A new approach to urban design is needed. This would treat biodiversity as an opportunity and a valued resource to be preserved and maximised at all stages of planning and design. In contrast to traditional approaches to conserving urban biodiversity, biodiversity-sensitive urban design (BSUD) aims to create urban environments that make a positive onsite contribution to biodiversity. This involves careful planning and innovative design and architecture. BSUD seeks to build nature into the urban fabric by linking urban planning and design to the basic needs and survival of native plants and animals. Figure 1. Steps in the biodiversity sensitive urban design (BSUD) approach (click to enlarge).Author provided BSUD draws on ecological theory and understanding to apply five simple principles to urban design:
protect and create habitat
help species disperse
minimise anthropogenic threats
promote ecological processes
encourage positive human-nature interactions.
These principles are designed to address the biggest impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity. They can be applied at any scale, from individual houses (see Figure 2) to precinct-scale developments. Figure 2. BUSD principles applied at the scale of an individual house.Author provided BSUD progresses in a series of steps (see Figure 1), that urban planners and developers can use to achieve a net positive outcome for biodiversity from any development. BSUD encourages biodiversity goals to be set early in the planning process, alongside social and economic targets, before stepping users through a transparent process for achieving those goals. By explicitly stating biodiversity goals (eg. enhancing the survival of species X) and how they will be measured (eg. probability of persistence), BSUD enables decision makers to make transparent decisions about alternative, testable urban designs, justified by sound science. A striped legless lizard.John Wombey, CSIRO/Wikimedia, CC BY For example, in a hypothetical development example in western Melbourne, we were able to demonstrate that cat containment regulations were irreplaceable when designing an urban environment that would ensure the persistence of the nationally threatened striped legless lizard (Figure 3). Figure 3. Keeping cats indoors greatly enhances other measures to protect and increase populations of the striped legless lizard.Author provided
What does a BSUD city look, feel and sound like?
Biodiversity sensitive urban design represents a fundamentally different approach to conserving urban biodiversity. This is because it seeks to incorporate biodiversity into the built form, rather than restricting it to fragmented remnant habitats. In this way, it can deliver biodiversity benefits in environments not traditionally considered to be of ecological value. It will also deliver significant co-benefits for cities and their residents. Two-thirds of Australians now live in our capital cities. BSUD can add value to the remarkable range of benefits urban greening provides and help to deliver greener, cleaner and cooler cities, in which residents live longer and are less stressed and more productive.
Read more:
Why a walk in the woods really does help your body and your soul BSUD promotes human-nature interactions and nature stewardship among city residents. It does this through human-scale urban design such as mid-rise, courtyard-focused buildings and wide boulevard streetscapes. When compared to high-rise apartments or urban sprawl, this scale of development has been shown to deliver better liveability outcomes such as active, walkable streetscapes. Mid-rise, courtyard-focused buildings and wide boulevard streetscapes created through a biodiversity sensitive urban design approach.Graphical representation developed by authors in collaboration with M. Baracco, C. Horwill and J. Ware, RMIT School of Architecture and Design, Author provided By recognising and enhancing Australia’s unique biodiversity and enriching residents’ experiences with nature, we think BSUD will be important for creating a sense of place and care for Australia’s cities. BSUD can also connect urban residents with Indigenous history and culture by engaging Indigenous Australians in the planning, design, implementation and governance of urban renaturing.
Read more:
Why ‘green cities’ need to become a deeply lived experience
What needs to change to achieve this vision?
While the motivations for embracing this approach are compelling, the pathways to achieving this vision are not always straightforward. Without careful protection of remaining natural assets, from remnant patches of vegetation to single trees, vegetation in cities can easily suffer “death by 1,000 cuts”. Planning reform is required to move away from offsetting and remove obstacles to innovation in onsite biodiversity protection and enhancement. In addition, real or perceived conflicts between biodiversity and other socio-ecological concerns, such as bushfire and safety, must be carefully managed. Industry-based schemes such as the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star system could add incentive for developers through BSUD certification. Importantly, while BSUD is generating much interest, working examples are urgently required to build an evidence base for the benefits of this new approach.
All around the world cities are struggling with traffic congestion, and with the associated delays, carbon emissions and air pollution. Behind every traffic jam are thousands of personal decisions about how people are going to travel. The more people choose public transport, the fewer traffic jams and the less pollution there will be. But how do you get people to give up their cars?
A growing number of cities are turning to what looks like an obvious solution: make public transport free. It would entice people onto buses and trams, and it has the added benefit of democratizing public transport and making sure that nobody is excluded. Germany announced a trial run in several cities earlier this year, but dozens of places already have free transport in one form or another. Here's a small selection:
Talinn is the one of the best known. The Estonian capital offers free public transport to local residents, paid for in part by the high number of paying visitors and tourists.
Geneva does it the other way round, and offers tourists a free public transport card for the length of their stay. This encourages visitors to leave their cars behind.
Melbourne has free tram transport in the city centre, a deliberate effort to discourage people from driving into the city. Kuala Lumpur also discourages driving in its downtown business district by laying on free wifi-enabled LPG powered buses.
Singapore made bus travel on key commuter routes free before peak time. This encouraged more people to go to work earlier, and reduced pressure on the transport network during the rush hour.
As my parents regularly remind me, over 60s get free bus travel in Britain. London offers free bus travel to children and teenagers.
Of course, there's no such thing as 'free' public transport. It's just not paid for through the traditional method of charging riders for a ticket. Most of these free schemes are subsidised by local government, and because of that they're quite precarious. Britain has had several examples of free bus services that have fallen foul of budget cuts and introduced fares - here's one in Huddersfield that used to serve students. Should we be relying on governments, national or local, to be paying for transport?
Before we jump too quickly to say no, it's worth remembering that car drivers don't pay the full cost of their transport choices either. The costs of congestion, pollution, accidents and climate change are all externalised. Governments often pay for roads and maintenance, parking and policing. Everybody's getting a subsidy one way or another. Why not price in more of the full cost of driving, and use it to encourage public transport?
