Like . Just one mega city after another. What good company . What do future cities need to look like . So that will want to live in them, but still be preserving the earth can where we live, continue to be a lifestyle choice, or is it time to make saving the planet a priority the, lets imagine we would all live in a city really all of us just like in the film planted city by liam. Yeah. 10000000000 people live here. Thats roughly the same amount. The United Nations forecasts will be living on earth in 2050. They all live in one spot. A joy can take megacity. A utopian dream for actually work. Lets take a look realities 1st. More than half of the worlds population already lives in cities, only around 10 percent live in the countryside. The rest live in between in one of the many variations between suburbs and urban areas. Im living in ken, theyre out of town in australia, and most people in kent are living in the suburbs. And im living in a house about 4. Tell me to away from the city center. And you know, we can see comes arrows while a base and pull somethings cutting all the way up to our doorway. When i spend half the way through the city schools, i understand where i teach the university and the rest of the week kind definitive in interested is point tomorrow. Yeah. Is this young golf . I sort of mentally. The opponent, sophia group, home where a family of 4 plus a dog had a goldfish, living in a 70 square meter apartment in Lower Manhattan and things got some better to be on 5 blocks away. We could probably afford twice as much space, but that twice the number of square made is quite for us. Its about optimizing our living situation. Not maximizing how many square made is we have the meeting did with asked me to where is it more sustainable to live the city, the country side, or somewhere in between. Like a suburb this like i can be york is like the golden center. And of course the city can expand like the egg, what, whats to be avoided at all. Cost is the bacon which represents suburbia. Thats bad for the environment. Its bad to use and its bad for the climate as well. And the 25th schema is the suburbs or bacon built with nice houses and neat lawns, climate degradation on a plate. If there should be curriculum is the southern or residential area is basically grew out of consumers thinking and behavior. And yes, they climate killer schema k. So say listen, the c o 2 emissions there are 2. 00 to 3. 00 times higher than they are in the city overall areas. This is especially true of classic suburbs with one or 2 family homes. This is where a spacious interiors and large yards meet, low population density. The 1st consequence about mobility is centered around cars. The 2nd consequence, consumerism. If youve got a lot of space, youll naturally want to fill it with lots of Pretty Things which comes at the expense of the seo to budget. Gosh, pick, just look, its the suburban areas everywhere. Its not just a phenomenon in houston, atlanta, and los angeles, where the whole city is actually like one big sub, bangkok, hathaway beijing everywhere. And some cities do it better than others. America, asia, europe. Most urbanites want to get out of the city, the desire to live in a suburb where the country side far from the noise and confinement of the city, was further intensified by the panic. Evidently, many people dream of owning a home. In the us, 50 percent of people live in Single Family homes. The trend began after the 2nd world war when affluent white. People moved down to what are known as the suburbs prism. It was about status. Others were fleeing the daily grind and crime, a big city life. During the cold war, the fear of a tax on cities became another reason. Suburbs seemed safer. In germany, 2 areas with single or to family homes grew rapidly after world war 2. Housing had to be made available and construction was supported, politically and financially. New Single Family homes use comparatively large areas of land and they have High Development costs no matter where theyre built. The streets, Electricity Network is and Sewage Systems only benefit issue. In terms of construction alone, residents already have high c o 2 Emissions Per Capita, the irish come on. We really cant afford this kind of status. And i know that this has to be a paradigm shift because i think that will change in the long term life. You can compare when you travel and but many people who used to be really proud of being frequent flyers. Now hold on a key to be embarrassing. Thats what youre probably thinking that shift will come with buildings as well. So i think the board and i mix a game in one area of hamburg there havent been any new construction areas allocated for Single Family homes since 2021. Despite the policy only affecting one area so far, there was lots of criticism to me and if it gets stuck on it, in the end it comes down to stopping and fielding altogether. Either in not everyone can simply build a big Single Family home in the countryside, anticipates these mixed up just doesnt work. So few plots get there just isnt that much space in europe or in the well, theres a home in ski, so on. Lets look at the space issue work closely. Say we would all live like people do in houston, texas, the city suburbs make it an extremely sprawling city without density, large parts of europe would be completely built up. On the other end of the spectrum, theres paris. The french capital has europes greatest city population density at 20400. 