Socially just and green cities

Introduction

Session on socially just and green cities was intended as a follow-up on the Online Course that we had as the 1st stage of the project. We asked the participants of the OC if they felt that the OC was missing some theory. The replies varied, but mostly the participants mentioned green cities, spatial justice and how the physical shape of the city affects the social, cultural, political and communal lives of the neighbourhood. We decided to cover this topic through a session that would last 3.5 hours, with a flexible break, and would consist of theoretical inputs and a practical exercise on research of a neighbourhood surrounding our venue. In this article we would like to summarise the main theoretical points that we presented to our participants at this session and in the Online Course.

Theory

We decided to start with analysing three important city features: Density, Human connections and Diversity. Look at the pictures and think whether the density in each neighbourhood and each building is high, medium or low?

The optimal density for the city is middle to middle-low or middle-high, both for the neighbourhood and the building itself. There can be fluctuations and shifts – the city of course should not have all the buildings of the same height, but the skyline should be harmonious and the concentration of people should be managed through proper urban planning. Too high or too low density negatively affects the relations between neighbours: if there are too many people in the building, it is impossible to establish proper connections between them, while too few people, and the urban sprawl-like structure of the dwellings they usually inhabit, causes people to be forced closer to each other than is comfortable for most. As humans do not like discomfort too much, people prefer to have no relations at all rather than having to invite a neighbour into their own living room, as Jane Jacobs argues in her book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”.

Why won’t people meet up outside of their residences in the low-density neighbourhoods, you might ask. The thing is that urban sprawls and other low-density city districts usually have almost no public or semi-public space – be it a park, shop, museum, or anything else nearby. They are planned with the same logic as Soviet sleeping districts, but with low density per building.

Finding the golden middle for density is crucial for maintaining the balance in the city’s social tissue. The same goes for public space density and spread. Streets that have only one function (restaurants, offices, etc.) behave differently than those that mix residential and public functions within one street.

Do you know a silent, empty street in your city? Go there and look around. Are there any shops? What are the reasons for people passing through? How wide is the street? Are there lights? How tall are the buildings?

When talking about the city structure, we cannot forget to mention the width of the street. We often hear that narrow streets make people from marginalised groups feel uncomfortable.

Compare these two narrow streets. What is the difference?

The conclusion is obvious: the people on one of the streets make it safer. Attacks usually happen on empty streets. Having people use a space that would otherwise be empty is an act of feminist urban planning.

Too-wide streets are a result of car-oriented planning – cars take several times more space than public transport or bikes carrying the same number of people. The space allocated to cars should be reallocated to green and social zones of the city: more space for walking and biking, space for socialising and resting.

Good connections among city dwellers at the street, neighbourhood and city levels affect the quality of life and the feeling of belonging, which can transform into a strong force for fighting for improvements in one’s city. All the above-mentioned provides the city with the so-called citizens’ surveillance – the process of unintentional but regular monitoring of the street and neighbourhood by every user of the city. The better the connections among dwellers are, the more easily they fix problems arising in the neighbourhood, be it a broken bench or telling off noisy teens at night. Cities are birthplaces of social movements, as has been proven time and again.

Metropolis naturally gives us what in other cases we would get only by travelling; in particular something “different”, because differences make us ask questions and help to bust well-known traditions, and help us to raise the importance of common sense… There is no better proof of this fact than that every totalitarian regime tries to uproot it… The big city is divided by them into parts and they try to surveil and make them look alike. They try to expel the different, the mystical and the critical rationality of the human in the city! Paul J. Tillich (1886–1965)

The harmonious distribution of population, housing, institutions for leisure and work, as well as public, communal and individual property, and low- and high-price housing, all contribute to creating a diverse and hence lively population tissue in the city. People of diverse demographics, interests, views and preferences are found in abundance in big cities, meaning they stimulate diverse types of economies. But before we move to some of the economic aspects of the city, let us ask: how do you stimulate a sense of community in a neighbourhood? Make sure that there is balance in the shape of the city, both physical and socio-economic – the right size of street and buildings, and a good distribution of places where you might accidentally meet a neighbour (shop, street, etc.) or places you go to purposefully with friends (café, movie theatre, park, etc.).

The city can and should regulate the zoning on each street and in each neighbourhood, granting permissions to build when the proposal fits the neighbourhood and benefits it. The city can also oblige building companies to use particular energy-efficient materials, take particular care in planning the space in front of the building, include a particular proportion of low- and high-price accommodation, or even require that some flats are given to the city for social housing purposes.

