Yes I think it can. When Rachel Botsman, author of ‘What’s Mine is Yours’, said “we don’t need to own a drill we just want a hole in the wall” her words resonated with everyone.

Of course sharing is nothing new. When I was growing up, people were always knocking on our door asking to borrow my Dad’s cement mixer and hardly a week passed without someone going into my Mum’s haberdashery shop wanting her to fix up their botched sewing project. Sharing just happens in country towns, but how do we facilitate sharing in the anonymity of the city?

‘Collaborative consumption’ is about sharing, trading and renting rather than owning. Enabled by technology, we can access all manner of assets from houses to technical skills. From global market places to emerging concepts like peer to peer holiday rentals, it has changed what we need, buy and use. But I don’t think sharing is brave enough. We need to push the boundaries and that’s where Kirsty and her cupcakes come in.

Kirsty can’t afford to start her own business. The council won’t let her use her own kitchen, retrofitting a domestic kitchen is unviable and commercial spaces are too big and expensive. So what can people like you and me and Kirsty do in our cities to mainstream sharing?

For a start we can share commercial space. Most cafés where I live close on a Saturday and don’t reopen until Monday. Even when they are closed they still have the bills to pay; rent, insurance, electric and so the list rumbles on. So why don’t we share our commercial spaces? We could give people like Kirsty ‘a fair go’. Wouldn’t it be ingenious if Kirsty could ‘borrow’ a cafe, closed on Sundays, to make her cupcakes and realise her dream?

We could share our cars. Apparently, the average car is parked for 95% of its lifetime and 70% of traffic in our city centres are searching for a parking spot. Whether you believe these statistics or not is inconsequential, the truth is that our cars cost us money when they are moving and even more when they are lying idle. That’s why BMW created ‘Drive Now’ the first car sharing scheme with premium cars, based on instant access and devoid of fixed pick-up/drop-off locations. BMW allows ‘us’ to get a car when and where we need it. I admit it’s not always easy. I once shared a car with my friends Nigel and Roger. Sharing between friends requires planning and fair amount of patience!

What I’m getting to here is that we can share our ‘stuff’. When you live in a rented apartment like me, space is at a premium, but outweighed by the ‘shared’ benefits; the swimming pool and the gym. In her book ‘Why We Want What We Don’t Need’ Juliet Schor explorers how buying, owning and ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ has defined our lives. I dream of a ‘Man shed in every suburb’ a place where we share tools, belongings and skills. Sharing creates friendships and friends form resilient communities.

If we really want sharing to be mainstream we have to think differently. These stories provide a prompt for change but for habitual change our city planners need to change planning laws, our stores need to focus on access as well as selling and we need to focus on use rather than owning. Voluntary simplicity; sharing and renting, lets me spend my time and money on things I really love; scuba diving, surfing and sailing, because that’s what life is all about. Tim Smit, Founder of the Eden Project, always says, “Greatness comes from enabling people to think an idea is theirs”. With that, I’ll leave you with an open invitation to help Kirsty trial her dream business.

Rachel Smith is a Principal transport Planner with AECOM in Brisbane. Rachel is the founder of Cycling Super Highways, co-founder of Lazy Sunday Cycle, a bicycle blogger and part of the international mobile laboratory the BMW Guggenheim Lab. Image courtesy of Iammantin on flickr

Related posts:

1. Collaborative Consumption and Industrial Symbiosis – Two New Approaches to Waste in Cities
2. Lets Enlighten & Inspire the Next Generation of Urban Leaders

The discussion was even more fast-paced than our first chat, with the eight questions we discussed reaching over 44,000 people. Don’t worry if you missed out – we’ve taken a look back over the chat to share our favourite comments.

We kicked things off by asking how housing is changing in your city, with @JeremySenko, @urbanchords and myself noting that newer developments were producing smaller houses in Vancouver, Chicago and London, respectively. @HumeStreet commented that Dublin was still struggling with ‘the fall out of crash’, and @health_data raised the issue of ‘endless upgrades and lots of building for the super-rich in New York City. Thankfully, it wasn’t all negative. @CaptainPlanIt praised the atmosphere in Columbus, Ohio, due to there being ‘a ton of apartments going up in our downtown & lots of discussions around walkability’.

