and production, technology nowadays enables to create decentralized and sustainable forms of utility and manufacturing that will affect urbanism and economy down to neighbourhood-scale. Where the neighbourhood-scale that has to facilitate most of these systems.

People become next to consumer of energy and products also more producers of renewable energy and products (Rifkin, J. 2011). Decentralized utility systems operating on a more local (neighbourhood) scale are taking over large inefficient centralized utilities. These decentralized utility systems and technologies require new forms of more local self-governing and management. According to Rifkin (2014) a third industrial revolution will take place in the twenty-first century that accompanies an economic paradigm shift towards a collaborative commons. The power of the global corporate world in late-capitalism, due to neo-liberalism and deregulation enabled them to commodify local assets and resources. Local residents nowadays seek for ways to take back control over these local resources and assets, often they collaborate and unite in commons self-governing networks (Jackson, 2009; Rifkin, 2014).

The ―collaborative commons‖ economy is based on ―social-capital‖, sharing, access, ―peer-to-peer learning, open-source networks‖, renewable energy and ecologic sustainability instead of the capitalistic economy which is based on (endless) economic growth, individualism, consumerism and ownership (Rifkin, 2014, p.4). The need for capitalism to increase productivity and lower marginal costs abled by technological innovation drives capitalism to a state in which marginal cost becoming close to zero and profit making becomes less viable in many parts of the economy (Rifkin, 2014). He describes we are already see the glimpse of a hybrid economy, part capitalist and part ―collaborative commons‖. ―The conventional top-down organization of society that characterized much of the economic, social and political life of the fossil fuel-based industrial revolutions is given way to distributed and collaborative relationships in the emerging green industrial era‖. We are in de midst of a profound shift in the very way society is structured, away from hierarchical power and towards lateral power‖.

(Rifkin, 2011, p.36-37)

5

A new economic paradigm based on sharing, collaboration, social capital and decentralized production and utility systems will require a key role for neighbourhoods and their design in order to become self-sufficient. Ecological, technological and social aspects combined with urban density will all have to contribute to self-sufficient neighbourhoods, with a diverse (mixed-use) and vibrant street life.

6

1. Sustainable urbanism: Jane Jacobs traditional urbanism, technological ingenuity and urban density.

The observation and theories of Jane Jacobs in her book ―The death and life of great American cities (1961)‖ as the pioneering theory of urban sprawl and the separation of function as one of the main causes of many problems in American cities have highly influenced urbanism and planning. Jane Jacobs focuses on the working of neighbourhoods within the city and how to create a sustaining way of (social) city-life within them. However these ideas focused more on the social part of city-life, present approaches towards Sustainable urbanism relate back to Jane Jacobs (1961) in many ways.

One of the critiques of Jane Jacobs (1961) is against the superficial top-down planning of modernism and urban sprawl. Instead she proposes urban development with organic growth, which is better capable of reflecting local needs and enhances diversity in building types and functions (Jacobs, 1961). Dense organic growth with a walkable human scale enhances diversity; creating mix-used urban areas that reduce car use and enhance social interaction; and create lively neighbourhoods (Jacobs, 1961).

Jane Jacobs (1961) states that neighbourhoods require a successful form of local selfgovernment to become successful. (Jacobs, 1961). ―Street neighbourhoods are capable of self-government if they are physical, social and economic continuities and have sufficient frequency of commerce and general liveliness to cultivate public street life‖ (Wendt, 2009, p.27). Neighbourhood planning and design plays a crucial role in creating sufficient liveliness and commerce according to Jacobs (1961). ―Jacobs observes that successful street-neighbourhoods have no distinct beginnings and ends separating them in individual units since different people have different spheres of action (Wendt, 2009, p.27). Isolated street neighbourhoods with long blocks are therefore not desirable, because they form barriers for social interactions and human (economic) activity. Instead neighbour-hoods should have small blocks with accessible lively and interesting streets connected to a continuous network of street neighbourhoods throughout the whole city (Jacobs, 1961; Wendt, 2009). Jane Jabobs (1961) states further that neighbourhoods require parks, public buildings and squares within the street fabric to create an interesting functional mix that emphasises the cultural and functional identity of city-areas (Wendt, 2009, p.27).

Although Jane Jacobs mainly focused on the social component of city life, many of here theories simultaneously create more efficient and sustainable cities, especially combined with new forms of technology in energy production, conservation and transit orientated development (TOD) (Calthorpe, 2012; Owen, 2009). David Owen (2009) describes in his book ―Green Metropolis‖ the central ideas of Jane Jacobs (1961) book as followed: ―Diversity and density are the engines that make human communities work‖ (Owen, 2009, p.28). The main points she described to create quality of city-life were: neighbors living near to one another, (tightly) spaced apartments of varying sizes and configurations, residents closely mixed with businesses and neighbors not narrowly segregated by wealth. Owen, D. (2009) refers back to the Jane Jacobs central ideas and relates those ideas to sustainable forms of urban development: ―Society she decided has a critical mass. Spread people to thinly and sort them too finely, and they cease to interact; move them and their daily activities closer together and the benefits cascade: Their neighbourhoods grow safer, they become more attuned to one another‘s needs, they have more restaurants and movie theatres and

7

museums to choose from, and their lives, generally become more varied and engaging…The same issues that Jane Jacobs identified as enhancing human interaction also dramatically reduce energy consumption and waste. Placing people and their daily activities closer together doesn‘t just make the people more interesting, it also makes them greener‖.

(Owen, 2009, p.29)

Elaborating on the benefits of density and diversity Owen, D. makes a convincing comparison between New York and other more typical American cities, in which he proofs that the high density of New York combined with transit oriented development, a walkable human scale and mixed-use neighbourhoods, amount to New York citizens having the lowest carbon footprint per capita, using the lowest kWh and gas per year and have lowest car-use compared to other United States citizens. Furthermore Owen claims that urban sprawl is the number one cause of high energy consumption in other part of the United States besides New York. Density, a walkable and human scale and diversity all contribute to large reductions in car-use and energy consumption by buildings. ―Main key to lowering energy consumption and shrinking the carbon footprint of modern civilization is to contract the distances between the places where people live, work, shop and play‖.

