Eco Pol Is

DRAFT

Ecopolis: concepts and initiatives Paul F Downton Abstract An Ecopol copol is seeks seeks t o mini mise ecological ecological f ootpr int s (bi ophysical ophysical ) and maximis maximi se human human potent ial (human (human ecology ecology)) t o repair repair , replenish and and suppo support rt process processes t hat hat maint maint ain li f e. This chapt chapt er argues argues t hat hat t he ‘ ecological ecological poli poli s’ is the next next evolut ionary st st ep f or urbanism: urbanism: built t o fit its place, co-operating with nature, empowering the powerless, feeding the hungry, shelt eri ng t he homeless homeless;; a pl ace of of human human cult ure t hat conscious consciousll y sus sustt ains t he cycles of atmosphe atmosphere, re, water, nutr ient s and and biology in healt healt hy balance balance.. The author presents four key proposit proposit ions, defi nes core principl pri ncipl es and set set s out steps st eps t owards ecological cit ci t y-making as as t he basis for strategic planning that can be translated into specific, practical policy. The challenges to achieving sustainable practices in a world where the momentum of climate chang change e t hreatens t o overt overt ake inst inst it uti onal onal inert ia are explored explored using using the concept concept of ‘ urban fr act act als’ als’ , i. e. experienc experiences es wit h demon demons st rati on proj proj ect ect s.

Most ost ly harml ess ess? A 's 'sust ust ainabl ainabl e cit y' enables enables all it s cit cit izens t o meet meet t heir own needs needs and and t o enhan enhance ce t heir heir well -being -being wit hout hout dama damag ging t he natur natur al worl d or endan endang gering t he li ving cond condit it ions of ot her her people, people, now or or i n t he fut ure.' G ure.' Gir ardet 2000 2000..

A cit cit y is more more t han han t he sum sum of of it s buildi ngs ngs; it includes services and and inf rast rast ruct ure t hat hat consume consume energy energy and land. The maki making ng and and maint enance enance of cit ies creates creat es t he great great est est human impact on the biosphere. But a city is also, first and foremost, a place of culture (Reg (Regist ister er 1987b). 1987b). As part of our species’ species’ survival, urvi val, it is neces necess sary f or us t o rapidl y evolve a cult ure capable capable of const const ruct ing cit ies as as urban ecos ecosys ystt ems t hat hat cont cont ri bute t o t he ecological health of the biosphere.

The eco-city, or eco-polis, is the next, and perhaps most important step in the evolution of our urban urban en environm vironmen entt s: buil buil t t o fi t it s place, place, i n co-op co-opera eratt ion wit h na natt ure rat rat her her t han han in conflict; designed for people to live whilst keeping the cycles of atmosphere, water, nutrient nutr ient s and and biology in healt healt hy balance; balance; empoweri empowering ng t he powerles powerless s, gett et t ing food t o t he hungry and shelter to the homeless.

Although the ecopolis is about creating human environments specific to their time and place, t he concept concept i s bot both h t imel ess ess and universal universal . To make pl pl aces f or everyone, in i n every land, land, for all t ime, cit ies need need to be dif dif ferent, refl ect ect ing the chara characteri cteri st ics of people, people, place and process processes unique t o their thei r reg r egional ional and t emporal locati l ocati on. This ‘uni versal versal regionalis regionali sm’ can only come about about t hrough hrough the t he cons consist istent ent and persist persistent ent applicat appl icat ion of

DRAFT: Steering Sustainability Page 1 of 13

DRAFT: ‘Ecopolis: concepts and initiatives’

principl es embedded in an expli cit cult ure of ci t y-making. The challenge is to embed processes in the life of a city that are as natural to it as bones are in our bodies.