We moved on to ask how governments can make the most of their limited social housing budgets. @GavinSilber emphasised the importance of spending wisely, noting ‘ the South African government spends millions on capital expenditure, but very little on maintenance’. Community engagement was also discussed, with Gavin saying ‘a lack of meaningful community engagement leads to investing in things communities don’t need, and prevents buy-in’. @KaseyKlimes commented that there may be a bigger issue than budgets, stating that ‘in the United States, government  involvement in housing has a long tradition of only making matters worse’. @JonasKayla raised the issue of collaboration, commenting on how Toronto is considering partnering with not-for-profits in the provision of affordable housing.

Getting empty properties back into use was our next topic of discussion, with @DrivingMissD suggesting a listing of all empty properties in a city should be made readily available. @KaseyKlimes noted that empty properties owned by a city ‘could be used as grants to talented & entrepreneurial individuals’, something @elyanaja agreed with, saying ‘if we could also provide them with some materials (paint, etc) they could build their homes.’

We then asked for some innovative examples of housing provision, for which I praised a development in Rotterdam where the shell of a street was built and sold, allowing owners to design the interiors themselves. However, this development targeted the wealthy, causing @GavinSilber to say ‘the best approaches are mixed – combination of upgrading slums, providing new serviced sites, & low-income homes.’

Our next topic of discussion was whether home ownership would become a thing of the past, with @livablecities stating ‘it’s hard for 20-somethings to even dream of owning a house in London in the next 10 years’. @CaptainPlanIt said ‘I think it’s going to be less popular. Population is just too mobile and debt-ridden to keep buying homes’. @sustaincities agreed that attitudes were changing, saying ‘as much as gen y likes renting, homeownership will never go away. nor should it – creates certainty in the market’. @urbdispatch noted that home ownership was evolving, adding ‘home ownership will never change, but the idea the the “American dream” is to own a home is changing.’

We then got on to the complicated subject of gentrification, asking ’is it a bad thing?‘ Refusing to actually answer the question, I noted that ‘cities have always evolved and will continue to’, something @sustaincities broadly agreed with. ‘Responsible gentrification’ was raised by @what_up_son – an idea which received much endorsement. @KaseyKlimes summed up the concept (excuse the pun), saying ‘ Some math: Gentrification – expulsion = equitable revitalization.’ @JonasKayla focused on the positive, praising how it ‘has done alot for lots of older neighbourhoods and heritage buildings’.

The challenge of making cities desirable places to live for families was next up, followed by a flood of tweets mentioning the importance of quality schooling in city centres. @krstype put it well, saying ‘eventually the savvy young people that moved to the city will have children. Great schools will keep those people in the city’. Access to green space was also mentioned more than once, though @JonasKayla presented a broader interpretation, calling ‘a distinct sense of place’ critical in creating ‘vibrant places’ that are appealing to families.

We wrapped up our second #citytalk by asking ‘what will housing be like in 2050?‘ @GarethCPearson didn’t hope for much, imagining ‘diverse, livable, 5-storey, rooftop food-growing, bike-riding cities’. @DrivingMissD added to the list, asking for ‘collaborative community consumption + smarter, greener home-school-work systems’. @KaseyKlimes predicted ‘ a natural social, economic, and environmental equilibrium. By choice or force, we will be there.’ @Oslolso spoiled the fun with a much needed reality-check, saying  ’What we want/like now will not exist in 2050. Cities keep evolving & we will always have different views on wants’.

If this summary has wet your appetite, you can follow the entire discussion here. And if you missed this #citytalk, come join us on March 14th when we will be discussing ‘urban identity’ with Philips Livable Cities.

Related posts:

1. The Changing Face of Housing
2. The Complex Demands of London’s Housing Market
3. The Potential of Prefabricated Housing

Within six or seven years, could we be seeing ‘artificial trees’ in use to combat climate change directly, soaking up carbon dioxide from the ambient air? That’s the hope held out by Klaus Lackner, whose brainchild invention was the star of the recent Air Capture Week at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (ImechE) in London.