The big urban threat – gentrification – is the process of changing the character of a neighbourhood through the influx of wealthier residents and businesses. Gentrification often increases the economic value of a neighbourhood, but the resulting demographic displacement may itself become a major social issue. Gentrification is often difficult to understand at first glance. The concept is often confused with improving infrastructure, which in itself is a positive and necessary action from the city’s side. The problem arises when the city decides to polish up the exteriors of a street, makes it hipster-touristy and stimulates a particular matching economy, pushing the artistic class of the city to move there. After this, prices rise again and higher-income tenants want to move to the neighbourhood. Add to this the Airbnbs and Booking.coms, and you see how the “invisible” hand of the market has displaced the most poor and vulnerable to worse accommodation, other neighbourhoods, or into homelessness.

What the city can do to prevent gentrification:

• Keep a decent amount of social housing properties;
• Stimulate communal housing and diverse types of property;
• Establish fixed rates for housing, considering the quality of housing and avoiding market speculation;
• Take good and equal care of all neighbourhoods.

What is the size of the ideal city? This question has bothered urbanists for many years. While we do not have definitive answers ourselves, we can make an approximate assumption about what a sustainable size would be. For now, considering the climate and social crisis we have experienced since the start of the pandemic, we should strive to reach the stage of sustainable cities as soon as possible, and from there move to even more sustainable solutions. Small cities that do not satisfy the needs of people from diverse backgrounds tend to have high migration rates, while overpopulated or very large cities like Istanbul or Moscow are evolving into a consolidation of city-neighbourhoods (Beşiktaş, Kabataş, etc.) that function as cities in themselves. Cities of 18 to 20 million fail to unite as a single city, which is not good for representative politics or management. As Greens, we also support decentralisation within countries. Unfortunately, we see too many capitals in Eastern Europe becoming the economic centres of their countries, which pushes us further from achieving a decentralised reality for everyone’s benefit.

What does Green mean to you? Is it just nature? We asked these questions to ourselves as well. Naturally, green areas are an important part of greening the city. As Greens also stand for social justice, it is Green to do all of the above. But in this part we will concentrate on the environmental aspects of the city and their connections to the social aspects.

The city might not be part of nature, but it should become one. The greening of the city should cover the following issues:

Materials that buildings are built with, or that the city uses for infrastructure, should be clean, renewable and energy-efficient. Buildings should also be properly maintained so that they last longer and are renovated. Most materials produce quite significant emissions when being prepared for building sites.

Trees along the streets serve as the main shading for the concrete beneath cars and public transport. The wider the pedestrian sidewalk, the more space you have for tall trees. You can also plant edible plants, but make sure to reduce the number of cars and other pollutants nearby.

Benefits of having trees on your street:

• Flood prevention and water management;
• Physical and mental health;
• More time spent in public outdoors;
• Community identity;
• Cooler and cleaner air.

Parks are another essential oxygen provider. If the function of sidewalk trees is to compensate for emissions from the streets, green areas – big or small – are there to boost air quality and provide public green space for dwellers to spend time in. There can be small neighbourhood parks, large botanical ones, or multi-functional ones where you can find people picnicking, playing sports, walking their pets or sunbathing.

Water and water management – where does the water the city drinks come from? A nearby reservoir or plastic bottles? Does it travel in pipes or in trucks?

To this day there is no drinking water from the taps in Istanbul.

What happens to all the rainwater? Do you collect it? Or do you connect it to the sewage and send it all to the river? Are the streets flooding when there is heavy rain? How clean are those pipes?

Waste management is equally important. There are up to 30 different waste bins in some cities. As recycling is not the only end solution for the environmental catastrophe, it is not enough on its own – all these improvements should work together. As with water filtering, human waste should be collected from the sewage and used as a power source for cities. While it is not the cleanest source of energy (large methane emissions), it is better than mining fossils to heat our houses, when we are flushing a heat source down the drain daily and polluting the water with it anyway.

Heating, cooling and insulation can all be achieved using materials and methods that have been well known for many years. Planning should utilise the geography of the landscape accordingly – are we sheltering from snow or from the sun? Do we want to keep heat in the house or out of it? With modern technology and material development, there is almost no reason not to insulate one’s house. The savings in energy consumption are tremendous. It is also important what is used as an energy source. Wind, water, solar and geothermal solutions and their combinations will reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the amount of emissions per city.