There are numerous definit ions of ‘ sust ainable’ / ’ green’/ ’ ecological’ cit ies, such as Gir ardet’ s above, and claims t o be ‘ ecological cit ies’ (notably, for it s earl y hubris and influence, Curitiba, Brazil). There have been no widely accepted, functional definitions of what an ecological ci t y does or what it is except as a place to be comfort able, i .e. ‘ most ly harmless’ (Adams 1999). Just as a biologist opens a biology t ext book and fail s t o find a definit ion of ‘ li f e’ , so those of us concerned wit h the fate of cit ies and t he sust enance of our environment imagine that we know what a city is, yet lack a clear, shared definition of its fundamental purposes. To open the debate and establish some ground rules, I address the question of why we make cities and provide a testable definition of an ecological city.

Cit ies have t o be more t han ‘most ly harmless’ . They must support massive human populations and repair/ redress t he enormous damage t o the natural world t hat humans have already done. I propose t hat an ecological cit y is exemplified by t he ‘ eco-polis’ concept in which the biophysical environmental processes of a region are sustained through conscious intervention and management by its human population. In other words, the citizens of the urban ecosystem seek to fit human activity within the constraints of t he biosphere whil st creat ing housing and urban environment s t hat sust ain human cult ure. In its full realization, the ecopolis is a manifestation of a developed ecological culture, st anding in cont rast t o t he expressions of exploit ati ve cult ure t hat are our present-day cities.

I say ‘ ecopolis’ , rather t han ‘ ecocit y’ , t o reinforce the definit ional li nks bet ween social and environmental purposes. ‘ Eco’ ref ers t o ecological purpose and ‘ polis’ t o t he ideas and ideals of governance t hat encompass communit y and self -det erminati on. I adopted the term in 1989, constructing the word from first principles, partly in response to the t erm ‘mult i-f unct ion polis’ t hen prevalent i n Aust ralia. It has been independent ly discovered or constructed around the world (Koskiaho 1994), adopted by others (Girardet 2004) and has been used t o name conf erences in Russia (1992), China (2004) and New Zealand (2004).



The ecopolis is about t he way we organize knowledge and how we see ourselves. I suggest t hat archit ecture and planning are redefi ned as t he art and science, t heory and pract ice, of creating sustainable human settlement, i.e. as subsets of urban ecology. In the early days of t he ecocit y movement it was not unusual t o hear t he comment t hat an ‘ecological cit y’ was an oxymoron. The ‘ most ly harmless’ definit ion of sust ainable cit ies ref lect s a failure of the imagination, a fear about making more mistakes, about trying to do as little bad as possibl e. What if we set out t o be genuinely ‘ good’ instead? (McDonough & Braungart 2002: 67).

Ecopolis Development Principles Initially drafted in association with Chérie Hoyle and Emilis Prelgauskas, the 12 Ecopolis Development Princi ples (EDP) were i ntended to provide a clear set of pr ecepts for developing human settlement that restored, rather than destroyed, ecological health. The revised version here has 10 pri ncipl es divi ded int o ‘biophysical’ and ‘ biosocial’ groups inf ormed by the work of Norbert Schulz from Germany, an int ern at Urban Ecology Aust ralia, in 1995 (Box 1). An ecopolis seeks t o minimi se biophysical ecological f ootpr int s (Rees and Wackernagel 1996) and maximi se human potent ial (human ecology) i n order t o repair, replenish and support t he processes t hat maint ain li f e.

Box 1. Ecopolis Development Principles (Source: Downt on, htt p:/ / www.ecopoli s.com.au)

The Biophysical Pr i nci pl es —MINIMISE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS 1. Rest ore Degraded Land: use urban development to restore health and vitality of land. 2. Fit t he Bioregion : create human sett lements which work wit h region’ s nat ural cycles. 3. Balance Development : balance development wit h the ‘ carrying capacit y’ of t he land. 4. Creat e Compact Cit ies: reverse sprawl and st op ad-hoc development over l andscape. 5. Opt imi se Energy Perf ormance: generate and use energy efficiently.