(Owen, 2009, p.47)

New forms of sustainable development take advantages of the energy efficiencies that are the result of density, diversity and a walkable scale within neighbourhoods, along with strategies to reduce car-use and enhance the use of public transport. Transit Orientated development (TOD) is one of those strategies to create sustainable cities, by developing dense compact neighbourhoods within close proximity to public transport nodes and support pedestrians and cycling in order to reduce car-use (Newman et al., 2009).

Christopher Leinberger (2012) describes the increased popularity of walkable dense urban development, precisely because of the qualities that Jane Jacobs addressed to them nowadays. Leinberger (2012) says the growing popularity is coming from a change in attitude of the metropolitan generation and the ―creative class‖ seeking for authentic experiences and the desire to live and work in vibrant walkable urban places instead of drivable suburbs and office parks. Leinberger (2012) also underpins the potential of sustainability related to walkable dense urban development, similar to what Owen, D. (2009) described and Calthorpe (2012) in the following paragraph.

In addition to Owen‘s and Leinberger‘s writing, other authors dealing with sustainable urbanism also refer to Jane Jacobs The death and life of great American cities (1961) Peter Calthorpe (2012, p.14) refers to Jane Jacobs and the three traditional urban values she describes: (1) A diverse population and range of activities, (2) A rich array of public places and institutions, and (3) walkable and human scale in its buildings, streets and neighbourhoods. Calthorpe (2012, p.14-15) combines traditional urban values described by Jane Jacobs (1961) with his own vision toward sustainability, which he describes by three interdependent approaches essential for a sustainable future: (1) lifestyle, (2) conservation and (3) clean energy. He claims that the intersection of life style and conservation makes urbanism. Life style as in the way we live, consume, drive, the size of our homes and the food we eat, and conservation has to do with technical efficiencies in for instance our building and cars, and it also includes the preservation of natural resources. Clean energy as third approach includes the transition to renewable energy away from fossil and nuclear energy.

8

Calthorpe (2012) sees compact dense urban development as one of the main solutions to address the first two approaches, lifestyle and conservation, because it is the most energy and cost-efficient way of making cities more sustainable. He underpins this statement with results of the so called ―Vision California study‖, in which calculations proof that a compact dense development will create high percentages of landfill, energy and carbon reductions compared with an business as usual simulation, with low-density development towards the year 2050 (Calthorpe, 2012, p. 13-14). Calthorpe (2012) also underpins just like Owen (2009) that density contribute to changes in lifestyle and conservation, such as a reductions in car-use, the size of our homes, land depletion and domestic energy use.

The combination of these first two approaches, lifestyle and conservation, with the values of traditional urbanism including dense urban development can create the most viable sustainable urbanism: ―If traditional urbanism and sustainable development can truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, limit pollution and greenhouse gases, and create socially robust places, they not only will become desirable but will be inevitable.‖ (Calthorpe, 2012, p.17) Where urban density and the traditional urban values of Jane Jacobs mainly focus on the first two approaches of Calthorpe (2012), lifestyle and conservation, the third approach of clean energy requires a different set of measurements. The contributions of urban density and diversity described by Jane Jacobs are certainly not enough to create self-sufficient sustainable urbanism. Calthorpe defines a general definition of Sustainable urbanism: ―A thoughtful combination of good urbanism with renewable energy sources, state-of-the-art conservation techniques, new green technologies and integrated services and utilities‖ (Calthorpe, 2012, p.12). Renewable energy technology, landscape features and utility systems incorporated in the urban fabric can offer clean energy (Fraker, 2012). This third approach considering the future of energy and technology in regard of Sustainable urbanism is thoroughly described and researched by Jeremy Rifkin (2011) who describes a Third Industrial Revolution, where buildings produce their own renewable energy and sharing surpluses on smartgrids. (See Chapter 4) Although the technical performance of the built environment is highly important for Sustainable urbanism, the social component focused on by Jane Jacobs (1961) is at least evenly important in order for sustainable urbanism to become successful. ―The

measurable is only a servant of the unmeasurable and ideally the two should be developed together, whereby the technical performance is equally important next to beauty and vibrant city life (Fraker, 2012, p.157)‖. Strategies that create vibrant and interesting city-life seem to create synergies in a way they also contribute to more sustainable neighbourhoods, by making city-life more energy efficient, reducing landfill and car-use.

9

2. Decentralized utility systems and production requires a key role for neighbourhoods in order to create sustainable urbanism.

Where density and diversity contribute to energy conservation in buildings, reductions in car-use, social cohesion and vibrant city-life, technological ingenuity can bring clean energy, smart information and energy networks and new ways of manufacturing that contribute further to sustainable self-sufficient neighbourhoods and city-regions. The transition to clean renewable energy seems crucial in the process to create sustainable urbanism. Where conventional energy production and utility systems were organized centrally on remote locations in large facilities, new ways of energy production and utilities seem to require smaller, decentralized, local systems within the urban fabric in neighbourhoods and even embedded in the architecture of buildings.

Jeremy Rifkin described a transition from fossil-fuel based centralized utility systems towards decentralized utility systems based on clean renewable energy produced and managed on a more local scale. Rifkin (2011) refers back to previous industrial revolutions and states that the transition to renewables has the greatest impact on the future of the built environment: ―If the first industrial revolution gave rise to dense urban cores, tenements, row housing, skyscrapers, and multilevel factories, and the Second industrial revolution spawned flat suburban tracts and industrial parks, The Third industrial revolution transforms every existing building into a dual-purpose dwelling – a habitat and a micro-power plant‖.