Government doesn't have to be the only way to pay for it either. Hybrid funding models can draw on sponsorship and advertising. Business districts or universities might want to pay for transport that serves their areas. And funds can be tied directly to cars: Baltimore's 'Charm City Circulator' was designed as a low-emissions free bus service paid for by higher parking charges. In Hasselt, Belgium, plans for a bypass were scrapped and the money spent on making buses free instead. They ran free for 16 years before rising costs brought fares back in.
Does it work? Evidence is mixed. Talinn found that the people most likely to use the free bus were not car drivers but pedestrians. The number of bus riders rose, the number of walkers fell - but 10% of drivers did switch to the bus, which made enough of a difference for the scheme to be judged a success. In fact, Estonia is planning to follow Talinn's lead and make a nationwide free transport network. In other places, bus travel soared and there's no question that it worked. But since there are many models for funding and operating free travel, and many different goals - from reduced rush hour traffic to social inclusion to air pollution - there's no one way to assess success.
Since there are so many overlapping social and environmental benefits of free public transport though, I expect we will hear more about it in future.
Mai Sutton: Urban commons initiatives are booming in the Belgian city of Ghent, according to a new report. One of the researchers behind the study, Michel Bauwens of the P2P Foundation, says that “the ecosystem of commons-based initiatives in Ghent is quite exemplary precisely because it covers an ecosystem in an area that requires a lot of capital and has to overcome a lot of commons-antagonistic regulation.” So against the odds, approximately 500 urban commons projects have sprung up in the last decade.
Wooncoop is a housing cooperative that gives home renters the same housing security as home owners. The cooperative buys, refurbishes, and mutualizes buildings — not the land on which they stand like a Community Land Trust. Once someone buys a share of Wooncoop, they can rent a house or apartment in one of their properties owned by the co-op. They are guaranteed housing there for a lifetime while paying reasonable rent for a well-maintained residence.
There is a multitude of innovative co-housing initiatives that have emerged in Ghent. But what is interesting is that people are not simply living together in a shared space, but rather, sharing various amenities. This includes sharing kitchens, guestrooms, and laundry rooms. This model works when a group of houses are designed collectively to share their facilities. However, local regulations have hindered the growth of this kind of co-housing development. Labland is a workshop and think-and-do-tank that is working to change policies on behalf of these experimental initiatives.
The City of Ghent facilitates the temporary use of local land and buildings. The most notable one is the Driemasterpark, a park that sits on a former industrial site in a poor neighborhood that is entirely managed by nearby residents. It was opened in late 2016, and in addition to having a playground, the park has spaces for chickens and dogs, and a vegetable garden.
Ghent has a thriving Community Land Trust(CLT). When public land becomes available, the city occasionally sets aside a percentage of land to the CLT so that it bypasses land speculation by real estate developers. The CLT keeps properties affordable and accessible to low-income residents.
Ghent’s food sector is where the commons is most developed. This is partly due to the public organizations in the city that are building political support for this work. Gent en Garde is a transition platform that endorses the demands of civil society for fair, organic, and local food. It created, among other things, the Urban Agriculture workshop, which is a working group of individuals and organizations whose mission is to create a more sustainable and healthy food ecosystem in Ghent.
Ghent’s public schools collectively provide about five million meals a year to their students. However, much of it tends to be the cheapest food they can order from remote multinational food producers.L unch met LEF is an initiative that aims to counteract this by bringing local, organic food to public schools. The group plans to transport the ingredients using cargo bike sharing, a zero-carbon transportation system.
A brainstorming session between a few Ghent urban commons leaders led to the idea of introducing pigs to vacant land, as an experiment in maximizing the use of unused public property in Ghent. Spilvarken started as a pilot project in 2014. A few weeks after three pigs were brought to the neighborhood, nearby residents voluntarily began taking care of them. Soon thereafter, the pigs because a center of community socializing, and a way for nearby residents to dispose of food waste as feed to the animals.
Solar panel installation in Ghent. Photo courtesy of Johan Eyckens
As a city that was inthe first cohort to sign the EU Covenant of Mayors in 2009, Ghent has created an ambitious plan to reduce its carbon emissions by the year 2030. One critical part of its strategy is the creation of a central governmental body called Energiecentrale. The agency serves as a contact point for locals to get support for anything related to making energy efficient renovations to their homes, businesses, and facilities. The agency provides free energy audits of homes and facilitates a “sustainable neighborhoods” program, by providing advice and financial support to get community-led energy efficiency initiatives, such as energy co-ops, off the ground.
The crown jewel of the city’s energy program is the community-owned Energent — a renewable energy cooperative with cheap shares that make membership accessible to most Ghent residents. The co-op started as an ambitious project, in coordination with the city, to furnish the majority of houses in the neighborhood of St. Amandsberg with solar panels. Individual solar power — in which people only get the power harnessed from their own panels — are expensive. Under a system like Energent, more people can afford to install solar panels. The problem of less productive, east-west roofs — called the intermittency problem or the unequal provision of energy due to weather — gets solved. This shows the the advantage of having a collective approach to energy provisioning.
“Where ignorance is your master, there is no possibility of peace.” The XIV Dalai Lama.
The scientific contributions of Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were fundamental for the construction of the atomic bomb. Today, their reflections on the subject are also fundamental for the survival and evolution of our species. Conversations with both scientists after the Manhattan Project indicate that each felt remorse for their involvement. They wished they had thought through their direct and indirect involvement more thoroughly, and said that if they had known what their work would lead to they might have acted differently.
These quotes from Einstein are glimpses of his perspective:
“I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed the letter to President [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made. Had I known that Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I never would have lifted a finger. The unleashing of the power of the atom bomb has changed everything except our mode of thinking…Science has brought forth this danger, but the real problem is in the minds and hearts of men. We scientists must consider it our solemn and transcendent duty to do all in our power to prevent these weapons from being used for the brutal purpose for which they were invented. Non cooperation in military matters should be an essential moral principle for all true scientists.”