Lackner’s ‘trees’ are actually towers designed to hold out arrays of sorbent chemicals, which, he says, can capture a thousand times more CO2 than real trees of comparable size. And he refutes the recent calculation by the American Physical Society (APS) that the costs would be exorbitant. Lackner, a Columbia University professor of geophysics who also heads the Lenfest Center for Renewable Technology, suggests that it could be brought as low as $30 per ton of CO2. That’s a mere fraction of the APS estimate of $430, and comparable with low-end estimates for carbon capture at source in power plants and industrial processes. If achievable, this would make air capture from so-called ‘distributed emissions’, including cars and planes, a plausible carbon control strategy. The cost of capture would also provide a rational ceiling price for the carbon emitted by such polluters in the first place.

Lackner points out that storage of the CO2 after capture need not be an additional cost, if it can be put to positive use in agriculture or other industrial processes. This kind of ‘closed-loop’ approach also typifies the work of two other Columbia professors, Graciela Chichilnisky and Peter Eisenberger, whose Global Thermostat start-up company is among those vying with Lackner for leadership in the air capture field.

Their process, using sieve-like structures and sorbent chemicals, is, however, designed for use alongside industrial processes where CO2 is emitted in greater concentration, such as power stations. It tackles the thorny problem of satisfying its own operational energy needs by utilising the low-grade heat which those industrial processes would otherwise just disperse though their cooling systems. And it looks to put the captured CO2 to good use, too.

One possible route is combining CO2 with hydrogen to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels [see 'CO2: the new green fuel?']. Another, which Global Thermostat is exploring with a start-up called Algae Systems, is to feed it to the algae engaged in producing algal biofuels.

This article originally appeared in Green Futures, the magazine of independent sustainability experts Forum for the Future.

Related posts:

1. Carbon Emissions and the City
2. Britain’s First Community-owned Power Station Offers a Future of Low-carbon Growth
3. Low Carbon Development a Huge Opportunity for Latin America

Long-term resident of Sana’a, Sabrina Faber, has developed a rainwater aggregation system which catches water from the city’s flat-roofed buildings, siphoning it off to water storage tanks on ground level. Tanks store between 10,000 and 50,000 litres of water, which can be filtered for drinking or used in the garden and home.

Sabrina’s idea won the Philips Livable Cities Award 2010/2011, with chair of the supervisory panel, Richard Florida, calling it: ‘a relatively simple concept that will have such a significant impact on the lives of so many people across the city of Sana’a. We’re looking forward to seeing her idea come to life and improving the health and well-being of the residents of Sana’a’. Unfortunately delayed by the political climate in Yemen, Sabrina’s idea is developing nonetheless. You can read more about it here, or watch the video below:

Another simple, but potential transformative idea comes from James Kityo, with his shade stand concept for Kampala, Uganda. It’s easy to take bus shelters for granted, but some urban residents either have inadequate facilities to protect them from severe weather when waiting for public transport, or no facilities at all. Inspired by bus terminals in the UK and the prevalence of adverts for mobile phones in Uganda, James developed a shade stand to protect people from harsh sun and rain, while at the same time providing health education to local community members where most bus stops would have an advert. Shade stands like the one pictured below will hopefully be a thing of the past in Kampala, but James’ idea may have potential beyond Uganda. One happily-shaded user said: ‘this idea is good for cities all over the world. Most cities in Africa, Asia, Europe and even America have overlapping challenges’. Read more about James’ idea here.

Is your city overcrowded, with a lack of public space? Manuel Rapoport found that despite there being only 2.6 metres of green space per person in the city, this inadequate recreational space wasn’t stopping young people in Buenos Aires playing sports. They were just doing it on potentially dangerous roads instead. With most of the city’s residents living far from parks and poor public transport provisions further exaggerating the problem, Manuel designed a temporary recreation kit called Plaza Movil. Designed to be used on side roads during quiet traffic periods like weekends and bank holidays, Plaza Movil provides playground equipment for children and outdoor benches for those who are a bit too old for the swings. Find out more about Manuel’s idea here.

Over the coming weeks, This Big City will be interviewing these urban entrepreneurs, and hosting March’s #citytalk with Philips Livable Cities.