(Rifkin, J. 2011 page 44)

In his book ―The third industrial revolution‖ Rifkin (2011) describes five pillars that are crucial in the transition towards a sustainable energy supply. The first of Rifkin‘s (2011) five pillars is the transition towards renewable energy, secondly he describes that these systems must be implemented in the built environment, ―Transforming the

building stock of every continent into micro-power plants to collect renewable energies on site‖ (Rifkin, 2011, p. 36-37). The following pillars focus on storage and sharing surpluses of renewable energy, which are needed because of the intermittency renewable energy sources. The third pillar considers the deployment of energy storage technologies, especially hydrogen storage, in buildings and throughout the infrastructure to store intermittent energies. The fourth pillar describes the use of internet technology to transform the power-grid into an energy-internet where energy can be shared just as information is shared on the internet nowadays: ―When millions

of buildings are generating a small amount of energy locally, on site, they can sell surplus back to the grid and share electricity with their continental neighbours‖

(Rifkin, 2011, p. 37). The fifth pillar Rifkin (2011) describes the combination of a smart-grid and cleans ways of transport in order to store intermittent energies and share surpluses: ―Transitioning the transport fleet to electric plug-in and fuel cell vehicles that can buy and sell electricity on a smart, continental, interactive power grid‖ (Rifkin, 2011, p.37).

Droege (2006) describes a similar transition of the building environment and the energy supply. He describes that autonomous and self-sufficient regions, cities or neighbourhoods can be achieved only by seeing buildings as more than just places that serve movement, security and comfort; they now must also be seen as distributors and generators of renewable energy. This is in line with Newman, Beatley and Boyer (2009), they describe the ―Distributed city‖ in where a shift will take place from large centralized power and water system to small-scale and neighbourhood

10

based systems in cities, similar to features described in ―The Third Industrial Revolution‖ by Rifkin (2011). These decentralized power and water systems provide a number of benefits compared to conventional large centrally organized utility systems on remote locations like: energy savings, no large distribution lines, better control and balancing in demand and supply, lower vulnerability and greater resilience against disasters. The aim of this approach is to integrate all sorts of small energy systems into one smart-grid with balanced supply and demand, where energy can be stored in vehicle batteries. In this approach the utility systems and renewables work together in a small eco-system to provide water and power in a sustainable way.

Harrison Fraker (2012) describes why the neighbourhood scale is most appropriate to create sustainable zero-carbon cities, especially for creating a sustainable energy supply. Fraker (2012) describes the advantages of the neighbourhood scale (or intermediate mixed-use) development over large scale or building scale development.

Large remote centrally organized utility systems seem to have many downsides: ―The challenges of capital cost, re-engineering the grid to accommodate the intermittency, and especially the approvals necessary to find an appropriate route for new power lines, not to mention their significant line losses give reason for a pause…

The location of large-scale renewables on remote sites may not be the most advantageous strategy or the right scale‖.

(Fraker, 2012, p.155)

Most of the advantages for the deployment of decentralized systems on the neighbourhood-scale described by Fraker (2012) include similar ones like described above in the concept of ―the Distributed city‖ like: energy savings, short distribution lines, better balancing of supply and demand and lower vulnerability. Adding to these advantages; using landscape-design features and waste streams as energy source can further improve the self-sufficiency of neighbourhoods, which will be elaborated further in chapter four. As already mentioned in the previous chapter urban (neighbourhood) design can also reduce energy and car-use by creating dense mixeduse neighbourhoods. ―If all of the energy can be generated locally and much of the waste processed on site, a further benefit of the neighbourhood scale is that cost and loss of efficiency in distribution infrastructure and transport can be avoided.‖ (Fraker, 2012, p.156)

In order for decentralized (sustainable) utility systems to function most efficient they require the same type of density and diversity as described by Jane Jacobs (1961) in the previous chapter. ―Distributed infrastructure needs compact, mixed-use urban development and new governance to go with new urban design‖, they require a certain density and mix of functions, because intermittencies in demand and supply can be more easily spread than in mono-functional areas (Newman et al., 2009, p.19). Dense and mix-use urban development, not only creates vibrant city areas and more energy efficient neighbourhoods, they are also beneficial for an effective transition towards decentralized production of renewable energy and sustainable utility systems.

Decentralized utility systems, which provide clean (renewable) energy, heating, cooling and provide other utilities like waste (water) treatment in a sustainable way are crucial in order to create self-sufficient neighbourhoods (Fraker, 2012).

11

3 - Decentralized production by 3d manufacturing and the Internet of things The same process of decentralization described above seen in utility systems, will most likely also affect production processes. Just like decentralized utility systems are likely to replace many centralized utility systems, decentralized manufacturing is also capable to replace centrally and globally organized manufacturing processes. Jeremy Rifkin (2014) describes in his book ―The zero-marginal cost society‖ the impact of new technological developments like 3d-printing, the internet of things, big-data and peerto-peer networks on society and economy. Promising innovations in technology not only enables people to produce their own energy and provide utilities in a more local decentralized way, it also gives possibilities to bring manufacturing and production back into the city and their neighbourhoods, enabling ordinary people to produce their own products. ―The democratization of production fundamentally disrupts the centralized manufacturing practices of the vertically integrated Second Industrial Revolution‖.

Rifkin, 2014 p.95)

Increasing digitalization makes that people become more and more capable to produce their own products, nowadays already digitally and according to Rifkin (2014) soon also physically with the help of 3d manufacturing techniques and fab-labs. Rifkin describes the impact of other new developments like ―The Internet of things‖ and Bigdata on society, economy and the spatial configuration of cities: ―The Internet of Things will connect everything with everyone in an integrated global network. People, machines, natural resources, production lines, logistics networks, consumption habits, recycling flows, and virtually every other aspect of economic and social life will be linked via sensors and software to the Internet of Things platform, continually feeding Big Data to every node—businesses, homes, vehicles—moment to moment, in real time‖.