Feynman joined the Manhattan Project as an enthusiastic and energetic 24 year-old. Later in his life—after recovering from a severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—he said this:
“One should reconsider perpetually one’s reasons for doing something, because it may be that the circumstances have changed… I don’t guarantee you as to what conclusion I would have come to if I had thought about it, but nevertheless the fact that I did not think about it was, of course, wrong.”
What I hear when I translate the language of these two geniuses into my perspective is this: we were going too fast. We are still going too fast. When we rush, we make decisions that lack information, lack proper reflection, and ultimately make the problems of humanity worse.
Now is the time to slow down, to take a pause, to rethink the purpose of science and education and to cultivate our critical thinking—and our critical feeling. It is time to combine science with the soul: science as the sustainable, collective and critical development of knowledge; soul as the individual and collective capacity to make wise use of that knowledge; ultimately, the ability to rejoice in the welfare of all living beings. Bertrand Russell echoed this postulation when he wrote: “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.”
As a scientist, I am not against science. I am against the unethical applications of science. I represent a new generation that rescues the best of previous generations. Formed by millions of citizens of the World, this generation wants to be part of the mass that weighs on the positive side of the balance of the survival of our species. It’s a generation that cares about our planet; a generation that cares about the future of humankind; a generation that sees the big picture and the interconnectedness of our magnificent cultural and biological diversity.
We, the new generation, believe that the purpose of education is to help students to become more fully developed human beings, to help students discover meaning and passion in life, to develop critical minds and sensitive hearts, and to become knowledgeable about the peoples, inherited wisdoms, and subject matters that will help them find their path in the creation of a more peaceful, just, sustainable, and diverse World.
For us then, universities must be not centers of military recruitment or corporate indoctrination, or obedience to totalitarianism and support of the (dis)order of the non-egalitarian status quo, but they must be epicenters of critical thinking, inspiration, creativity, imagination, justice, freedom and true democracy.
The support of the development of weapons is an example of the contradiction between the purpose of education and the decisions made by some of the regents of the University of California (UC) in the history of this institution: since the Los Alamos Laboratory opened its doors in 1943, every single nuclear weapon built for the United States arsenal was designed at a UC managed weapons laboratory.
A nonviolent generation with many perspectives.
Paraphrasing Gandhi, to overcome the greatest destructive weapon humans have invented one needs the greatest power humankind has been endowed with: nonviolence. Just as peace is more than the absence of war, nonviolence is more than the absence of violence. It is not simply the negation to cause harm, but it is something infinitely more: it is when one’s heart is so full of love, so full of courage, forgiveness, generosity, kindness and compassion, that there is no room for hatred, resentment and violence. It is not a double negative but a superlative positive.
Nonviolence is a call to disobey inhumane laws and treaties; it is a call to obey the law of love; it is a call to not control anger but to express it under discipline for maximum effects; it is a positive force; it is a way of life: the thoughts we have, the things we say, the food we eat, the cloths we wear, the things we do. The members of this new generation are pragmatic idealists who try to “walk their talk.” Their means are their ends. They are trying to embody what Martin Luther King Jr. called “love in action.”
This young generation is formed by conservatives, liberals, moderates, anarchists, religious and secular people. We all are catalysts who honor all perspectives to be closer to the truth. I am a progressive, a conservative, a liberal, an anarchist, in short: a perspectivist. In other words, our generation is formed by citizens of the world who promote dialogue, tolerance and rooted values. In most respects, I continue to align with what I grew up believing to be conservative values. Yet I find I have nothing in common with extremists of the far right who advance an agenda of class warfare, fiscal irresponsibility, government intrusions on personal liberty, and reckless international military adventurism as conservative causes.
At the same time, I have nothing to approve of in extremists of the far left who advocate violence and a new way of totalitarianism which keeps attacking the human spirit. At the same time too, I’m not an anarchist as defined in the encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. written by the hierarchies and their corporate media, I’m engaged and in love with the voluptuous authority of collective intelligence; with her hugs of education, respect and peace; and with her kisses of justice, true democracy and freedom.
To be consistent with this new generation, one of my contributions is that I did not want to receive a title from an irresponsible institution that is putting at risk the survival of our species. Hence, this semester, after almost four years of interacting with the amazing and beautiful people of the Astronomy department as a graduate student and instructor—after seven years of following the fascinating path of Astrobiology—I withdrew from the University of California at Berkeley and will have nothing to do with that institution until it stops being involved in the research, production and manufacture of nuclear weapons.
In evolutionary time scales, I believe that violence and science are mutually exclusive; the two cannot coexist in the long run. Vinoba Bhave was quite aware of this: “Violence must be done away with if science is to survive," he wrote, "If both are sought to be retained, mankind, along with its science also, would be destroyed.” This disastrous combination inhibits the development of critical inquiry, he explains, because “our thinking becomes narrow and circumscribed if we are associated with any organization which will not be fully conductive for the quest of nonviolence.”
If we want to stop the proliferation of atomic bombs, it would be a good idea to stop producing them ourselves. If the government of the United States justifies nuclear weapons for its national security, why wouldn’t other countries construct atomic bombs for their own national security? This is not about “national security” but Global Security, Human Security—reconciliation and mutual respect between the peoples of the Earth is what really makes for peace and security in the long run, each country can be secure only when all are secure: the Earth is but one country and all living beings her citizens.
The political and intellectual prestige of the UC can be used not for justifying annihilatory purposes but for creating an artistic-scientific-spiritual-rational and humanitarian society. Just because we are students studying art, economics, engineering, peace and conflict studies, landscape architecture or astrophysics that doesn’t mean that we have to be part of an institution that develops new “safer weapons of mass destruction”. What if, rooted in the purpose of education as true seekers, the citizens of the World decide to noncooperate, according to their capabilities, with the UC until this institution stops being involved in the research, production and manufacture of nuclear weapons?