Related posts:

1. Five Ideas from Asia for Creating Future Cities
2. Ideas for Cities: The Faulty Button
3. Creating Balanced Cities – An Interview with Tia Kansara

Related posts:

1. Creative Urban Regeneration in South Wales
2. Floating Cities and Climate Change
3. Creative Use of Empty Buildings in Cities – An Interview with Specs Gallery

We all love a room with a view, but when it comes to planning for the future of a building we tend to forget about the world beyond its walls. We home in on the structure itself – its foundations and floors, cavities and cracks – isolating it from its natural surroundings. But the performance of a building depends very much on conditions outside. The smartest designs are an active part of local ecosystems: they harness heat from the sun, facilitate the flow of fresh air, or take advantage of trees and hillsides for shelter. And they give back, too: habitats for wildlife, drainage for stormwater, greenery to keep a dense city block cool.

The value that local ecosystems offer urban areas is just beginning to be recognised. A recent study in New York City found its trees to be worth $122 million thanks to their part in reducing pollution, improving aesthetics, and keeping inner city temperatures comfortable [see 'What's a tree really worth?']. But these ‘services’ are rarely factored in when planning teams get to grips with a retrofit project. Their rigorous assessments may cover a whole range of technologies, assessing their potential energy savings, costs and returns, but they may not take into account the benefits a green roof could offer. They try to minimise the cost to the planet through carbon emissions, but may not account for the cost of a newly sealed loft to any bats hanging out in the ’hood.

It’s a missed opportunity. When we do look at the big picture, we realise that many measures make sense for both the built environment and its natural surroundings. Take green roofs, for example. Not only do they insulate a building like a duvet but they control storm water runoff, help keep built-up urban areas cool, and support precious pollinators and other wildlife. Vegetation can also prolong the service life of a roof, by reducing strain on the materials typically caused by erosion and weathering.

The downside is that green roofs are expensive to install, in some cases twice as much as a conventional roof. But the upfront cost can be paid back through energy savings. Some projects in the US have reduced air-conditioning costs by as much as one-third, according to Paul Mankiewicz, Executive Director of the Gaia Institute, a New York-based environmental institution. Similarly, 6,000m2 of greenery installed in Canary Wharf, London, has resulted in massive savings on heating bills. According to the building manager of 10 South Colonnade, home to Barclays Capital, the new roof cut the need to heat or cool the top floor of the building completely, “saving us £4,000 to £5,000 a year”. And in Singapore, the Changi General Hospital has found that hydroponically grown vegetables on the rooftops not only provide food for patients but absorb heat from the roof and cool the wards facing it. Savings on utility bills are channelled towards patient care.

Energy savings aren’t the only economic benefit of green roofs. They have also been linked to heightened productivity and reduced turnover among people working in urban offices – a phenomenon known as ‘biophilia’.

Eight storeys above the din of New York’s Avenue of the Americas, a small wilderness of clover, grasses and flowers shows the passage of the seasons. This roof terrace is the home and handy work of architects Cook + Fox. Through its windows, employees watch dragonflies and monarch butterflies flit over pink and yellow perennials, sprouting on what was formerly a desert of black tar. This new carpet of colour grows out of black nylon bags called Green Paks. Filled with a mixture of rock and compost, these offer a lighter infrastructure than some green roofs, whose compost and filtration layers require structural reinforcement. Moreover, they come at half the cost: $10 per square foot, instead of $18-$20. The firm’s partners maintain that the installation, completed in 2006, is one of the best decisions they ever made. It may be that the tenants on the seventh floor get the most benefit from the roof’s cooling qualities, but Rick Cook claims his firm’s profits are fatter thanks to the view.

The potential of a biodiverse built environment to boost profits has been spotted by others, too. British Land, the UK’s largest developer, has planned a “green necklace” around a shopping centre in Teeside – all part of its £26,000 refurbishment – to include an otter holt, ponds, hedges and bird boxes. “It’s about people feeling more connected to nature and enjoying the places they work in”, says Sarah Cary of British Land. But she admits that it’s difficult to factor this investment into the accounts. “Sadly, the [perceived] value is more social”, she says.