The Human Ecology Principles - MAXIMISE HUMAN POTENTIAL 6. Contribute to the Economy : create work opportunities and promote economic activity. 7. Provi de Healt h and Securit y : create healt hy and safe environment s f or all people. 8. Encourage Community : cit ies are f or everyone. 9. Promot e Social Justi ce and Equit y : equal r ights/ access t o services, f acil it ies and inf o. 10. Enrich History and Culture: respect the past. Look to the future. Celebrate diversity.



Overt aken by glaciers City-making requires consideration of timescales that exceed the attention span of convent ional commerce and poli t ics. This is a problem. If cit ies are t o be kept on the path of ecological f it ness over t ime t here must be concomit ant socio-cult ural structures and institutions to manage their passage. Brand (1999) draws attention to the lack of inst it utions or decision-making syst ems t hat deal wit h very l ong-t erm planning in contr ast wit h t radit ional cult ures t hat commonly looked back and fort h across several generat ions.

It is ironic t hat j ust as t he reali zat ion is dawning that human syst ems and inst it utions need t o accommodate and adapt t o the long, slow rat es of change of natural syst ems, it seems that the climate is moving. Glaciers are overtaking us! Climate change requires a heightened alert ness to t he biogeophysical envir onment and const ant acti vit y t o keep pace wit h t he changes in natural syst ems precipit ated by human aff airs. However, t here is a danger t hat inst it utional responses wil l remain based on ‘more of t he same’ t hinking.

The hegemony of unhealthy, energy-hungry, central air-conditioning systems has been part ly due t o the seduct ive idea t hat any buildi ng could be made comfort able by plugging in a machine and f li cking a swit ch. According to t he canons of t he archit ectural priest hood, t his allowed ‘ design freedom’ by separat ing the funct ion of t he buil ding envelope from the need to moderate the climate. Conversely, ecocity design is understood and pract iced as a rich process of engagement by livi ng creat ures wit h their environment and with each other. It eschews the linear, compartmentalized process favoured by industrial society; it needs to be developmental, and it requires careful, continuous maint enance. It requires management of a dif ferent kind t han t hat bequeat hed by mil it arism and product ion li ne manuf actur ing processes.

Seven steps and four propositions Alt hough modern planning syst ems, incl uding the New Urbanism, acknowledge t he importance of land-use they rarely apply available knowledge with the kind of practical ecological sensit ivi t y demonst rat ed, f or inst ance by McHarg (1971). The seven st eps ident if ied i n t he ‘ SHED’ (sust ainable human ecological development) process (Box 2) reinf orce t he need t o int egrat e land-use planning wit h every aspect of ecocit y making. For instance, Richard Register (1987) has cit ed the posit ive pot ential of tall buildings, with



the proviso that there is a diversity of activities in such developments. They save land for agri cult ure; pr omote energy-saving by reducing tr avelling dist ances; make commerce, culture and social diversity more easily available; and, with imagination, can include mult i-level greenhouses and roof -gardens. Register remi nds us t hat ci t ies are t hreedimensional entities, not flat maps, and asserts that a vital social life is an essential ingredient of any communit y claiming to be ‘ ecological’ .

The seven st eps off er a basis for f raming poli cy and const ruct ing development pr ograms. Sustainable human ecological development (SHED) fundamentally depends on the connections between human and non-human life through the flow of water within ecosystems. A topographical-built form relationship between region and habitation is identifiable through their respective capacity and functions as shedders of water. Biological processes dominate the first four and provide the context for all the others, which highli ght communit y processes. Alt hough numbered sequent ially, any st ep in t he SHED may be t he first .

The seven steps are ultimately about building environments where architecture and planning are set wit hin t he framework of t he biophysical and biosocial reali t ies of place as part of the conscious making of ecological civilization, instead of attempting to incorporate sust ainable processes wit hin archit ect ure and planning. Bart on (2000: 28) has pointed out t hat , ‘ The real challenge facing us is not one of building eco-vill ages, but of making t he modern cit y, and the way of l if e lived in it , environment ally sust ainable’ . The int ert wined relati onships between cit ies, place and cult ure, and human and biophysical ecology suggest four sets of propositions about the necessary conditions for making ecocit ies (Downt on 2002): 1. City-region: A city is part of its place. 2. Integrated Knowledge: All knowledge must be int egrat ed (harnessed/ holi st ic). 3. Cult ural Change: Ecocit ies need t o est ablish st rong cult ural str uctures t hat recognise social and ecological inter-dependency. 4. Cult ural (Urban) Fractals: Small demonst ration proj ects are vit al as cat alyst s for cultural change.