But this is not just about finding ways to abolish nuclear weapons and move on from this survival crisis. We are missing a great opportunity to convert swords into plowshares. We must divert their purpose into something constructive for humanity. What about protecting us from the impact of a large asteroid or comet to avoid a mass extinction of life on the Planet? We might be able to use nuclear explosives for a near asteroid burst to ablate surface material and nudge the body to a safer orbit, or a direct sub-surface burst to fragment the body.
That’s the difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing.
As a starting point we can slow down, pause, rethink and heal from the cancer of violence which starts to disappear from our minds. Eknath Easwaran, a disciple of Gandhi who brought many of his teachings to the West, said:
“It is essential not to confuse slowness with sloth, which breeds procrastination and general inefficiency. In slowing down, we attend meticulously to details, giving the very best we are capable of even to the smallest undertaking.”
That is exactly what we need to do.
A longer version of this article was published on Earthling Opinion.
If you live within a ten-minute walk of a public park, count yourself lucky. For millions of Americans, urban outdoor recreation spaces are few and far between and usually require a drive. As a result, it’s often hardest for those living in low-income neighborhoods to access parks. But cities are increasingly making an effort to distribute resources more fairly. “The whole issue of equity has become very important within just the last two to three years,” says Adrian Benepe, director of city parks development for the Trust for Public Land (TPL), which has scored cities annually on their parks since 2012.
To determine if cities are adequately serving their low-income communities, TPL’s ParkScore looks at spending, acreage, and household access—whether there is a park within a ten-minute walk for those who make less than 75 percent of a city’s median income. Of course, proximity doesn’t necessarily equate to a high-quality park. “One thing we don’t measure is: Is it safe? Clean? Beautiful?” says Benepe. But he notes that ParkScore is really just a way to begin a conversation about investment in parks. “We give them interactive tools that they can use in planning—where to locate new parks and where to optimize existing ones.”
In TPL’s most recent rankings, these five cities stood out for reaching low-income neighborhoods.
#5. Arlington, Virginia
Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park:98
Arlington obtained top marks in parks-related spending, at $229.93 per resident (just ahead of Washington, D.C.), and was rated highly for its number of facilities, from dog parks to basketball hoops to recreation centers and playgrounds. In 2016, the county finished its Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment, setting open-space acquisition as a top priority to maintain its high ranking.
#4. Chicago, Illinois
Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 98
A study of park spending between 2011 and 2014 found that more than half of the $500 million devoted to Chicago’s park improvements went to only ten of the city’s 77 neighborhoods (most of which were affluent). So, in 2016, volunteers organized in low-income neighborhoods to identify improvements. They sought hundreds of thousands of dollars of private funding and pushed elected officials to split the cost. The result: building a new soccer field and playground in Kelly Park and fixing run-down baseball diamonds—and ultimately buoying Chicago to a top spot.
#3. New York, New York
Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 98
In 2014, the city launched its Community Parks Initiative to improve historically underfunded parks in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty. The initiative invested $285 million in more than 60 community parks that had gone decades without proper maintenance or upgrades.
#2. Boston, Massachusetts
Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 99
With a 1,100-acre chain of nine parks linked by parkways and waterways, bordering some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods (like Fenway), Boston grabs the second spot for low-income access. Though the city received a lower grade for park spending—$111.59 per resident—it ranks near the top when it comes to parkland as a percentage of the city’s total area.
#1. San Francisco, California
Percentage of low-income residents within 10 minutes of a park: 100
San Francisco has done a stellar job across all income levels. The median park size is 1.6 acres, and parkland makes up 20 percent of the city’s total area. San Francisco also recently completed a review of its park system to assess whether money was being equally invested across all demographics. From there, the city highlighted the areas that were economically stressed and will incorporate those metrics into the parks department’s strategic plan.
When dog owners meet, it helps build a safe and connected community.
Wrote/flickr, CC BY-NC
Talk to any pet owner and you are bound to invoke stories about the joy and companionship of having a pet. But evidence is mounting that the effect of pets extends beyond their owners and can help strengthen the social fabric of local neighbourhoods. Now a cross-national study involving Perth, Australia, and three US cities has lent weight to the observation that pets help build social capital.
This is not a frivolous notion, given the erosion of sense of community is often lamented. As Hugh Mackay recently observed, not knowing our neighbours has become a sad cliché of contemporary urban life.
I stumbled into pet-related research some 15 years ago when undertaking a PhD on neighbourhoods and sense of community. I was curious about the elements of a neighbourhood that might help people connect to one another, so I threw some in some survey questions about pets.
In what has become my most-cited academic paper, we found that pet owners were more likely to have higher social capital. This is a concept that captures trust between people (including those we don’t know personally), networks of social support, the exchange of favours with neighbours and civic engagement.
Fast-forward a decade to a much larger study to look at the relationship between pets and social capital. Pet owners and non-owners were randomly surveyed in four cities (Perth, San Diego, Portland and Nashville – four cities reasonably comparable in size, urban density and climate).
In all four cities, we found owning a pet was significantly associated with higher social capital compared with not owning a pet. This held true after adjusting for a raft of demographic factors that might influence people’s connections in their neighbourhood.
How do pets help build social bonds?
It is often assumed that the social benefits of pets are confined to social interactions that occur when people are out walking their dogs. Lots of dog owner anecdotes support this. In this large sample study, however, levels of social capital were higher among pet owners across the board.
We did nonetheless find that social capital was higher among dog owners and those who walked their dogs in particular. Dog owners were five times more likely to have got to know people in their neighbourhood. This makes sense, as dogs are the most likely to get us outside the home.
Yet our survey data and qualitative responses show that a variety of pets can act as a social lubricant. Pets are a great leveller in society, owned and loved by people across social, age and racial strata.