00 residents per square kilometer. If everyone lived as densely as people do there, the current World Population would only need an area of the size of germany to live on. Lets go to an equal to p yet. Thats obviously just a utopia thing. And con, actually forced everyone to lead on. So it compacts, me in one country, you know, but in general it would be better if we could make the city populations more dense, is in order to preserve nature, to i think in many highest that would be the most important response to the terms of climate protection on the one hand and Environmental Conservation on the other. The biologist, edward of wilson made a radical proposal in 2016. He suggested making half of the earth in Nature Conservation area, undisturbed by people. Human life would then be organized in cities. He said that only with such a strict division could we prevent the next big wave of extensions. Critics dismissed wilsons approach as utopian alone for the fact that cities depend on surrounding areas for resources. Nevertheless, its clear when people live concentrated in one area, less land is used for housing, which means investments in infrastructure or more effective. So any other reason we know duty finished in the one solution for already existing residential areas would be to renovate the houses that made them more efficient on done and then to develop Public Transportation that will automatically become more affordable when the suburbs become more densely populated, fios wouldnt of us that will also help says determining where the center of any given places. Ultimately offered times there is no center. Its just the collection of building its done. But if we have these little downtowns, then businesses could open that email and send it to us having a bakery or a Convenience Store like, oh, well, maybe even a supermarket to time for the month. And that would mean shorter distance is a key concept for urban planners is the so called 15 minutes City Residents should be able to get anywhere they need on foot by cycling, or with Public Transit in just 15 minutes, including to work shopping or recreational activities. Paris is a 4 runner here, but theyre also experience ends and model cities like ashburn, urban lakeside, one of your biggest urban development projects. Aspirant is technically a district of vienna. But its Something Like a suburb. Its about 20 minutes away from the downtown and has subway and bus connections. Theres a mix of residential buildings and workplaces. Its all about keeping a balance between public and private spaces. Escape the home and symptom. Its about creating a center near the Actual Center of the city. That does is it where authentic daily life can perhaps on fall and in this compact you have them to shane gun on that and that seems to work pretty well. Heres good suggestion. Generally putting business homes and industry together leads to noise and air pollution. Those are precisely the reasons urban dwellers want to get out of the city. Innovation is needed, like this waste to energy planned and copenhagen. Copeland hill has minimum carbon emissions, and as a Recreation Center for residents in the danish capital mixed land use and short city distances are very old principles that were extremely common before the mass use and automobiles. But frankly, when you move to the suburbs to avoid noise crowds and city small, theres one thing you really dont want. And thats den certification. You might have the most people say, then suffocation. Good. Okay, fine. But nothing might back yard or Something Like announcing reaction. You dont go around trying people to help you to sit together instead, you point out the advantages to this, and its really important to get people on board and to ask them, what do you need in your neighborhood . Okay, thatd be new today, crowns or a kindergarten speech and so on and on. Kindergarten or the fence if occasion offers the opportunity for people to study them which is fulfilled and showed them how the quality of public space and improve substitute given in on the it skips it through a home the and now we come to the important and very challenging politic question, the shots is, how do we achieve this idea of why its certainly not going to happen from one day to the next and above all, it wouldnt happen because of the lock in effect. This cementing of 2 additional c o. 2 emissions on the one hand and those behavior on the other high on thats. So how can behavior be changed . Political measures are one approach, a commuter allowance for clean transportation, eliminating parking spots, or increasing parking fees downtown unpopular, but effect. Lets review suburbs with Single Family homes or not climate friendly. It would be better to stop planning such areas altogether and for existing suburban sprawl. There are already solutions, redevelopment dents of vacation and political measures. But theres one thing we havent fully answered is city or Country Living more sustainable . Theres no one single answer in finland. Rural residents perform slightly better than their urban counterparts. But in cities like new york or hong kong is c o. 2 Emissions Per Capita or lower than in the surrounding suburbs. Yes. If you look at the cup and trains of inner city living and were living, sometimes that can be equivalent this is actually a credit complex picture. Because if you look at developed countries, cities, they are quite a cool because they dont really have big income disparity. And the level for living is largely the same. But this is talks of different picture if you go to the cities in the developing countries. Because in many cases, induced developing countries of investments have higher income, send out real counterpart and because of that they consumer. So usually the urban causing footprint in the city is much, much higher than their little come to part. So its not possible to make a blanket statement about whether city or Country Living is more damaging to the environment, but the potential of cities to fight Climate Change becomes clear. When we look at the global trend of urban josean up until 9. 00 to 50. 