(Rifkin, 2014 p.11)

Developments in the Internet of things and big-data have the potential to let cities work more efficient (Rifkin, 2014). The production of renewable energy combined with distribution of energy in smart-grids is imbedded in the internet of things network, creating possibilities to share and store energy within (local) energy networks. Rifkin (2014) describes the impact of the Internet of Things on sustainability by increasing the efficiency of energy-use and flows of people, products and resources: ―The Internet of Things is made up of a Communications Internet, an Energy Internet, and a Logistics Internet that work together in a single operating system, continuously finding ways to increase thermodynamic efficiencies and productivity in the marshalling of resources, the production and distribution of goods and services, and the recycling of waste‖.

(Rifkin, 2014 p.14-15)

Rifkin (2014) predicts that the 3d printing revolution will have a similar impact on economy, society and the spatial organization of cities. Rifkin (2014) calls manufacturing with 3d printers ―info-facturing‖ because of the little involvement of human-labour and the fact designs are created and distributed digitally. The 3d printing revolution provides new ways of manufacturing; virtually anything can be produced locally with 3d printer and other small manufacturing devices, with near zero marginal cost, renewable energy, cheap materials and more efficient material-

12

use, as the technology improves (Rifkin, 2014). The 3d print revolution has the potential to have great impact on economy and the way we work and live. This cheap and local form of production doesn‘t require long transport lines like is the case in present global supply chains, which makes them potentially cheaper and more energy efficient than conventional production processes (Rifkin, 2014, p.92). ―The ability to produce, market and distribute physical goods anywhere there is an Internet of Things infrastructure to plug into, is going to dramatically affect the spatial organization of society‖ (Rifkin, J. 2014 p.92)

Parts of the 3d printing revolution described by Rifkin (2014) are fabrication-labs (Fab-labs). Fab-labs are public manufacturing centres ―equipped with various types of flexible manufacturing equipment, which includes laser-cutters, routers, 3D printers, mini mills, and the accompanying open-source software that enables people to manufacture and design their own products‖ (Rifkin, 2014, p.95). These new manufacturing technologies enable people to work or start businesses more closely to home, thereby eliminating the need for many people to commute large distances (Rifkin, 2014, p.92). Just like utility systems also manufacturing could be arranged decentralized and locally, contributing to the local economy, eliminating the need for centralized manufacturing and global supply chains. ―Plugging into an Internet of Things infrastructure at the local level gives the small infofactures one final advantage over the vertically integrated, centralized enterprises of 19th and 20th century: They can power their vehicles with renewable energy whose marginal cost is nearly free, significantly reducing their logistics costs along the supply chain and in the delivery of their finished products to user‖ (Rifkin, 2014 p.92)

These technological developments not only have impact on society and economy but also influence urbanism and have the potential to make cities more sustainable, whereby the neighbourhood-scale becomes more important as facilitator of these activities. Local decentralized production will become more sustainable then conventional centrally organized production and both has the potential bring local businesses to neighbourhoods which contribute to their local economy and functional mix.

,

13

4. Beyond the human - ecology dichotomy from the global to the neighbourhood-scale.

The interdependency between human systems and ecological systems is deeply rooted in new understandings of sustainability on the global scale. Traditional theory in urban studies had an urban/ non-urban dichotomy, saw human activity separated from nature (Fard, A. 2014). Present theories about sustainable urbanism no longer built on the ideology of a society – nature dichotomy (Brenner, N. 2013). The ecological problems must no longer be seen as external problems, they integrally part in the way we organize our society, economy and built environment (Fard, A. 2014). The influence of urbanism and urban metabolism in our globalized world reach to every corner of the world. ―While city-based agglomeration remains an essential aspect of urbanization, the extended operational urban fabric, emanating from cities and reaching to every corner of the globe, has become an increasingly integral part of global urbanization‖ (Fard, A. 2014 p.1).

Some scientists claim we entered a new geological epoch, the anthropocene, where human activity has the greatest impact on how Earth‘s biosphere and atmosphere will function (Ghandy et al., 2014). The relationship between the human and the natural (society and environmental) can no longer be seen as two separate mechanism, in order to create sustainability. They must be seen as one intertwined interdependent entity part of a larger global eco-system, the one affecting the other and vice versa (Brenner & Schmid, 2011) ―even spaces that lie well beyond the traditional city cores and suburban peripheries, from transcontinental highway and railway networks, and worldwide communications infrastructures to alpine and coastal tourist enclaves, ‗nature‘ parks, offshore financial centres, agro-industrial catchment zones and erstwhile ‗natural‘spaces such as the world‘s oceans, deserts, jungles mountain ranges, tundra, and atmosphere, have become integral parts of the worldwide urban fabric‖.

(Brenner, N. Schmid, C. 2011, p.12)

This notion of sustainability needs to be applied to all the nested scales, from the global scale down to the neighbourhood and building scale (Swyngedouw, 2013). On neighbourhood-scale this implies that next to using dense urban development, decentralized utility systems and renewables also landscape features, waste streams and ecological processes must be implemented in the design of the urban landscape (Fraker, 2012). Both natural and human processes must be seen as part of one ecological system. Fraker, H (2012) states that neighbourhoods must take advantage of natural landscape systems within their design in order to become fully selfsufficient. Taking benefit of natural processes in landscape features and using waste streams as energy source can further improve the self-sufficiency of neighbourhoods, next to strategies described in previous chapters. Landscape features can be used in order to temper the climate, absorb carbon, clean storm-water and sewer effluent, provide biomass for energy and even grow food. ―The neighbourhood landscape becomes the ‗fifth infrastructure‘, beyond transportation, energy water and waste, because of all the ecological functions it performs. These flows together with the urban landscape give opportunity for a more integrated whole-system design approach to carbon reduction‖ (Fraker, 2012, p.156).