Perhaps it is having something in common with other people that strikes a chord, regardless of the type of pet.
What does this mean for how we live?
That pets can help build social capital is not just a social nicety or quirky sociological observation. Hundreds of studies internationally show that social capital is a positive predictor for a raft of important social indicators, including mental health, education, crime deterrence, and community safety.
Given pets are entrenched in the lives and homes of many Australians, it makes sense to tap into this as a way to strengthen the social fabric of local communities.
Not everyone can or wants to own a pet. But two-thirds of the population does, so our cities and neighbourhoods need to be “pet friendly”.
Australian suburbs are generally pretty good for walkable parks and streets. In this study, we also found that having dog walkers out and about contributes to perceptions of community safety.
Given the broad social benefits of pet ownership, perhaps we need to rethink ‘no pets’ rules where possible.Ed Brey/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
However, in Australia, pets have traditionally belonged to people living in detached housing with backyards. Many rental properties, apartment complexes, and retirement villages still default to a “no pets” policy.
Other countries, where renting and higher-density living is more the norm, seem more accepting of pets across the housing spectrum.
Given ageing populations, housing affordability and the need to curb urban sprawl are critical social trends in many countries (including Australia), maybe we need to recalibrate our notions of who can own a pet and where they can live. This is not to say that pets have to be allowed everywhere, but the default to “no pets allowed” is questionable.
My father-in-law in his 80s, for example, couldn’t downsize to a retirement complex because his extremely docile rescue greyhound exceeded the “10kg pet” rule. He couldn’t bear to part with Moby, a faithful companion through whom he met many local residents daily at the park nearby.
Constant companions in times of change
A lot of my current research is around homelessness. Chatting recently with a man who was homeless with his dog on the streets of Melbourne, he told me how his dog gets him up in the morning, keeps him safe at night, and gets them both walking daily.
His dog was one of the few stable things in his life, so he needed a public housing option that would allow pets.
People who are homeless also need crisis accommodation options that accept their pets. Hence it is great to see places such as Tom Fisher House in Perth, opening its doors to rough sleepers with pets needing a safe place to sleep.
Beyond the practical implications for pet-friendly cities, the potential for pets to enrich the social fabric of communities has strong appeal in an era of global uncertainty, frenetic “busyness” and technology-driven communications. As cultural analyst Sheryl Turkle has said, the ways people interact and forge relationships have undergone massive change and we can end up “connected, but alone”.
Sherry Turkle talks about why we expect more from technology and less from each other. By contrast, humans have been drawn to companion animals since early civilisation. In many people’s lives, they remain a tangible constant that can yield enduring social capital benefits.
THE RETURN OF the bicycle to the modern urban transport paradigm continues unabated. All over the world, citizens are rediscovering the benefits of cycling.
Cities are responding by building the infrastructure to serve and keep them safe. This rush to increase cycling levels and improve the quality of city life is the greatest movement in global urbanism. Of course, not all cities are equal. Some charge ahead, while others lag.
With the Copenhagenize Bicycle Friendly Cities Index 2017, we at the Copenhagenize Design Co. have ranked 136 global cities and identified the top 20 using 14 parameters. (You can read about our methodology here.) The common denominators between these cities are clear: the realization of the potential of cycling as transport, investment in infrastructure, and a desire to make cities better.
For almost a century, urban planners have only asked one question about transport: “How can we send more cars down this street?" In today’s age of booming urbanization, modern cities have changed that tired question to, “How can we send more people down this street?” The answer includes robust public transit and walking infrastructure—and, of course, a heavy dose of bicycle.
The bike in the city, regardless of topography or climate, is good business. In Copenhagen, the cycling population contributes $261 million a year in public health savings—enough to pay off the cost of protected bicycle infrastructure in under five years.
This is the fourth bi-annual Bicycle Friendly Cities Index and 2017 offers up as many surprises as the others. Copenhagen holds onto first place due to massive investment in cycling as transport. Utrecht dazzles with investment and innovation, nudging Amsterdam down into third.
Nine cities from the 2015 top 20 have moved up. Munich, Helsinki, and Tokyo are back after an absence. Every version of the Index produces a bicycle urbanism darling, and this year Oslo shines brightest. Despite the hills and the long winter, the Norwegian capital is focused on tackling traffic congestion and improving public health with bicycle infrastructure and facilities. Montreal clings onto 20th spot as the only North American city, but we are convinced that others will be appearing in the Index in the near future.
These are the cities to watch: Not just the benchmark cities at the top, but also the cities that started from scratch under a decade ago. Saddle up.
1. Copenhagen, Denmark
2015 Ranking: 1
The Lowdown: While the competition between Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Utrecht at the top of the Index remains fierce, it is clear the Danish capital continues to further develop itself as a bicycle-friendly city. It has invested $150 million in cycling infrastructure and facilities over the past decade. It has 16 new bridges for bicycles and pedestrians built or under construction, eight of which have opened since the 2015 Index.
Since 2015 alone, the City has completed the Havneringen / Harbour Ring bicycle route allowing citizens to cycle along the whole inner harbor, piloted a new traffic light system that detects and prioritizes cyclists, launched digital traffic congestion signs to improve flow through the city, and opened new bicycle superhighway routes. Now, 62 percent of residents ride a bike daily to work or education in the city—just nine percent drive. In short, few places in the world prioritize innovation as much as Copenhagen does, with the city council support to back it up.
Getting Better: Copenhagen may be a highly-designed and complex bicycle city, but it has work to do. Congestion on the cycle tracks—even the widest ones—will become a problem unless the city reallocates more road space for the dominant transport form in the city. And it needs to stem the tide of motorists that invade the city from the suburbs each day. Meanwhile, the November municipal election is shaping up to be Bikes vs Cars, with the right-wing parties gearing up for a return to the car-centric 1950s. Oslo, Helsinki, and Paris are pioneering a return to quality city life with plans to reduce car traffic. Copenhagen needs to maintain the momentum and cement its leadership.