00. So we will actually roll population and this has changed since 19 fifties at mutual cross. Here we can see the sheriff who will population has been declining. That if hes like this best, the sheriff urban substation has been following an increasing trend like this. 2000 h was the 1st year they were more People Living in cities worldwide, been in the countryside. The United Nation says that by 2050, around 70 percent of all people will be urban dwellers. By 2015, we will be adding more than 2000000 new or the investments into our cities and about 90 percent of this new urban population go be added into cities in africa and asia. The sustainability pat tools will be won or lost in the cities in the global south, in the us and europe as well. Cities like new york and berlin fruit, tremendously during industrialization at the end of the 19th century. But they had an advantage. So cities to europe and usa, they typically had much longer time to build their cities. And that gave them unique opportunity to handle the challenges as they come one by one versus the hendo to send mutation and housing problems. And then to handle the war 10 air pollution problems with increasing Industrial Production and then they handled todays will consumption oriented problems like the Greenhouse Gas emissions, but city. So there could be going cities in the global cell for example, like logos, debbie or jakarta. They dont really have the luxury of dealing with this problems one by one. The latest report as he entered Governmental Panel on Climate Change dedicates a whole chapter 2 cities emphasizing the key role they play. While the potential is great, if things are not done sustainably, there could be major risk to the climate. Urban areas already account for more than 2 thirds of all emissions worldwide. The expansion of infrastructure is keeping pace anymore with unchecked urban sprawl. Uncontrolled growth of cities can lead to inter main conditions. Some mega cities have long been bursting at the seams. Slums develop, bringing with them serious environmental and social problems. Including the gentleman is basically you have to plan ahead and say so im the 1st will build out the infrastructure of local transportation and other points of basic infrastructure to, to approve. But thats often fails due to a lack of funding. This type of thing, we have to consider a new concept like going in selectively and saying ok to make a type of hub here. Be my home model and out smoking quote. That way, basic infrastructure such as water or electricity could be used communally Modular Systems could be deployed to handle urban growth. These are a simple pre fabricated frameworks in which residents can build small accommodations. The dispute between c d s. So basically the problems we have with the, our residential areas should be avoided completely, or at least reduced order. So mean this to completely and so we push, putting it so, so all of the out the ice bank called for instance, does have some of the spot in recent years that has been strong opposition to further development in that direction. Which said, we cant do that, we cant manage it and we dont want to push out some good news this morning. And it is interesting me to understand the all the awareness of globally environmental problems such as Climate Change is global. Soft tissues is not necessarily no compared to the residence in the city. Its in the global know, the problem is that the complex challenges they are facing makes it so much harder for them to take action. But to go north, can just sit back because per capita emissions, there are far higher than in the rapidly growing megan cities of the south. So all the world cities faced the same question. How can they be built so that theyre densely populated enough, sustainable, and still offer a good quality of life . Urban planners agree on a few points. Cities must have lots of green space and water and should be energy efficient. Ideally, they should have self sufficient housing blocks, alleys for fresh air, minimal cars, and plenty of public space for pedestrians. It goes on devices. Interestingly, we dont have to nicole that far into the future. So we can see that we can just look to the past because the historic cities are still with us. The past, the criteria for sustainability codes. Think back to when you feed on vacation, which think these encourage you to get around 5 for im reading. Sometimes it just has to do with the beauty of the city, public spaces, with facade holidays in this class. Thats an element of sustainability as well. And this is, i think, beauty, even the sounds somewhat unscientific, should definitely be an important, sustainable, nice down the types of kids to keep them safe. But how do you sit so many people into the smallest space possible and in a way that they like it. Skyscrapers are not the best solution and not just for static reasons. Comparing a high rise city like hong kong with paris shows why. In the french capital, the population density of 20400. 00 residents per square kilometers is far higher than in hong kong. With just 7000. 00 residents per square kilometer. When we looked at paris, we have what i cool horizontal density. Buildings on 7 know, 8 stories high in hong kong on the asian cities dominated by high rises. Its the opposite to even get all the density is taken. Thats a clean. Its like a field of asparagus. Once again, this is supposed to dissolve. It tends to be asparagus picking up everywhere on the spaces between the time for the usable anymore. Oh, interesting kind of the just provide clearance is different. The way the buildings are arranged creates interesting public spaces. As soon as you go to the street which widens out closet, that was the square. And the left of that a very narrow alley. Hes got a whole city is sort of laid out like an apartment on the public space is well designed and easy to use. Then people are willing to accept great identity but is greater density enough to face the issues posed by Climate Change, such as heat. I think this height is can be part of the solution, but it is how to a silver plate solution to all of our urban problems because of the density ratio also needs to put into a changing sort of context and the context number one is the need to bet, to adapt our cities into Climate Change into our extreme heat for example. And our Research Really shows that every bits