14

Finally this neighbourhood most become a small eco-system where the neighbourhood landscape (nature itself) plays a significant role. ―If neighbourhoods can become their own micro-utility, supplying most, if not all, of their energy while treating and recycling their waste and water there emerges a whole new form of sustainable development that‘s scalable‖ (Fraker, 2012 p. 156.) Fraker underpins his approach with results of a study in zero-carbon neighbourhoods, the ―Eco-block‖. The aim of that study was to design a zero-carbon neighbourhood (with TOD) that could generate all of the required energy and treat nearly all of the produced waste (water) within the neighbourhood itself (Fraker, 2012, p.157).

Fraker, H. (2012) discovered that high-density, mixed-use, urban neighbourhoods could be close to zero carbon in its operation, using energy from its local climate, landscape, and waste flows. In the case-study of the ―Eco-block‖ the energy efficiencies from dense urban development with TOD and a walkable (cycle-able) scale were used as starting point from where they tried to create a fully zero-carbon neighbourhood. The first step in the process was to apply standard energy conservation techniques like: Insulation, glazing, air infiltration, lighting and passive solar techniques. It turned out that these measurements reduced the heating load by 80% and combined with appropriate shading and natural ventilation almost entirely eliminated the air conditioning load. In the next step they covered 70-80% of the electricity load with the use of conventional renewables, average solar panels (15% efficiency) installed on ten per cent of the total residential floor area, combined with vertical-axis wind turbines and shading devices. In the last step calculation revealed that the potential energy in the neighbourhood waste streams was capable of closing the 20 – 30% gap in electric load, by converting biomass in organic garbage, sludge, and green waste into biogas using an anaerobic digester and then powering a gas-fired electric generator (Fraker, 2012, p.157). Local waste streams seem in this case crucial to create fully self-sufficient neighbourhoods. ―A greater integration of waste systems and the urban landscape are the last pieces in the puzzle, the final secrets to achieving ‗zero carbon‘ operation.

And the neighbourhood is the scale that brings them into play‖ (Fraker, 2012 p.157)

Natural and domestic waste streams provide bio-energy crucial to create fully selfsufficient neighbourhoods. Landscape design as ‗fifth infrastructure‘ is important to temper the climate, provide clean air, water, food, and organic waste, thereby reducing the cooling load and providing utilities and energy in a sustainable way. ―each plan should take advantage of the particular conditions of the site and landscape, including such features as lakes, shorelines, hills, orientation for sun and wind, and views‖(Fraker, 2012, p.157). In this way urban and landscape design together form one urban landscape, where human and natural systems are designed in a holistic way both benefitting from each other, creating synergies, both being part of the same urban-natural eco-system. The neighbourhood-scale, working as nestedscale, seems most appropriate to facilitate all these human and natural utilities, creating self-sufficient neighbourhoods.

15

5. The use of Commons governing to create sustainable local-based economy Sustainable urbanism requires a combination of dense and diverse urban development together with a transition towards renewable energy, clean transportation, and sustainable (decentralized) utility systems. Evenly important to create sustainable urbanism is the transition towards a sustainable economy, which is less depended on relentless economic growth, profit, ownership, individualism, over-consumption and fossil-fuels (Jackson, 2009). Economic growth is close to see its limits due to climate change and resource scarcity and declining biodiversity. Technological development on the other hand has huge impact on present and future ways of living, exponential technological development has the potential to provide a large amount of new sustainable solutions. The internet of things and big-data enables people to live, produce and consume more energy efficient, while 3d printing brings opportunities for local production, distribution and sharing of products (Rifkin, 2014). The transition towards renewable energy and a sustainable economy have in common that they require new forms of governing, better capable of managing local communal assets, resources and utilities and both enhancing collaboration between local residents to achieve more efficient forms of city-life. Especially decentralized production of energy, products and utilities that operate on a local scale require a decentralized local form of management.

Jackson (2009) highlighted three specific dimensions of the task to create a more sustainable economy in his book Prosperity without growth: 1) ―We have to establish ecological bounds on human activity.

2) There is an urgent need to fix the illiterate economics of relentless growth.

3) We must transform the damaging social logic of consumerism.‖ (Jackson, 2009, p.204).

According to Jackson (2009) social enterprises, that provide local food, health-care, goods, social-work and education, will become important to establish a sustainable economy. In a new economic system not in the first place determined by growth but also partly by (social and cultural) flourishing, decent livelihood and sustainable consumption, production and utility there will be an increased value of human (social) interaction and local meaningful work, seen in most social enterprises (Jackson, 2009). Important is that those social enterprises work on a community bases, with focus on local social connections, materials and resources, similar of what Jane Jacobs (1961) sees as signs of vibrant city-life often occurring in dense, diverse and mix-use neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods thereby seem to be the realm of a sustainable economy, more focused on local business, collaboration and social interaction. ―Community-based ‗ecological‘ enterprises engaged in delivering local services: Food, health, public transport, community education, maintenance and repair, recreation; these activities contribute to flourishing, are embedded in community and have to potential to provide meaningful work with a lowcarbon footprint‖.

(Jackson, 2009, p.196)

16

Rifkin (2014) describes a similar transition towards a sustainable economy in which social capital and ―third sector‖ (non-profit) businesses become more important; and where a new way of governance and economy is partly replacing the globalized capitalistic economy. Global corporations gained increasingly more power in the last decades (late-capitalism) due to neo-liberalism, globalization, privatization and deregulation eliminating the control of common people over their local resources (Rifkin, 2014).

