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 and 2050. They all live in one spot. Gigantic megacity. A utopian dream score actually work. Lets take a look at reality 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. And living in can, theyre out of town in australia. And most people are in ken, theyre living in the suburbs. And im living in a house about 4, telling me to away from the city center. And you know, we can see, come that roost wallabies and how somethings cutting all the way ive taught it. Always. When i spend half the way through the city schools, i understand where i teach at the university and the rest of the week kind of an advantage that was applied for tomorrow, which is young golf. I sort of dismantling the opponent to fit this home with a family of 4 plus a dog and a goldfish. Living in a 70 square meter apartment in Lower Manhattan and things got some that are taking beyond 5 bucks away. We could probably afford twice as much space of 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 a city can expand like the egg, what, whats to be avoided at all. Cost is the bacon which represents. So thatd be a, 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 they can built with nice houses and neat lawns, climate degradation on a plate, if there should be curriculum, southern or residential areas. Basically grew out of consumers thinking and behavior. And yes, they climate give us schema, k c a 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 this 02 budget. The gosh big, just look, its that sections. So theres an error is uh, 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 where america, asia, europe, most urbanites want to get out of the city. The desire to live in a suburb where the countryside far from the noise and confinement of the city was further intensified by the pen demik. Evidently, many people dream of owning a home. In the us, 50 percent of people live in a Single Family homes. The trend began after the 2nd world war, one affluent white. People move 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 networks, and Sewage Systems only benefit a few. 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 seems to be a paradigm shift because i think that will change in the long term. You can compare with that and travel and but many people who used to be really proud of being frequent flyers. Now we home like you to be embarrassing. I think that shift can come with buildings as well. I think the board and im fixing the 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. Data is not everyone can simply build a big Single Family home in the countryside, anticipates these just just doesnt work. So people that skip that just isnt that much space and you at least, or in the well, theres a home in ski sent on me. Lets look at the space issue work closely. Say we would all live like people do in houston, texas, the city suburbs making 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 the 20. 00 to 2. 00 p, yet. Thats obviously just a utopia thing in con, actually forced everyone to lead us or compact me in one country, you know, but in general, it would be better if we could make the cd populations more densities in order to preserve nature. To i think in many ways that would be the most important responsive kinds of climate protection on the one hand and environmental conservation. On the other. The biologist, Edward 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 to asian 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 dont do any furnished in the one solution for already existing residential areas would be to renovate the houses the the i made them more efficient on done and then to develop Public Transportation that will automatically become more affordable when these sometimes become more densely populated fios wouldnt of us that will also helps us determining why the center of any given places often is it often times that is no center. Its just a collection of building just them. But if we have these little downtowns then businesses could open that email, then send it to us having a bakery or a convenience store, like, oh, or maybe even the 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 experiments and model cities like ashburn, urban lakeside, one of your biggest urban development projects. Aspirin 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 work places. Its all about keeping a balance between public and private spaces as, as keep the home and same to me, its about creating a center near the Actual Center of the city that does get where authentic daily lives 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 in 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. With frankly, when you move to the suburbs to avoid noise crowds and cities small, theres one thing you really dont want. And thats den certification. You might most people say then suffocation. Okay, fine, but nothing might back yard like plastic reaction. You dont go around showing people to help you to sit together. Im said you point out the advantages to this one is 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 and so on and on kindergarten or the fitness application office, the opportunity for people to study then which is fulfilled and show them how the quality of public spaces improve. Study given in on the gets, gets up to a home the and now we come to the important and very challenging. Political question is how do we achieve this hightail . Its certainly not going to happen from one day to the next. And above all, it wouldnt happen because of the lucky in effect this cementing of traditional c o 2 emissions on the one hand, its the end of behavior on the other hyphen 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, popular 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 performed slightly better than their urban counterparts. But in cities like new york or hong kong, the c o 2 Emissions Per Capita are lower than in the surrounding suburbs. Yes. If you look at the cutting trains of inner city living and rotating, sometimes that can be equivalent this is actually a quite complex picture. Because if you look at developed country 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 a different picture if you go to the cities in the developing countries. Because in many cases, induced developing countries of investments have higher income, then the real counterpart and because of that they consume more. So usually the urban Carbon Footprint industries, im 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 urbanized ation up until 1950, so we will actually roll population and this has changed since 19 fifties mutual across here. We can see the sheriff who will population has been declining static. Hes like this best. The sheriff urban population has been following an increasing trend like this. The 2008 was the 1st year. They were more People Living in cities worldwide than 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 that tools are be won or lost in the cities in the global stalls in the us and europe as well. Cities like new york and berlin brew 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. First, the hendo to send mutation and housing problems and then to hendo to will 10 air pollution problems with increasing industrial production. And then they handled todays will consumption oriented problems like the Greenhouse Gas emissions. But cities rapidly growing cities tend to 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 govern mental 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 new concepts like going into the natively and saying, okay, well 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 in quincy, the so basically the problem is 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 use that has been strong opposition to further development in that direction. Which said, we cant do that, we cant manage it. We dont want to push out some good news this morning dentist. Interestingly, to understand the all the over our news 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. Look a lot on north can just sit back because per capita emissions and there are for higher than in the rapidly growing mega cities of the south. So all the world cities faced the same question. How can they be billed for 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, i think back to when you feed on vacation, which i think hes 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, michael, thank you t, even it sounds somewhat unscientific. Should definitely be an important sustainable 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 just get paris, we have what i cool are is until then to team building. So 7 or 8 stories high in hong kong on the asian cities dominated by high rises. Its the opposite so you can get all the density is taken. Thats a clean is like a field of asparagus. Once again, this is the buildings of attempts to be asparagus, picking up everywhere, and the space between the time for the usable anymore. Oh, interesting kind of the just provide clearance. Sure is different. The way the buildings are arranged creates interesting public spaces. And you go to the street which widens out deposit. That was the square. And the left of that is 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 to density but is greater density enough to face the issues post by Climate Change, such as heat. I think this high, this can be part of the solutions, but it is happening a silver plate solution to all of our urban problems because of the density issue also needs to be put into a changing sort of context and the context number one is the need to, to better 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 seal