of green in the city actually comes. The idea of a sponge could play a key role in combat and heat and heavy rainfall. The principle of what are known as sponge cities has become a paradigm in sustainable urban planning. The aim is having as few sealed off areas as possible. Originally, the idea came from china in order to handle heavy months and reigns with cities in europe have also long been using the sponge principle to stop the essentially functions like an open style sheet. Well, once that comes down, either has to be retained in the ground and released into the sewage system with a data point, for example. Then were squeezing out the sponge again off to maybe 2 hours when the soonest are clear again. Oh, it was what of operation . Maybe kind of the so we have areas when we 1st connected, well water retention pools will be of im not going to slow live operates for doing that as well, so long some and of admiration cools down the city, common features of spun cities are roof gardens, and green facades, seepage and drainage troughs are used to store water. A tree trench is like an artificial band around the roof fall of a tree. Water is collected there and when it rains, it can be used for irrigation as needed. Singapore is a sponge city and uses the concept much more comprehensively. There are barrels that collect rainwater, providing people with Drinking Water so that the city no longer has to import as much. Its a step towards self sufficiency. The. I think the rest of the growing city is such a need to think about how you can to provide just for yourselves and i think were restroom and then we can really showed how fragile and fine ruble our supply systems can be. And having us, a portion of your foot supply coming within from your own city is really an important part of enhancing the resilience of our cities in face of the hazard and disasters. While surrounding areas are still crucial for supplying food. Innovative methods are needed to produce food inside cities too, and some already exist overland project. A couple of fish in Vegetable Farming to safe space. Space is growing alongside perch fish droppings, fertilize the plants. Its called aqua clinics, saves water and fertilizer, and reduces c o 2 emissions. The y c potential, then to try to supply ourselves much more locally and much in the root system. I know most of the Basics Company where they have thousands of square meters of surface area that helped me to i shouldnt be floats of grazing feet or chick is on the phone with another advantage would be using the hans perhaps produced behind the chickens to maybe even heat the offices, but no one took the heights whether we turned to innovation, it was looked back at historic cities. We have all the tools necessary to live sustainably. The Sticking Point is that every city face is different challenges and climatic and social realities. Theres no one single blueprint. Nevertheless, the main takeaway is cities are the solution i think 1st and foremost is because the city is like a center of innovation, but it is not only about takes the logical innovation. Its really about the cultural and social kind of innovations that changes the environmental footprint of their actions. This book and see honest them and it gets closer to potential is far greater to make other living a lot more climate friendly. Its much easier to do that in the city on a niggas todays to and, and noise. And you, electric bus line improves the climate footprint as mobility for a whole lot of people to see. And thats just not really possible in the countryside. The potential of cities is clear, we just need to be better at tapping into them. The good news is some cities have long been leading the way. There are many, many innovative examples that are happening almost everywhere in the load. We have more than 1300 cities worldwide to have committed to net 0 carbon emission if want 2050. And very importantly, this kind of commitment by these cities actually really gives the National Government both the pressure as far as the confidence to adopt the same kind of ambitious goal, natural goal. Its almost like a, you know, jump to on the pass cities or signaling the change that societys deed. But if we want to save the world, we all have to be on board. Its a Ripple Effect whether we live in a city country side, or separates the and the joy ride the guides know the way around the is strictly scientific truth system, pretty cheap places. Curiosity is we tried the tomorrow today in 30 minutes on d. W. Our specialties spiced with a luxury pleasure flavored with a touch of art and culinary excellence erupt saver. In 60 minutes on the top of the increasing and recent medium donna watching online services, the only work that is holiday destination is a drowning cost wise at the cost every year, youre exposed to over 1000000. 00 tons of plastics. Why is there another way officer ruled the environment is not responsible. Make up your own mind dw, made for mines. I imagine that youre eating a hamburger. And as youre biting into this juicy murder, your dining companion says to you, actually that hamburger is not made from cows. Its made from golden retrievers. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 in meeting cultures around the world, people learned to classify small handful of animals with edible and all the rest of the classify as disgusting. The donkey series about our complex relationship with them and also need to be watch. Now on youtube, d. W documentary the, this is debbie news live from berlin, morocco grapples with the aftermath of an earthquake. Morning begins as rescue teams trying to bring survivors out of the rubble. The death toll passes 2000 people in hospital struggle to cover the many and also the g. 20 closes in delhi with World Leaders calling it a success and the African Union joining the blog for sale now takes on the presidency to host the next 2 years meet and victory for germany in the fast world come file, they beat serbia in a close