Rafael Marks of architects Penoyre & Prasad agrees: “The way the commissioning and tendering process works means biodiversity is mostly a poor cousin. It all depends on the desires of the client.”

Currently, Marks is working on the refurbishment of a dilapidated youth centre, housed in an old electrical substation in a north London park. Its new function will be a state-of-the-art educational ecology centre, so it’s a great opportunity to make the building a better fit for its surroundings.

One solution is external lighting with a hooded ‘eyelid’ design, limiting light pollution which plays havoc with local bats. Bats come out to feed when the sun goes down, but increased levels of artificial light in urban areas mean they simply cannot judge when dusk has come. “The lights will be as low as possible without making it unsafe to walk in the park”, says Marks. The site will also feature green roofs, greywater recycling, and maximum use of daylight within the buildings.

But back to those bats. Numbers have been badly hit as we convert our lofts and seal up our houses. The Bat Conservation Trust recommends leaving a 10cm gap at the edge of a loft: just enough to allow an entrance for bats, and an important means of ventilation. You can also avoid entombing bats in cavity walls by insulating from the bottom up, giving them a chance to rouse themselves and make an exit.

Another retrofit project had to plan around a parliament of owls living in an 18th century barn. “When we planned the conversion of a barn near Cambridge we built an owl house at each gable end of the roof”, says Katie Thornburrow of Granta Architects who specialise in sustainable design. Her client, Chris Bristow, feels “honoured [that] these beautiful creatures live in our house. The cost [of the owl house] was in the hundreds of pounds.”

It sounds cheap enough, but such efforts could well remain a niche concern, without any financial incentives to prompt planners.

“Let’s be honest”, prompts Stuart Wykes, Managing Director – Aggregates at Lafarge A&C UK. “Quarrying and construction activities are, by their very nature, intrusive in the landscape. But they also give an opportunity to create a landscape and habitat: to improve on what you started with. The way we see it, the day that you start stripping the material off is the day that you start your restoration scheme.”

Who wouldn’t agree? The question is, will conservationists and natural capitalists spot the opportunity retrofits present to bring our built environment into harmony with valuable ecosystems? Or will our efforts to cut carbon be at the cost of local life?

This article originally appeared in Green Futures, the magazine of independent sustainability experts Forum for the Future. Image courtesy of greenforall.org on flickr

Related posts:

1. Japanese Architecture Takes Green Roofs to a Whole New Level – Literally
2. Solving the Problem with Roofs
3. The Economics of Sustainable Cities

About fourteen years ago, Bogotá was seen as the world-famous capital of narcotraffic and guerrillas. Foreigners used to see the city as one the most dangerous places to travel and live in Latin America. Despite our high quality coffee, marihuana and cocaine also represented some of our traditional products of exportation.

In 1998, Bogotá elected Enrique Peñalosa as Mayor, a man whose obsession with rebuilding urban landscapes led him to introduce a comprehensive policy of mobility that comprises the recuperation of thousands of square meters of public spaces; the implementation of an above ground mass transportation system operated by high capacity buses along dedicated lanes, better known today as TransMilenio;  and hundreds of kilometers of segregated bicycle tracks, among other things.

However, by that time, Bogotá was already a pioneer in the development of sustainable cities, launching the car-free Sundays event Ciclovia. Yet despite this initial success, there is no doubt that additional mobility improvements during Peñalosa’s tenure meant Bogotá’s image began to improve the world over. Cities from across the globe are now taking Bogotá as an example of global transportation best practices. Politicians and technocrats from at least 200 cities have visited Bogotá since 2005 to get an in depth look at its sustainable transportation initiatives. From bicycles to BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) systems, Bogotá has served as a worthy and inspiring case study for cities like New York, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Jakarta and Guangzhou.

In 2008, for instance, the city of New York replicated Ciclovia, giving thousands of New Yorkers more access to places to walk, bike, and play. During three consecutive Saturdays, Summer Streets, as New York branded it, created a 6.9 mile car free route connecting Brooklyn Bridge to Central Park. This would have not been possible if New York City Commissioner of Transport, Jannet Sadi-Khan, hadn’t visited Bogota to see with her own eyes the 120 kilometers network of main roads and avenues that every Sunday and holiday are shut to traffic and gather over 1 million visitors.