Box 2. Seven steps in t he ‘ SHED’ (sust ainable human ecological devel opment ) pr ocess

SHED 1 SHEDDING —identifies the biophysical context and its inherent developmental constraints for city making: watersheds; ‘bioregioning’; ‘ design wit h natur e’ methodology (McHarg 1971); carr ying capacit y; ecological footprints; environmental space.

SHED 2 PLACING —expl ores cult ur al and spir it ual aspects of a bi oregional (Sale 1991) analysis, placing people, seeking non-physical structures as a basis for maint aining deep conti nuit ies: ‘ genius loci’ ; ‘ spiri ti ng’ (discovering spir it of place); geomancy; Feng Shui; ‘ re-i nhabit ation’ (Berg 1981).

SHED 3 BIOZONING —locates food and biological resource sites on the basis of pr oximit y or energy planning: biome identif ication; soil analysis; integrated land management techniques, Permaculture.

SHED 4 LIFELINING —ident if ies and maps th e mi nimu m w eave of ecosystem elements vital to conti nued ecosystem connect ivit y and functionalit y: livi ng links; island biogeography; ecological corridors; waterways; ‘keylines’ (Yeoman 1971); ecological restoration; nat ural i nfr ast ructur e; i nter face between urban and pre-urban ecological structure; conservation and restoration.

SHED 5: PROXIMATING —locates cul t ur al, social, economic and communi t y resource cent res on the basis of proxi mit y or l east energy planning: h uman li nks, proxi mit y planning (Register 1987), designing and ‘ registeri ng’ ; recognising historical somatic energy patterns of pre-industrial ‘walkable’ urban f orm; exchange space (Engwi cht 1992), market s and meet ing places; e.g. city squares in the urban fabric. SHED 6 PATTERNING —i dent if ies essent ial patt er ns for creat in g urbanit y/communit y: i nvisible struct ures, citi fi cati on vs urbanisation; and libertarian municipalism (Bookchin 1991, 1992); patterning neighbourhoods (Alexander et al 1977); predicting urban growth patterns and morphologies t hrough fr act al scali ng laws (Batt y and Longley, in Ball 1999: 244). Use of local cultural codes e.g. Islamic precepts for town planning in Arabia. SHED 7 ARCHITECTING —designs wit h t he pr inci pl es of Gaean (Gaian) archit ectur e and t he Ecopoli s Development Pri nciples: six skins (Brand 1997, 1999) Ecological architecture fits the climate, saving energy and creating healthy buildings that respond to the needs of their occupants whilst respecting and reflecting local character and a ‘cradle to grave’ concern for the i mpact of a buildi ng over t he whole of it s lif ecycle.



The Frogstick —An urban ecology checklist Environment al indicat ors are essential for measuring ecological perf ormance in urban design and planning. Many such indicators have been creat ed during the l ast decade. The ‘ Frogst ick’ (Downton 1991: 54) was inspir ed by (Well s 1981: 33-40) —‘ frog’ because, as a species which is extremely sensitive to its environment, its presence or absence in a preferr ed habit at provides an indication of t he habit at’ s relat ive healt h. Designed for novices t o understand, el ements of t he frogst ick measure can be adapted/ augmented to in-depth scient if ic enquiry (Box 3).