A new way of governance however is on the rise, the commons, where common people collaboratively manage local assets and resources for their common interest, thereby undermining global corporate power. Rifkin (2014) describes the economy of the collaborative commons where (similar to Jacksons social enterprises) non-profit organizations and businesses will become important and where local sharing, collaboration, production and consumption will play an increasingly important role in the economy. The commons are a third form of governance next to the central government and the private marketplace. Social enterprises governed by the principles of the commons, help to establish common interest and social capital.

Rifkin (2014) predicts that the commons will gain influence and operate parallel to the capitalistic market driven economy. According to Rifkin (2014) we already see the glimpse of a hybrid economy, partly a capitalistic economy and partly a commons economy. ―The key difference between (capitalism) versions 2.0 and 3.0 is the inclusion in the latter of a set of institutions I call the Commons sector.

Instead of having only one engine—that is, the corporate-dominated private sector— our improved economic system would run on two: one geared to managing private profit, the other to preserving and enhancing common wealth.‖ (Barnes (2006) cited in Rifkin, 2014, p.191-192)

Technological improvement combined with a hybrid capitalistic – commons economy will create a more sustainable society that is focused on collaboration of citizens and managing of their common interests, instead of individualism, profit, consumption and ownership. Rifkin (2014) describes that exponential growth of technological innovations will have huge impact on society and economy. Due to increasing productivity and innovation many products, services and utilities can be produced with (near) zero marginal costs, with as result that companies are less capable of making profit. Common people get more possibilities to consume and produce their own products, services and utilities in a cheap way. Rifkin (2014) foresees a ―prosumer‖ economy where anyone is both producer and consumer. ―An economy where many utilities, products and services in economy have zero-marginal cost and are shared, distributed and produced by common people with the help of an Internet of Things that connects virtually all people, buildings, devices and vehicles, able them to share information and energy, and work more efficient‖.

(Rifkin, 2014, p.2)

The prosumer economy is part of the Commons economy just as the so called sharing economy with collaborative consumption that enables people to have access to products without owning them. New technologies in communication on particularly the Internet make it easier to bring people together in peer-to-peer networks where they share information, thoughts, experiences and creative material online and recently also in the physical world where they share and sell all kinds of physical assets and surpluses with the help the same peer-to-peer networks and sharing-apps (Rifkin, J. 2014).

17

―Every day people are using Collaborative Consumption—traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting, and swapping, redefined through technology and peer communities. Collaborative Consumption is enabling people to realize the enormous benefits of access to products and services over ownership, and at the same time save money, space, and time; make new friends; and become active citizens once again. . . . These systems provide significant environmental benefits by increasing use efficiency, reducing waste, encouraging the development of better products, and mopping up the surplus created by overproduction and –consumption‖.

(Botsman & Rogers (2010) cited in Rifkin, 2014, p.234)

The sharing economy contributes to a sustainable economy because it reduces consumption and enables people to use available goods more efficient benefitting from surpluses in the community. The commons include a prosumer and sharing economy; enhanced by technological improvements the commons gain more power enabling them to undermine the corporate market driven world and both creating sustainable economy (Rifkin, 2014).

The traditional government and the private marketplace will of course also play an important role in implementing, developing, providing and managing sustainable solutions, but the commons will seems crucial in this. According to Rifkin (2014) the commons have major role to play in managing local utility systems, locally generated (renewable) energy and other local assets and resources. The importance of local sustainable economic development described by Newman et al. (2009) show that the combination of locally governed utility systems by the commons together with local enterprises and dense urban development contribute to sustainable cities. ―Distributed infrastructure needs compact, mixed-use urban development and new

governance to go with new urban design‖ (p.19), they require a certain density and mix of functions, because intermittencies in demand and supply can then more efficiently be spread. Local governance and managing of utility systems by the

commons or city governments make that revenues of energy production and local utility systems remain in the local economy and do not flow back to global (profitdriven) corporate suppliers, which gained more and more power over local resources due to privatization of utility systems. The transition towards renewable energy and sustainable utility systems can be both beneficial for the environment as for the local community. Commons governing of local assets, resources and utilities, makes the transition towards sustainable urbanism also an economic development strategy by creating jobs and knowledge and revenues for the local economy (Newman et al., 2009).

The commons as third governance system operates mostly on the local scale but are also involved in global peer-to-peer networks. The sharing economy brings the distributed and collaborative dimensions of the Internet into the physical world, where proximity and density of people and businesses make the system work more efficient.

Commons governance can work on many different scales because they sometimes operate in digital networks, but in the physical world they are often installed to govern local assets, resources, utilities or services that act on neighbourhood scale or cityscale. For making sustainable urbanism this implies that the neighbourhood scale is where most of the sustainable solutions are being implemented and governed by the commons, especially where it involves utilities, services, resources that serve a common interest for the neighbourhood or community.

18

19

6. The impact of technological innovation and economy on the spatial organization of cities.

The influence of technology on the spatial organization of cities has been studied profoundly in the last century. The spatial influence of technological innovation has been very large, especially since the first industrial revolutions. New technologies in ICT and computing also brought different theories of how these technologies would influence the spatial organization of cities. In the 1970‘s theories on how ICT would influence the city showed radical change in the spatial organization of cities. In an article Ali Fard (2014) describes how theorist in the 1970‘s predicted a dispersed city due to digitalization and the dematerialization of information combined with communication technologies: ―William J. Mitchell, for example, hypothesized that advances in digital communication networks and information technologies would eventually replace much of the physical circulation in cities. Advancing the longstanding concept of digital tools as extensions of the human body, Mitchell believed that many of the urban exchanges would eventually become redundant by digital information and communication technologies.‖ (Fard, 2013, p.59)

A decentralized, dissolving city where clusters of people in city centres would have become unnecessary because digital spaces where about to replace them. However the opposite was true; instead of a dispersed city without large clustering op people the, city centres grew, together with gentrification of city centres. Compactness of city became instead ever appreciated and important. (Fard, 2013) Instead of diversion of the city, concentration of people and businesses become more important. New Urban development is increasingly focusing on ―filling in‖ spaces within former suburbs and business parks, thereby ―expanding the concentrated form of urbanization to a regional scale‖ (Fard, 2013, p.59). These developments contribute to urban density and diversity, away from cities divided in functional zones. They also show that new ―spaces and connections‖ in our digitalized world not necessarily eliminate the need for real urban connections. Human desire to be in vibrant urban places, with human interaction and diversity will prevail or coexist next to the digital world. The same qualities of city-life described by Jane Jacobs in chapter one seem still appealing for people nowadays.