Later, in 2010, the city of Guangzhou, China, opened its 22.5 kilometer Bus Rapid Transit corridor with the main purpose of cutting congestion on one of the city´s busiest roads, Zhongshan Avenue, and to improve the efficiency of the city’s bus system. Again, this would have not been possible without delegations of both high level policy makers and transit technicians visiting Bogotá.

Bogotá is internationally recognized today as home of the sleek, red articulated buses as well as the city that has the most extensive bicycle track network after China. These sustainable transportation advancements have also spurred further exchange of knowledge between countries and cities of every part of the globe but, above all, have awoken both the city and citizen’s sense of belonging.

Images courtesy of alexthompson on flickr, ITDP, and Andrés Jara-Moreno.

Related posts:

1. PHOTO ESSAY: Bogotá and the Bicycle – A City that Prioritises Cyclists
2. Bogotá Citizens Take to Youtube to Criticize the Transmilenio BRT System
3. Sustainable Mobility in Future Cities

Somewhere in the tangle of urbanization, workforce mobility, housing affordability, gentrification, land use efficiency, transit access, economic opportunity and neighborhood social networks lies your bed. Yes, your bed. Where you sleep. From the moment you open your eyes there, your particular housing situation controls each and every lever of these variables.

On a global scale, the way we live is rapidly changing. Certain familiarities like the single family suburban home may sink into the past. New models of sustainable habitation will emerge. The changing face of housing will influence every corner of our lives, from neighborhood social networks to the stability of our global economic networks.

It’s a big, complicated, and deeply personal issue. Despite quagmires of economic meltdown and real estate market collapse, the future of housing should be a source of optimism. For the first time in recent memory we are downsizing our homes, moving closer to city centers, and demanding cohesive, walkable neighborhoods. Whether government regulators and private developers will read the writing on the wall is still to be determined.

I’m going to be sharing my thoughts on ‘The Changing Face of Housing’ during the next #citytalk tweetchat, which will be hosted by This Big City’s Joe Peach and Future Cape Town‘s Rashiq Fataar (if you’re wondering what a tweetchat is, imagine the twitter equivalent of a raucous bar room table of urbanists sparring over big ideas – and you have a seat reserved at the table. Or you can click here to find out more).

The discussion happens on February 13th at 7.00PM GMT / 8.00PM CET / 9.00PM SAST / 2.00PM EST. With contributors located in London, Cape Town and Copenhagen, and Gavin Silber of Cape Town’s Social Justice Coalition also joining the chat, the discussion will be as lively as it is geographically distributed.

We look forward to diving into the big questions with you.

Image courtesy of Ecotrust on flickr

Related posts:

1. The Economics of Sustainable Cities
2. Sustainable Low-income Housing a First for South Africa
3. The Economics of Sustainable Cities: Four Key Components

Underneath the weekly meet-and-greets of the organic food, handmade jewelry, and freshly baked bread, the unspoken history of Seville had been laying for hundreds of years. These findings were said to be Seville originals, made up of various metal and wooden artworks from many centuries ago. Since most of the pieces had been able to maintain a strong aesthetic and historical value, the local government decided to launch a competition to design a contemporary building which not only functioned as a new gathering place, but also incorporated the new findings of the old Seville – a museum of some sort. A German architect, Jüergen Mayer H. (also known as J. Mayer H.), did just that, but also created one of the most fascinating pieces of art that stands on the ground today. That is the story of Metrosol Parasol. And Seville, well, it is a beautiful 2000 year-old city in southern Spain. So how is it that two creations with such difference can complement one another so thoroughly, instead of reducing each other’s value?

J. Mayer’s creation is made entirely from polyurethane-covered wood held together by a new type of glue, making it the biggest glued wood structure on earth. With its wavy woven curves, Metrosol Parasol consists of five levels; the garage, the museum, the new farmers market, the ‘sky café’, and the ‘sky walk’. The latter two are perfect for Seville’s urban setting; you get a 360-degree view of the town from both. While the ‘sky walk’ takes you from one side of the street to another, it is no ordinary walkway. At 450 feet long and seven stories high, it offers a unique way of experiencing the town.