Box 3. An example of a frogstick scoresheet Frogst ick— Cit y of Adelai de Away from

-10

-7. 5

-5

-2. 5

+2. 5 +5

+7. 5 +10

Towards

Sustainability

Sustainability

1 Air

Pollutes

Purifies

2 Wat er

Poll ut es/ Wast

Purifies/

es

Recycles

3 Eart h (soil ) Dest roys

Renews

4 Fire

Non-

Renewable

(energy)

renewable

5 Biomass

Decreases

Increases/ Stable

6 Food

Consumes

Creates

7 Biodiversit y Decreases

Increases

8 Habitat

Dest roys

Creates

9 Ecolinks

Reduces

Increases

10 Resources Wastes

Recycles/ Reuses

TOTAL PERFORMANCE

-50

-10

= minus 82.5%

-22.5

Three Urban Fractals Models and st rat egies are requir ed for eco-neighbourhoods in urban areas in order t o pract icall y demonst rat e innovati ve and appropri ate solut ions which could be readil y appli ed by ot her neighbourhoods. (Rudlin & Dodd 1998: 2)



The ecopolis theory has been applied in three proj ect s undertaken by the author and his coll eagues in South Aust ralia during t he last decade and a half. Each proj ect has been ini t iat ed thr ough the non-profit group Urban Ecology Aust ralia Inc. (conveners of t he 1992 Second International EcoCity Conference). The most complete example presented is that of t he ‘ Christi e Walk’ ecocit y project current ly nearing complet ion in Adelaide. The proj ects t est ed the proposit ions t hat t here was enough ext ant knowledge and adequat e techniques and technologies to begin making ecological cities (Proposition 2) and that drivi ng forces depended on ‘ communit ies’ and ‘ acti ve cit izenship’ (Proposit ion 3). The ecopoli s proj ect s descri bed were all conceived as ecocit y microcosms — urban cult ural fractals (Proposit ion 4).

Project 1: Halifax EcoCity Project The Hali fax EcoCit y Proj ect (HEP) and Urban Ecology Aust ral ia Inc (UEA) evolved duri ng t he lat e 1980s and early 1990s. The HEP proposal was f or an ecocit y microcosm for 800 people: communit y f acili t ies, cafés, shops, off ices, an Ecology Centre, market place etc. The car-f ree, mixed-use development of 3-5 st oreys was planned to be a simi lar densit y t o t radit ional European cit ies. It was conceived as a means of cat alysing redevelopment in the City of Adelaide and as a device for promulgating development that integrated social j ust ice and communit y control wit h st rong ecological goals.

Rudlin and Dodd (1998: 1-3) have ident ified t he HEP as an exemplary case st udy of a ecological development highlighting a genuine sustainable urban neighbourhood. Environmental t argets included: r educing the eco-f oot print of t he neighbourhood to an ecologically sustaining level; analysing lifecycle costs and impacts; using ecological design principl es and environmental purchasing crit eria; elimi nat ing fossil f uels for power and heat ; creati ng a closed water syst em; exploring food producti on possibili t ies; reducing car use; and developi ng a communit y pl anning approach.

An import ant goal of t he HEP was t o be influenti al in t he wider communit y and raise consciousness of the potential of action in urban development and community-based poli t ics. The proj ect’ s success can be seen in the number of academic ci t ations and courses t hat have incorporat ed the project as a case st udy, publicati ons t hat ref er t o t he proj ect, media report s, exhibit ions, and awards received f or, or because of, t he proj ect.



Though t he HEP never event uated as a physical edif ice, it does exist st il l as a cult ural const ruct and as hist orical experiment in part icipat ory, communit y development (Orszanski 1993). In t he Ecopolis Now video documentary (Sam St egman 2000) it was referred to as t he ‘ Holy Grail ’ of urban envir onmentali sm, indicati ng t hat virt ual cult ural fractals can be effective too.