Leinberger (2012) explains that a new economic trend, the ―experience economy‖ is feeding the concentrated (―filling in‖) development described above. A changing attitude of the metropolitan generation and the ―creative class‖ seeking for authentic experiences and vibrant walkable urban places to live in, instead of drivable suburbs, giving rise to an ―experience economy‖ subsuming the agricultural, industrial and knowledge economy (Leinberger, 2012, p. 254). ―Customers seem to want authentic experiences, not experiences manufactured, packaged, and helicoptered to a market-researched location. This desire for authenticity, particularly among the rising Millennial generation, means that places that invest in themselves, their parks, sidewalks, cleanliness, friendliness, their people, their educational system, will have advantage in the market place.‖ (Leinberger, 2012, p.255)

An Economic incentive for the development of walkable dense urban areas is further described by Leinberger (2012). ―Walkable urban residential values in 2010 are the most expensive on a sales price per square meter basis in most U.S. metropolitan areas versus comparable driveable suburban housing in well-to-do neighbourhoods‖

20

(Leinberger, 2012, p.254). Only ten years earlier the opposite was the case, this process related to gentrification started in the 1990s. If neighbourhoods become vibrant and give a pleasant experience, people are more likely to spend time and move their work and homes to those places and spend money there, reinforcing the value and local economy of that place Leinberger (2012, p. 255).

[Note: Leinberger also warns for the socio-economic consequences of gentrification for the poor and middle-class, which cannot afford to live there anymore due to rising real-estate prices in those areas. He therefore pleads a conscious strategy to build mixed-income communities.]

According to Leinberger (2012) The experience economy will probably locate most of its assets and jobs in walkable urban places and will be will be even more economically and environmentally sustainable than the knowledge economy and might be even more socially equitable: ―Assuming green transportation on foot, bike or public transit, which work best in walkable urban places and high density buildings, which are inherently more energy efficient, recent research is leading to the conclusion that energy usage and greenhouse gas emmisions could drop from one-third to two-third the level of drivable suburban way of living. Given that the built environment is the largest energy user and greenhouse emitter, the walkable urban experience economy would be the major means of addressing climate change, not to mention many other foreign policy, economic, and health challenges faced by the U.S. and developed world today.‖ (Leinberger, C.B. 2012 p.255)

The experience economy of Leinberger (2012) has great similarities with the economic views of Jackson, T (2009) and theories of Jane Jacobs (1961) about dense and diverse walkable neighbourhoods. In the previous chapter Rifkin (2014) and Jackson (2009) described local (ecological or non-profit) community-based businesses providing local products, utilities, food and services for the community such as healthcare and education. These community-based enterprises, important for a sustainable economy, seem to bring the local business and engagement that Jane Jacobs defines as crucial to create diverse, mix-use, vibrant city-life within neighbourhoods.

Besides local ecological enterprises described above by Jackson (2009) other local businesses can contribute further to the functional mix of neighbourhoods. The 3d print revolution gives opportunities to bring local manufacturing businesses and fablabs (Chapter 3) into the city-neighbourhoods. Manufacturing (businesses) and fablabs can be brought back into city centres and neighbourhoods enhancing the local economy and diversity of functions. 3d-manufacturing is more suitable to be installed inside cities than conventional manufacturing businesses because they require less space, produce little to none pollution, stank or noise and they can be powered with locally generated renewable energy. The same accounts for businesses related to the service and knowledge economy in the present digital age, they also have little physical constraints, which makes that those businesses move from the outskirts of cities to popular diverse and vibrant gentrified areas close to amenities and public transport. In fact these businesses themselves are in return also contributing further to the diversity and vibrancy of the areas they go to (Leinberger, 2012). If new manufacturing businesses truly move to more densely areas inside cities, they have the potential to contribute to the diversity and vibrancy of neighbourhoods and to their local economy. On the other hand we see that on-going digitalisation of society will most likely not cause a dissolving city, but instead asks for compact mix-use and walkable neighbourhoods where people can experience real (physical) human interaction and a vibrant city-life.

21

Conclusion A transition towards a sustainable economy and a renewable energy supply requires many changes in the way we life, organize our cities and economy and both requires many technological sustainable solutions. The neighbourhood-scale is the most effective and manageable ―nested‖ scale to implement sustainable solutions. By creating sustainable self-sufficient neighbourhoods, as nested scale-level, you also create sustainability on scale-levels above, from the city and regional-scale to ultimately sustainability on a global-scale.

The neighbourhood-scale seems the most promising scale-level for implementation of sustainable solutions. Neighbourhoods have the right mass, density, amount of population and mix of functions that is required to effectively implement sustainable solution, create synergies and create the ability to share surpluses between different people, business and utilities. The neighbourhood-scale also facilitates a sustainable form of economy, where local businesses and citizens share, produce and consume their local assets, products, services, resources and utilities in a very efficient way, thereby reducing their energy and material use; and reducing the need for ownership and consumption. The transition towards clean energy and sustainable utilities requires the deployment of smaller, more efficient and better manageable utility systems that are capable to work as one supportive neighbourhood eco-system. This whole-system strategy also includes the use of local waste streams as energy source and landscape features that help to temper the climate, reduces energy loads, support utility systems and the local ecology. These local decentralized forms of utilities require new forms of management, enabling people to manage their own local utilities, services, waste-streams, assets, resources and locally generated energy.