Roof usage is probably the area where there is the most work to be done. In a truly efficient city, all roofs have one or more of the following functions:

• Elevated park
• Community garden or park
• Playgrounds and entertainment
• Restaurants or other commercial spaces
• Solar panels
• Water reservoirs

Nowadays, most rooftops are empty. We are wasting vast spaces that could be communally owned and managed by each building. Here are some of the benefits of green roofs:

• Less waste, more recycling;
• Storm-water management;
• Moderation of urban heat island effect;
• Improved air quality;
• Sense of community.

Greening the roofs can contribute to gentrification, which needs to be prevented. The city needs to make sure that newly created green spaces benefit the local community, and not only the elite.

Transport should use the same clean energy. There should be enough of it to motivate people to use it instead of cars. Cycling should be encouraged by building good infrastructure – bike lanes throughout the whole city, and where needed, bike elevators and bike parking. The whole transport system should be interconnected, and city dwellers should be motivated to use all other forms of transport over personal vehicles.

Exercise

We divided the participants into 5 groups and asked them to go to one of the circled areas – epicentres from the map – that is 5–10 minutes’ walking from the venue. They had to answer some questions; here we offer you a summary of their observations and our comments.

What is the density of the area (how tall are the buildings, how many flats are in each building on a floor, are the buildings wide, are the buildings close to each other)? Is this density optimal? In which zones of your section of the city would you reduce or raise the density?

All groups mentioned that there were mostly buildings of 5–6 floors (N:Mid, B:Mid) with some extra-tall buildings (N:Mid, B:High), and several wide roads, especially near the epicentres, which had taller buildings more often. Closer to the venue, the streets are narrower, which makes walking around this part pleasant. It would eventually be good to equalise the height of the housing and diversify the functions in some places.

What are the different “institutions” you can visit in the area? Are there some functions lacking? Are there food deserts? What would you add here? If you feel comfortable, you can ask the locals what they think should be added on particular streets.

The surroundings are full of different functions – shops, bakeries, pharmacies – there is a museum nearby, along with cultural, historical and educational landmarks and institutions. No food deserts were discovered. Participants mentioned that they would add one big park in the neighbourhood, in front of the main station, for example.

Do you think people know their neighbours? Do people say hello to others when they meet near the entrances of their buildings? How friendly are the discussions between vendors and buyers? Are there blind spots, or is citizen surveillance possible? What would you do to improve these?

The participants met quite friendly people – most of them know their neighbours and the vendors. The discussions at vendors’ also seemed to be pretty lively. The closer one gets to the epicentres, however, this feeling reduces. Citizen surveillance is possible in streets that are not too wide and that have houses facing the street directly, without any front gardens.

How wide are the streets? What about the pedestrian sidewalks? Are the bike lanes taking space away from car drivers or pedestrians? How and where would you improve this? Are there trees on both sides of the street? How different is the temperature under a tree versus in direct sun? Are there parks or smaller green areas? How would you improve this aspect?

Pedestrian sidewalks and road proportions are unequally distributed. Bike lanes in some parts run parallel to the roads, and sometimes take space away from already scarce pedestrian areas. In most parts there are trees, but this could definitely be improved. Places without tree cover are considerably hotter than those in shade.

Check on Google Maps the rooftops of the buildings (layers, satellite) – which roofs would you make into a public space like an urban garden, and which ones would you cover with solar panels?

It depends on the height of the buildings, which direction each rooftop faces, where the city is located, and how much sun each roof receives. Based on this, some roofs will be more or less sunny or warm – these are crucial factors when considering where to locate solar panels, a rooftop restaurant or a winter garden.

Do the buildings look energy-efficient to you? What can you say about the windows and walls at first sight? What kind of heating is used? If you feel comfortable, talk to the locals and ask their opinion.

Most buildings are energy-inefficient, due to low insulation and poor windows. The city uses coal as its main energy source. Locals are not happy, as the air is visibly polluted in winter.

Conclusion

As you can see, there are so many possibilities to improve our cities. The only thing needed is the will and participation in decision-making. We also think that this topic should go a bit beyond the urbanist bubble and become more accessible and understood by the masses.

This article was initially published by Cooperation and Development Network. You can read the full publication at https://www.cdnee.org/publications. It is based on a session developed by Lusine Kosakyan, Maja Klimentic, Mariam (Masho) Dzneladze and Selma Levrence.