Proj ect 2: Whyall a EcoCit y Development Following several moderately successful public workshops, a 15 hectare site in the heart of Whyalla was zoned ‘ EcoCit y’ wit h subsequent developments and modificat ions on-sit e. The Whyalla EcoCit y Development succeeded in at t ract ing a ‘ cri t ical mass’ of support in a t own of j ust 27,000 people. This small cit y has a signifi cant group of cit izens, many closely associat ed wit h local reli gious and cult ural organisat ions, who understand and are committed to the ecocity vision. Their knowledge and advocacy skills have been tested in response t o pressure f rom economic r eductionist s seeking to replace communit y areas wit h commercial interest s. It is int erest ing to not e t hat t he Whyall a EcoCit y Development which has a partial physical presence has had little impact whilst the theoretical Halifax EcoCit y Proj ect continues t o exert int ernat ional i nfl uence.

Project 3: Christie Walk A key aspect of Christ ie Walk i s it s locati on in t he most mixed-use, least wealt hy and most culturally diverse part of the City of Adelaide, which required the design to address complex inner-urban contextual demands (Reardon et al 2005). However, the context supplied solutions as well as challenges —transport energy use is minimised by the capacit y t o walk t o all maj or urban facil it ies and closeness of public transport. A t otal sit e area of j ust 2000 m2 (equivalent to two traditional quarter-acre blocks) is being developed wit h 27 dwell ings, including an apartment buildi ng wit h communit y facil it ies on the St urt St reet front age. Communit y gardens, i ncluding South Aust ralia’ s f ir st roof garden, have been organised, planned and managed by resident s. A number of housing t ypes are represent ed, some li nked physically, and all connect ed through landscaping that has been designed to be an int egral part of t he passive climat e response of t he dwellings.

This proj ect expresses import ant aspects of ecopolis pract ice, incl uding: •

communit y processes/ st ruct ures based on mutual aid and dir ect democracy;



•

at-a-distance impact s related t o f inancial decision making (Communit y Aid Abroad Et hical Investment Trust and Bendigo Communit y Bank);

•

demonst rat ing how various aspects of design address key technologies: water capture and re-use, solar power, etc;

•

showing how urban f orms reduce t ransport demands and how high densit ies facili t ate communit y and convivialit y;

•

demonstrating how technology and funding reinforce local community processes to achieve sustainable human ecological development.

Conclusions The HEP and Christ ie Walk were self -direct ed social experi ments undert aken by people who freely chose to be part of an innovative, non-government initiative. The HEP managed t o achieve semi-myt hic stat us as an example of somet hing genuinely achievable wi t h Christi e Walk reinforcing it s credibil it y as a part ial realisat ion of t he HEP, in microcosm. They express t he four proposit ions menti oned above: 1) t he three proj ects were all designed in a consciously determined relationship to their broader regional contexts; 2) the concepts, principles and techniques required to create human settlements that fit within the ecological systems of the biosphere whilst sustaining their biogeochemical functionality do exist; 3) the creation of ecocities will be dependent on cultural change to t ransf orm the deep cult ural inert ia in l ocal government ; 4) dependence of each project on a created communit y wit h shared ideas and preparedness t o translate those ideas int o activity. Whether the broader community can be more completely involved with a relat ively hi gh level of consciousness of it s evoluti onary r ole can only be t est ed in t ime.

The role of ‘ communit y’ as a syst em of mut ual aid based on direct democracy is cent ral t o t he ecopoli s idea. Catalysing ‘ cult ural f ractals’ can only be brought about wit h a high level of participation from the wider community in their design, development and maint enance’ . Direct democracy and act ive ci t izenship require approaches t o architecture, planning and urban design that are as responsive to the body politic and social demands as they are to the sun, the weather, and the living processes of the biosphere. Communit y-based ‘ bott om up’ planning st rat egies, rat her t han t op down planning st rat egies, are fundamental t o the foundat ion and sust enance of any ecologically viable human settlement in the long term.