Neighbourhoods will become the main facilitator of a future sustainable society, where local self-governing by the commons will be essential to manage local utilities, resources, services and business. Although the neighbourhood-scale becomes more important as nested scale to address problems considering sustainability on a global level, it will still need to act as a nested scale, interdependent with larger scale levels above, on the regional, national and global scale to assure that local well-being will not interfere with that of other regions or scale-levels above.

The on-going technological innovation drives productivity up and lowers marginal cost to near zero in many part of the economy, which enables citizens to become both consumer and producer, creating a ―prosumer‖ economy. Renewable energy production will become increasingly cheap, creating an abundance of renewable energy that can be shared and stored in smart-grids and (electric) vehicles. 3d printing in neighbourhood fabrication labs will enable local production of goods, which saves energy in transport. Larger consumer goods will be locally shared in the neighbourhoods, diminishing the need to own them. This all creates a shift from centralized production and utility-systems towards local decentralized production and utility systems that operate on a neighbourhood level.

Local production of food and goods with local materials will bring a renewed craftsmanship (Arts & crafts 2.0) helped by 3d printing techniques, that give people and their products more identity. Combined with social capital that is gained by doing work in social non-profit enterprises it has the potential to create flourishing city life.

Even in times were most of the work is maybe handed over to computers and robotic systems, this brings enough work and meaning to people‘s lives. Fablabs and 3d manufacturing enterprises can be located in neighbourhoods, enhancing the 22

functional mix and both contributing to the local ―prosumer‖ economy, working as neighbourhood business/ manufacturing nodes and community centres. Combined with what Rifkin (2014) described as ―the Internet of Things network‖, with cheap locally generated renewable energy, sustainable forms of transport (maybe even autonomous or with drones) and short distribution lines, they will be more sustainable than conventional supply chains. If new manufacturing businesses truly move to more densely areas inside cities, they have the potential to contribute to the diversity and vibrancy of neighbourhoods and to their local (sustainable) economy.

Seeing urbanism as part of global eco-systems, where human and ecological flows are interdependent of each other, create synergies and extend to every corner of the world, seems crucial in achieving sustainable urbanism. This same approach most also be implemented in urban (neighbourhood) design to create fully self-sufficient city-regions. Next to dense, mix-used, walkable urban development, energy conservation techniques in architecture, car-use reduction and locally produced renewables and utility systems, waste streams and landscape features become essential to create fully self-sufficient neighbourhoods. A good combination of density and (natural) landscape features embedded in the urban design to temper the climate and provide natural resources becomes increasingly important.

A new sustainable economic paradigm doesn‘t focus on growth, ownership and profit, but on collaboration, access, sharing and social capital, where centrally organized systems will be replaced by decentralized local systems and a transition will be made from fossil-fuel energy to renewable energy. The neighbourhood-scale is essential in this story because organic growth, density, diversity, clean energy, decentralized utilities, social enterprises, a sharing-prosumer economy and commons governing, the ingredients for sustainable urbanism and city-life, all work most (energy)efficient and effective on the neighbourhood-scale.

23

Bibliography

Barnes, P. (2006). Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What‘s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New York: HarperCollins.

Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2011). Planetary Urbanisation. In M. Gandy (Ed.) Urban Constellations (pp. 10-13). Berlin: Jovis.

Calthorpe, P. (2012). Urbanism and Climate change. In T. Haas (Ed.), Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future (pp. 14-17). New York: Rizolli.

Droege, P. (2012). Beyond sustainability: Architecture in the renewable city. In G. Crysler, S. Cairns, H. Heynen (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory (pp. 590601). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Fard, A. (2014). Dissolving the city: Preliminary notes on spatial ideologies of information and communication technologies. MAS Context, (18), 52-63 Retrieved from: http://mascontext.com/pdf/MAS_Context_Issue18_IMPROBABLE.pdf

Fraker, H. (2012). Why sustainable neighborhoods? In T. Haas (Ed.), Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future (pp. 155-158). New York: Rizolli.

Gandy, M., Moore, J., Ellis, E., Luke, T., Brenner, N. (2014). Projective views on urban metabolism (part 1): Circulations and metabolisms [Harvard Graduate School of Design]. Retrieved 20 November 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YjqKi5ai9c#t=7938 Ingersoll, R. (2012). The ecology question and architecture. In G. Crysler, S. Cairns, H. Heynen (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory (pp. 573-589). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.

Jacobs, J. (1961). Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Leinberger, C. B. (2012). The marriage of economic growth and sustainable development. In T. Haas (Ed.), Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future (pp. 252-255). New York: Rizolli.

Newman, P., Beatley, T., Boyer, H. M. (2009). Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change. In T. Haas (Ed.), Sustainable urbanism and beyond: Rethinking cities for the future (pp. 18-21). New York: Rizolli.

24

Owen, D. (2009) Green metropolis: Why living smaller, living closer and driving less

are the key to sustainability. London: Penguin Group.

Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rifkin, J. (2011). The third industrial revolution: How lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Swyngedouw, E. (2013). Globalisation or ‗glocalisation‘? Networks, territories and rescaling. Reader in economic geography, School of geography and the environment, Oxford University, Oxford. Retrieved from http://www.europaforum.or.at/site/Homepageifhp2003/downloads/Langfassung_swyngedouw 1.pdf Wendt, M. (2009) The importance of Death and life of great American Cities (1961) by Jane Jacobs to the profession of Urban Planning. New visions for public affairs: University of Delaware, 3(1), 17-38. Retrieved from: http://www.sppa.udel.edu/sites/suapp.udel.edu/files/The%20Importance%20of%20Dealth% 20and%20Life%20Final.pdf

25