2. Utrecht, Netherlands
2015 Ranking: 3
The Lowdown: One of the smaller cities on this list, Utrecht continues to impress, sliding past Amsterdam into second place. While Dutch cities have a tendency to maintain their levels of cycling rather than working to improve, Utrecht is intent on bucking that trend.
The uniquely designed Dafne Schippersbrug bridge is a fine example. The city’s ongoing plans to build 33,000 bike parking spots at the Central Station by 2020 is another. The current 12,000 spots wasn’t enough, apparently.
“Bicycle streets” are standard in many Dutch cities, but Utrecht boasts the longest in the country—3.7 miles—with plans for more. It have created a pop-up parking concept for bikes and they installed the “Flo,” a speed detection system coupled with digital kiosks that read each cyclist’s speed and help them speed up or slow down in order to catch the next light. Regarding urbanism in general, the city continues to reject last century planning by digging up the Stadsbuitengracht and returning the ancient waterway to its rightful place by 2019.
Getting Better: If you live in the city, you figure out how to get around pretty quick. The infrastructure isn’t, however, intuitive for visitors—a sign it could be a lot better. Improving the uniformity would be a massive upgrade for the city.
3. Amsterdam, Netherlands
2015 Ranking: 2
The Lowdown: Watching Utrecht squeeze into second place shows Amsterdam needs to dust off its game face. Its status quo is amazing, but the city has failed to make any serious progress in the past few years. One concern is the rapid rise of the scooter: 8,000 in 2007, 35,000 as of last year.
Amsterdam has plans for impressive development and bicycle urbanism projects, but they are still in the pipeline. Improved infrastructure behind Central Station is welcome, as are connections like the one under Rijks Museum from a few years ago. But there is still room for improvement given the swarms of competing transport species in this densely populated city.
There is only one Amsterdam and there will never be another. The typology of the city is unique, which might explain why they struggle to implement ideas from other places. On the other hand, lack of political will might indicate that they aren’t even looking.
Getting Better: Like Copenhagen, Amsterdam has an inherent responsibility to assume and maintain a leadership position. For the benefit of its own citizens, of course, but for cities everywhere. Placing bicycles on the municipal, political agenda much more than now is going to be necessary if Amsterdam is to hammer out a vision of where to go from here.
COPENHAGENIZE DESIGN CO
4. Strasbourg, France
2015 Ranking: 4
The Lowdown: For decades, Strasbourg has been France’s premier cycling city, with little competition. Things have changed, with Paris, Bordeaux, and Nantes making rapid progress, but Strasbourg has responded. It was the first French city to reach 16 percent modal share for bicycle commuting. The Velhop system has taken bike sharing to the next level, and we’ve never seen a city with so many public bikes on the street. It even subsidizes cargo bikes for citizens with stuff to haul.
Like many cities, Strasbourg is planning a coherent network of “bicycle superhighways” with three ring routes and several radial routes to suburbs and neighboring towns. They have also commissioned a modern visual identity and wayfinding for the VeloStras network to firmly establish the bicycle as a transport form that is equal to public transport.
Getting Better: Like Utrecht and Amsterdam, Strasbourg’s primary challenge is settling on uniform infrastructure designs across the city. The city has been ahead of the curve for decades, but has evolved in bits and pieces, using a variety of solutions. Upgrading its infrastructure to be intuitive and uniform will be the perfect complement to its otherwise visionary bicycle urbanism plans.
5. Malmö, Sweden
2015 Ranking: 6
The Lowdown: Since 2015, Malmö has continued their focus on cementing the bicycle as transport in the city. We were thrilled to see the opening of Cykelhuset, or Bicycle House: Housing that accommodates bicycles throughout the entire building encourages car-free living and signals developers are finally catching up with the times. Next door, the Bicycle Hotel provides modern travellers with similar accommodation in a bicycle-friendly city.
Malmö is looking to upgrade its bike sharing and infrastructure, distributes cargo bikes from its central train station, and is piloting garbage collection on two wheels. The new bicycle ferry between Malmö and Copenhagen will strengthen bicycle tourism in the region. Malmö may be the little sibling to the other cities around it, but it seems to shrug and get on with it.
Getting Better: Malmö has a strong focus—although we would like to see more political will—and this should translate into hard infrastructure now. Soft initiatives are welcome, but the city should exploit the momentum and start upgrading its infrastructure.
6. Bordeaux, France
2015 Ranking: 8
The Lowdown: Bordeaux appears to have rounded a corner and is looking at bicycle urbanism more seriously than ever before. In 2016, the city approved a “Plan Vélo Métropolitain,” designed to push cycling’s modal share to 15 percent by 2020. It is sending delegations to Copenhagen to study best practices and is organizing training on infrastructure design for city employees.
There is serious talk of booting cars from one of the main bridges over the Garonne River and dedicate it to bikes, pedestrians and buses. The city’s bike share system continues to plant the bicycle firmly back on the asphalt as transport. And, Bordeaux is the only city in France that sees more women cycling than men. Mayor Alain Juppé has often spoken fondly about cycling for transport, and now serious work is beginning: $84 million dedicated to cycling is certainly a good start.
Getting Better: In order to achieve that 15 goal, Bordeaux must improve the cohesiveness of its infrastructure and completing the network. Traffic calming and re-allocating space from cars to bikes is paramount.
7. Antwerp, Belgium
2015 Ranking: 9
The Lowdown: Antwerp remains the best large city in Belgium for cycling, and while progress has been a bit slow, we sense some serious momentum. The city plans to extend its bike share system to reach beyond the city center, into residential neighbourhoods. It is implementing modern design bike racks and temporary bike parking facilities for large events. The bike parking at the Central Station continues to impress, and other stations are getting improved parking facilities as well.