Similar to most historic towns and cities around the globe, Seville’s construction requirements would decline any new development to exceed the maximum height of the tallest church, cathedral, or castle. In other words, a proposal of a new building regardless of its magnificent design could be denied if it is taller than the tallest cathedral in Seville. With this understanding, and his appreciation for the importance of historical characteristics of a city to its contemporary personality, J. Mayer was able to incorporate Seville’s old values with its modern interests. He, therefore, incorporated the old and the new in his design to create a magnificent piece of art to not only function as a new farmers’ market and museum, but to also become a contemporary icon of Seville. This complex and abstract masterpiece -with its unique shape, material, and size- has gratefully wedded the old and the new in a complementary way.

Many compare Metrosol Parasol to Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim in Bilbao, both being contemporary icons in historic cities. What J. Mayer and Gehry both understood was that even though contemporary structures may be a necessity in today’s urban settings, it is extremely important to understand the characteristics of these towns and cities. It is only with that kind of appreciation that such contemporary pieces could stand strongly, gracefully, and independently, yet in complete coordination with such historically rich areas. Furthermore, not only do the two stand accurately represent the contemporary interests of these two historic cities, they have boosted the local economy through their unique designs, providing everyone around the world with an additional reason to visit these historic sites.

Images courtesy of gacabo on flickr

Related posts:

1. Understanding London’s Political Structure
2. Hidden Solar Panels
3. South Africa Plans the World’s Largest Solar Power Station

Least recognisable - The Hespeler Library, Cambridge, Canada

The Hespeler Library was originally built in 1922 at a cost of $14,500, funded by the Carnegie Foundation. Kongats Architects won a 2010 Zerofootprint Re-Skinning Award for its work, which aimed to showcase the old building while giving it a contemporary facelift. Mid 20th-century additions were demolished to reveal the original structure, and then an insulating glass ‘display case’ was built around the building. A double layer of ceramic frit glass reduces solar heat gain. A third internal layer filters sunlight through a hand-woven textile that depicts the town’s industrial past. The changes have improved the library’s energy efficiency by 67%.

Most attractive - Unilever House, London

The goal here was to keep the aesthetics of Unilever’s neoclassical headquarters intact, breathing “new life into a stunning but under-performing [Grade 2] listed building”. Arup’s solution preserved 60% of the original building, behind its spectacular fluted-column façade. Original fittings, such as the parquet flooring, were retained or reused, and any unwanted furniture was donated to schools and charities. The refurbished building now features a landscaped roof garden and spray taps, innovations that reduce the peak flow of waste water into the local sewer. One of the most significant energy reductions comes from an efficient cooling system. The building earned a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating.

Most improved - 100 Princedale Road, London

This domestic retrofit smashed its targets, cutting carbon emissions by 83% and energy use by 94%, and scooping a Green Apple Award. It saves the tenants £910 a year in utility bills. It was designed to Passivhaus standards, with the first triple-glazed sash windows to be installed in the UK, alongside wall insulation. It has no boilers, radiators or heating system, featuring solar thermal panels for warm water and an innovative underground heat exchanger for warmth and ventilation.

Largest scale - 1200 Buildings Programme, Melbourne

The City of Melbourne and the Victoria Government, Australia, have set a goal to refurbish 1,200 commercial buildings to reduce emissions, use less water and create healthier work environments. It’s being touted as the largest transformation in the city for 160 years, and hopes are high that it will generate AU$1.3 billion in economic activity. The project’s flagship is 530 Collins Street, owned by GPT Wholesale Office Fund. Its retrofit involved new boilers and cooling towers, a combined heat and power plant, and ultra-efficient lighting, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 4,700 tonnes a year.

This article originally appeared in Green Futures, the magazine of independent sustainability experts Forum for the Future. Images courtesy of glenn, torroloco, Martin Pettitt, and Shiny Things on flickr

Related posts:

1. New York Spins its Way to a World First in Sustainable Energy
2. Five Sustainable Towns the World’s Cities Could Learn From
3. Sustainable Paris Uses the Warmth of its Sewers to Heat Buildings