Cities are a habitat for human survival and evolution and the theory of ecopolis is predicated on an approach t o t he making of archit ecture and cit ies that defines t hem as potential livi ng syst ems, as ext ensions of t he human organism. If t he const ruct ions of living creatures can be seen as extensions of their physiology (Turner 2000: 27) then buil dings and cit ies can be conceived as components of li ving syst ems. Such a proposit ion promises t o be a ri ch fi eld of enquiry. If t he making and maint enance of cit ies was analysed on the basis of them being extended phenotypes of the human gene, it might be possibl e t o look forward t o achieving a kind of ‘ unifi ed theory’ of urban ecology. Archit ecture and associated creati ve act ivit y could t hen be seen as int egral t o li fe processes, as ways of making our habit at function bet t er as well as increasing our chance of survival as a species.

Bibliography Alexander Chri st opher 1997 ‘ Design f or Livi ng St ruct ures’ in Zelov, C. and Cousineau, P. (eds ) Design Out laws on t he Ecological Frontier 3rd edit ion, Knossus Publishing, Philadelphia. Alexander, Christopher et al 1977 A Pat t ern Language: Towns, Buildings, Const ruct ion. Oxf ord Universit y Press, New York. Ball, Philip. 1999. The Self -Made Tapest ry: Patt ern Format ion i n Nat ure . Oxford Universit y Press. New York. Bart on, Hugh (ed) 2000 Sust ainable Communit ies: The Pot ent ial f or Eco-Neighbourhoods Eart hscan, London. Berg, Peter 1981 ‘ Devolving Beyond Global Monocult ure’ in CoEvolut ion Quart erl y Sausalit o (32) Wint er (Nort hern Hemisphere) pp. 24-30. Berg, Pet er 1988 Discovering Your Lif e-Place: A First Bioregional Workbook Planet Drum Books, San Francisco. Bookchin, Murray 1991 ‘ Libert arian Municipali sm – An Overview’ in Green Perspect ives (24) October. Bookchin, Murray 1992 Urbanizat ion Wit hout Cit ies - The Rise and Decli ne of Cit izenship Black Rose Books, Inst it ut e of Policy Alt ernatives, Montr éal. Bookchin, Murray 1986 The Limi t s of t he Cit y Black Rose Books, Mont réal -Buff alo. Brand, Stewart 1997 (revised edition) How Buil dings Learn: What Happens Aft er They’re Built. Phoenix Ill ust rat ed/ Orion. London.



Brand, St ewart 1999 The Clock of t he Long Now: Time and Responsibilit y Phoenix, London. Downton, Paul F. 2006 www.ecopolis.com.au Downton, Paul F. 1990 ‘Ecopolis, t he New Front ier (Ecopolis Now)’ in Young, J.M.R. and Dyer, K.F. (eds) Changing Directions: Ecopolit ics IV Proceedings , Adelaide. Downt on, Paul F. 1991 ‘ Solar Cit ies for a Sust ainabl e Worl d – Making Places Fit for Frogs’ in Solar 91 – Energy f or a Sust ainable World, Proceedings Volume One Aust ralian and New Zealand Solar Energy Societ y, Fli nders Universit y of South Aust ralia, Adelaide, pp.44-56. Downt on, Paul F. 1994 & 1996 The Hali f ax EcoCit y Proj ect – A Communit y Driven Development – AKA The Worl d’ s First Piece of Eco-cit y Centre for Urban Ecology, Adelaide. Downton, Paul F. (ed) 1996 EcoCit y Whyall a booklet s: 1. Urban Design Principl es f or Ari d Regions; 2. Ecology and Bioregions; 3. Energy, Archit ecture and Design; 4. Eart h Const ruct ion Technologies; 5. Core Sit e Design - Principl es in Pract ice; 6. Int egrat ion and Overview; 7. Guidelines f or t he Fut ure Centre for Urban Ecology, Adelaide. Downton, Paul F. 1998 ‘Adelaide and Whyalla: The Pract ice of Urban Ecology in Two Aust ralian Eco-cit y Proj ect s’ in Breust e, J. , Feldmann, H., Uhlmann, O. (eds) Urban Ecology Spri nger-Verlag, Berl in. Downt on, Paul F. 2002 ‘ Making Place in an Urban Sense’ in Artlink (2) Vol 22 pp.48-51. Downt on, Paul Francis 2002 Ecopolis: Towards an Int egrat ed Theory f or t he Design, Development and Maint enance of Ecological Cit ies (unpubl ished thesis), Mawson Graduate Cent re f or Environment al St udies, Depart ment of Geographical and Environment al St udies, Facult y of Humanit ies and Social Sciences, Universit y of Adelaide. Downton, Paul F. 2004 ‘ Archit ecture and Planning – People and Environment : Designing t he urban ecology of Ecopolis from t he scale of individual buildi ngs to cit y-regions’ in Adapt ive Ecopoli s Development, t he Proceedings of Int ernat ional Ecopoli s Forum, Scient if ic Commit t ee on Problems of t he Environment , Ningbo. Engwicht , David 1992 Towards an Eco-cit y - Cal ming t he Traff ic Envir obook, Sydney. Gir ardet, Herbert . 2000 ‘ Cit ies, People, Planet’ t ranscri pt f rom t he Schumacher Lect ures, Liverpool, April.