New infrastructure in the form of wide, protected cycle tracks along the harbour, three bicycle/pedestrian bridges, and a massive plan to put the ring motorway underground are all signs that Antwerp is trying to accelerate its modernization.
Getting Better: Antwerp has the potential to reach a modal share of 25 percent or more—and even to reach the levels of cycling in the top three cities on this Index. Uniform infrastructure and a drastic reduction of car traffic is the way forward. Political will in the city swings back and forth like a pendulum. A clear vision is required.
8. Ljubljana, Slovenia
2015 Ranking: 13
The Lowdown: Ljubljana has created its own momentum over the years, and being the Green Capital of Europe 2016 has provided an extra boost. As its modal share of cycling has risen, it plans to continue expanding its solid, relatively cohesive network. Growing cycling levels will be easier than in many other cities.
Advocacy and politics work well together here, and the city’s cycling officer is more highly regarded than in many cities in the region. Positive promotion of cycling is a key element on Ljubljana’s journey to becoming more bicycle-friendly.
Getting Better: Ljubljana is poised for dramatic change. All the elements are in place. There is no reason why the city cannot crack a 20 or even 30 percent modal share for bicycles in just a few years. Much of its infrastructure follows best practice guidelines, which makes it easier to build further. But cars still occupy a lot of space in the city’s transport policy. The balance needs to tip more in favor of public transport and bicycles. The high car ownership rate in the country must be reduced.
B.S.P.I./GETTY IMAGES
9. Tokyo, Japan
2015 Ranking: Below Top 20
The Lowdown: After falling outside the top 20 in 2015, Tokyo is back, armed with impressive statistics. One fifth of the metropolitan area’s 20 million rail commuters cycle to the station. The tourist areas are full of bikes, but it’s in the neighborhoods where the vast majority of locals live that you really understand why Japan is the world’s third great cycling nation, and Tokyo its crown jewel. The modal share can easily hit 30 percent in many neighbourhoods. Parking facilities for bikes are everywhere and impressive parking cellars with all the trimmings are located near train stations.
The 2020 Olympics will be a prime opportunity for Tokyo to finally recognize cycling as transport. Where London and Rio failed to use cycling as a way of moving a lot of people around during their games, Japan has the opportunity to do so—and to cement cycling for transport for future generations. And when the world’s largest metropolitan area can figure it out, there are few excuses for others.
Getting better: Proposed, draconian rules for cycling must be halted, and cycling must be taken seriously as transport on all political levels. Tokyo needs to stop looking to America for road planning inspiration and instead look to Europe. Separated cycle tracks on busy streets would transform the city for the better.
10. Berlin, Germany
2015 Ranking: 12
The Lowdown: Berlin is up two spots in 2017, thanks largely to activists who promoted a cycling referendum, putting bikes on the city’s agenda with a bang. With a new coalition in power and focused on sustainable transport, Berlin’s political and community engagement climate is in a perfect sweet spot. What happens is still to be seen.
The capital’s modal share is a respectable 13 percent, but some neighborhoods see numbers are as high as 20 percent. A new bike share system is slated for this year. Berlin is experimenting with traffic-free streets and testing “green waves” for cyclists.
Getting Better: Implement the plans outlined by the Cycling Referendum. The bizarre mix of bike infrastructure designs resulting from years of planners trying to squeeze bikes into a car centric paradigm need to be made uniform. With the rise of the cargo bike, the City needs to plan accordingly for them from the beginning.
11. Barcelona, Spain
2015 Ranking: 11
The Lowdown: Like Berlin, Barcelona finds itself it in an interesting urbanism age. Mayor Ada Colau, elected around the time of the last Index, made bold promises regarding bicycle urbanism. Since then, the city has expanded the length of its bike infrastructure by 20 percent, with plans to spend $22 million building 40 miles of cycling tracks.
The Superblocks are now up and running as pilot projects, with calmer streets benefitting cyclists. The local bike share system continues to be a success and there are plans for expansion. Now, the time is ripe for Barcelona to move to the next level. Like in Oslo, the current administration might only last for one term so things need to go a bit quicker.
Getting Better: Despite the positive plans coming out of City Hall, Barcelona still hesitates when it comes to restricting car traffic and making serious inroads for cycling as transport. Cyclists still have to take detours to get around the city. It’s time to adopt best practice guidelines and expand the network in order to see an exponential rise in bicycle traffic.
12. Vienna, Austria
2015 Ranking: 16
The Lowdown: After years of cautious baby steps, Vienna is accelerating its efforts and climbing the Index. It’s the first large city to install a cargo bike share system, and has provided subsidies to citizens who wish to purchase one. It boasts 800 miles of cycling infrastructure, although much of that is recreational. The city center feels pleasantly traffic calmed, and some cycle tracks indicate the city is thinking about a cohesive network.
Getting Better: For all the brilliant ideas that are seeing the light of day in Vienna, the city needs to match it with infrastructure. The politicians are keen to talk at all manner of conferences, but the fact remains that the city’s modal share isn’t rising fast.
13. Paris, France
2015 Ranking: 17
The Lowdown: Like in Berlin, Barcelona, and Oslo, there is strong political will in Paris for improving the quality of life for the citizens. It’s hard to see the city meeting its 15 percent modal bike share by 2020 or making good on Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s promise to be the best cycling city on the planet by 2020. But progress continues. City leaders meet regularly with local associations and mobility stakeholders, showing a refreshing desire to be transparent and inclusive. Paris plans to extend its huge Vélib’ bike share system to the greater metropolitan area, and put new bikes on the street next year.
Despite ideas like bicycle infrastructure in the middle of the Champs Elysees that show the City struggles with understanding design, Paris remains a city to watch.
Getting Better: Paris is a perfect candidate for using bikes as a last-mile logistic solution: Using the river and the canals for transporting goods and connecting that with a fleet of cargo bikes would be simple and effective. Oh, and get some bike racks.