Girardet, Herbert. 2004 Cit ies People Planet : Liveable cit ies f or a sust ainable worl d, Wiley-Academy. Koskiaho B. 1994 Ecopolis – Concept ual, Met hodological and Pract ical Impl ement at ions of Urban Ecology Ministr y of t he Environment , Finland. McDonough, W & Braungart , M 2002 Cradl e t o Cradle: Remaking the way we make t hings , Nort h Pint Press, New York. McHarg, Ian L. 1971 Design wi t h Nat ure, Doubleday/ Natural Hist ory Press. New York. Orszanski, Roman 1993 The Design and Product ion of EcoCit ies: A Case St udy of t he Hali f ax Proj ect (unpubl ished Mast ers dissert ation) Mawson Graduat e Cent re for Environment al St udies, Universit y of Adelaide, Adelaide. Reardon, C. et al (eds). 2005 Medium Densit y –Christ ie Walk case st udy i n ‘ Your Home’ Commonwealth of Australia, section 7.3 pp.1-6. See also: htt p:/ / www.greenhouse.gov.au/ yourhome/ t echnical/ fs73.htm Rees, Wil li am, E., and Wackernagel, Mathis 1996 Our Ecological Footprint – Reducing Human Impact on the Eart h. New Societ y Publishers. Gabri ola Island, BC/ Phil adelphia, PA. Register, Richard 1987a Ecocit y Berkeley: Buil ding Cit ies f or a Heal t hy Fut ure North Atlantic Books, Berkeley. Richard Register, 1987b Ecocit ies: Buil ding t he New Paradigm, in The Elmwood Newsletter, Vol.3 #1, California 1987. Register, Richard 2002 Ecocit ies : Buil ding Cit ies in Balance wit h Nature. Berkeley Hill s Books, Berkeley. Register, Richard and Peeks, Brady (eds) 1997 Vil lage Wisdom – Fut ure Cit ies: The Thir d Int ernat ional Ecocit y and Ecovill age Conference Ecocit y Buil ders, Oakland. Register, Richard 2005 Personal communicat ion on ‘ urban fract als’ Rudlin, David and Dodd, Nick 1998 ‘Eco-neighbourhoods: A Bri ef for a Sust ainabl e Urban Neighbourhood’ in Sun Dial: The Journal of t he Sust ainable Urban Neighbourhood Initiative # 6 Spring (Northern Hemisphere) pp.1-3 Sale, Kirkpatrick 1991 Dwell ers in t he Land: t he Bior egional Vision New Societ y Publishers, Philadelphia. Wells, Malcolm 1981 Gent le Archit ect ure McGraw-Hil l, New York. Wilson, Edward O. 1984 Biophilia Harvard Universit y Press, Cambri dge MA and London. Yeomans, P.A. 1971 The Cit y Forest - t he Keyli ne Plan for t he Human Envir onment Keyline Publishing, Sydney.


Eco Pol Is

Recommend Documents