14. Seville, Spain
2015 Ranking: 10
The Lowdown: Seville was a global first mover in quickly and efficiently promoting cycling as transport, wowing us with their political vision. It has, however, slipped down the Index for the second consecutive time due to inactivity. But it seems that now, Seville is ready to resume its drive. The new municipal government is bicycle positive and keen to make up for lost time. The plan that launched Seville’s first generation of infrastructure and that took the city to 7 percent modal share from virtually zero is up for renewal.
The baseline for expansion and improvement is solid. The infrastructure may not be intuitive or well-designed, but there is an all-important network and the citizens are willing to ride. With the new bicycle strategy, a lot of fixing is required.
Getting Better: While many cities are eager to expand and increase the length of the bicycle network, Seville should focus on improving the existing network and making it more coherent—then on expansion. Much of the network looks like bicycles were squeezed in here and there. Polish it up, straighten it out, and Seville will easily hit 20 percent modal share.
15. Munich, Germany
2015 Ranking: Below Top 20
The Lowdown: Munich returns to the upper echelon after dropping out in 2015, impressing with its efforts to improve city life using the bicycle.
The city has a higher modal share than both Berlin and Hamburg and Germany’s largest network of 18 mph speed zones. It has built more cycling infrastructure than any city in Germany over the past few years. That includes good signage to help people navigate, and plans for 14 bicycle superhighways to encourage people to cycle to the city from farther out.
Getting Better: Munich should be looking at where it’s headed. So many cities are establishing clear goals and we would like to see Munich’s plan for reaching 30 percent modal share for bikes.
16. Nantes, France
2015 Ranking: 7
The Lowdown: Nantes came out of nowhere back in the 2013 Index thanks to an impressive political push for making the bicycle a normal transport form once again. In 2015, it held onto a top ten spot. This year, it slips nine spots to 16th place, as the bicycle urbanism storm has calmed to a stiff breeze. Other cities are showing more desire for change and Nantes isn’t keep up.
The French city does have a $56 million investment plan to get the cycling modal share to 12 percent by 2030. Compare that with Bordeaux’s $78 million and a goal of 15 percent by 2020 and you can see why Nantes perhaps needs more investment. (Its modal share is still at 6 percent even after years of municipal focus.)
To Nantes’ credit, its plan is focused on hard infrastructure as opposed to soft actions. The city is seeing an increase in cargo bikes as a logistics solution as well as for use by families. New bike shops and startups working on smart bikes and accessories indicate that the city has created a dynamic that other cities can envy.
Getting Better: Spend the money wisely, Nantes. Think about your network and improve upon it. Use the community of passionate citizens to help grow your bicycle city.
17. Hamburg, Germany
2015 Ranking: 19
The Lowdown: Like nearby Dutch cities, Hamburg is guilty of keeping the status quo instead of working to increase cycling levels. Its position in the Index is due to its existing levels of cycling, built up over the past couple of decades more than any current passion for improving. The city has Germany’s most successful bike share, and many residential neighborhoods give you the impression of being in Amsterdam or Copenhagen.
Getting Better: Hamburg must make uniform and upgrade its confusing infrastructure if it wants to improve the cycling levels in the city. Separating the cyclists from motorized traffic is paramount, and bike lanes that take up space on sidewalks are unacceptable.
18. Helsinki, Finland
2015 Ranking: Below Top 20
The Lowdown: Helsinki cracked the Top 20 in 2011, then hovered below the surface until this year. The city has been ahead of the curve for many years, with bike infrastructure in place before many other cities rediscovered it. Helsinki launched its bike share in 2016 and it is already a success, with further improvements and expansion being planned. It wants to reach a modal cycling share of 15 percent by 2020, in line with many European cities. And it works hard to keep its infrastructure clear of snow in the winter.
Getting Better: We have seen bicycle count documents from the 1930s in Helsinki that show upwards of 10,000 cyclists a day on main corridors so there is little stopping the Finnish capital from going back to the future. The cycle path on the former rail line, Baana, has been a positive addition to the city, but now it is time to upgrade the infrastructure on the streets.
19. Oslo, Norway
2015 Ranking: Below Top 20
The Lowdown: Make no mistake, cycling in Oslo is a far cry from being in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, or even Seville. But Oslo is the darling of the 2017 Index, a re-emerging bicycle city trying to find a balance between the spandex warriors and the regular citizens who are embracing the bicycle for transport.
The city center will close to private cars by 2019, car parking is being removed in impressive numbers, and new infrastructure is being implemented, including a bicycle street. In a response to the national road directorate’s old fashioned and restrictive infrastructure standards, the city made its own rules—calling them the Oslo Standard—highlight its desire to upgrade and modernize. Subsidies for buying cargo bikes are the cherry on the bicycle cake.
Getting Better: To avoid one hit wonder status, Oslo must keep pushing. Carve the political pressure of the Oslo Standard in stone to keep moving forward with best practice infrastructure. We would like to see more physically separated cycle tracks now that the city is accelerating.
20. Montreal, Canada
2015 Ranking: 20
The Lowdown: The sole North American representative holds its spot in the top 20. It’s no secret Montreal has led the continent for decades, building cycle tracks long before any other city had even thought about it.
The greatest challenges are upgrading the outdated bi-directional system and planning an intelligent network. Politician Marc-André Gadoury is leading the charge with an infrastructure project featuring best practice cycle tracks in the Rosemont neighborhood. Mayor Denis Coderre is beginning to put some action behind his words. The city is improving at gathering data and using it wisely and new infrastructure is being built. The city’s bike share system still plays an integral role.
Getting Better: With such an impressive starting point, it is time for Montreal to prove their worth. Far too many streets in the city are still unsafe, and cyclists are often herded down congested corridors. The introduction of best practice infrastructure is welcome, but it needs to become the standard for bicycle planning from now on.
By contrast, humans have been drawn to companion animals since early civilisation. In many people’s lives, they remain a tangible constant that can yield enduring social capital benefits.
