Transcripts For DW 42 20240703 : vimarsana.com

Like . Just one mega city after another. What good company . What do future cities need to look like so that we 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 and 2050. They all live in one spot, a joy can take megacity, a utopian dream for 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 lived 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 jose from the city center, and you know, we can see, come that roost wallabies and pull somethings cutting all the way ive taught it all away. When i spend half the way through the city coast, i understand where i teach at the university. And the rest of the week kind of an advantage that was applied for laura. Yeah. Which did you off and golf . I sort of mentally vote in sophia was home where a family of 4 plus a dog had to go to be living in a 70 square meter apartment in Lower Manhattan and things got some better to be on 5 blocks away. We could probably phone twice as much space of what that twice the number of squared made is good for us. Its about optimizing living situation. Not maximizing how many square meters we have the medium good. Whether not meet the where is it more sustainable to live the city, the country side, or somewhere in between like a suburb. Somebody because they can be york is like the golden center. And of course, the city can expand like the ag, what wants to be avoided at no 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 in the suburbs or they can built with nice houses and neat lawns, climate degradation on a plate. There should be good lives to southern or residential areas. Basically grew out of consumers thinking and behavior. And yes, they climate killer schema k. The same as soon as the c o 2 emissions the 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. The gosh, big general keeps that. 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 or the countryside far from the noise and confinement at 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, one affluent white. People move down to what are known as the suburbs. For some 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 this has to be a paradigm shift, but i think that will change in the long term life. 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 will come with buildings as well. I think the board and i mix a game in one area of hamburg there havent been any new construction areas allocated for a 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 with in the end, it comes down to stopping and building altogether. Data is not everyone can simply build a big Single Family home in the countryside, anticipates hes just just doesnt work. So few plots. Keep that just isnt that much space in europe or in the world as 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 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, and actually force everyone to lead us or compact me in one country. You not, but in general, it would be better if we could make the city populations moment densities 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 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 lumina attorney finished in the one solution for already existing residential areas would be to renovate the houses that make 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 wont of us. That will also help says, determining where the center of any given place is. These are all for me, 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 with and then it was having a bakery or a Convenience Store like, oh, well, maybe even the supermarket line 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 there are 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. Escape the home and it seemed to me 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 the same gun on the ship. 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. Coping hill has minimum Carbon Emissions and does a Recreation Center for residents in the danish capital. Mixed land use and short city distances are very 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 been certification. You might have the most people say then suffocation. Okay, fine. But nothing might back yard like plastic reaction. You dont go around trying people to help you to sit together instead, you point out the advantages to this one is really important to get people on board and to ask them, what do you need to get in your neighborhood . Okay, thatd be new st crowns or a kindergarten and so on and on kindergarten or the fitness application office, the opportunity for people to send you them which is fulfilled and show them how the quality of public spaces improve. So the tip given in on the, gets a to a home the and now we come to the important and very challenging. Political question is how do we achieve this idea . 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 traditional c o 2 emissions on the one hand, its the end of behavior on the other item on the. 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 density, 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 are lower than in the surrounding suburbs. Yes. If you look at the cup and kind of in a city living and weve already, sometimes they can be equivalent. And this is actually a quite complex picture, because if you look at developed countries, cities, they are quite equal because they dont really have big income disparity. And the level for living is largely the same. But this is talks a different picture of the fuel go to the cities in the developing countries. Because in many cases, induced developing countries of investments have higher income, send out role counterpart. And because of that they consume more so usually to urban cousins, footprint industry to use a much, much higher than their little come to part. So its not possible to, 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 crops. Here we can see the shaft real population has been declining, static, effective best. The sheriff urban position has been following and increasing trends connected. The 2000 h was the 1st year they were more People Living in cities, world wide, 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 12 feet in new urban residents into our cities and about 90 percent of this new urban population go be added into cities in africa and asia. The sustainability battles ill 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 in 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 handle the war, 10 out pollution problems with increasing industrial production. And then they handled todays will consumption oriented problems like the Greenhouse Gas emissions. But cities where people are going cities tend to global solve. For example, like logos, debbie or jakarta. They dont really have the luxury of getting 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 into 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 to and say so im the 1st will build out the infrastructure of local transportation and other points of basic infrastructure to approve. But that often fails due to a lack of funding. This type of we have to consider new concepts like going in selectively and saying, okay, well make a type of top here. You maximize, why not 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 prefabricated frameworks in which residents can build small accommodations. The on the dispute and quincy, the so basically the problems we have without residential areas should be avoided completely or at least reduced order. So mean this to complete me until the bush playing and i 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. Dentist. Interestingly, to understand the all the awareness of Global Environmental problems such as kind of change induced global soft tissues is not necessarily no compared to the residence in the cities in the global. No. The problem is that the complex challenges they are facing makes it so much harder for them to take action. Look, a lot of north cant just sit back because per capita emissions, there are far higher than in the rapidly growing mega 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 of 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 does have devices. Interestingly, we dont have to pull 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 youve been on vacation, which safetys encourage you to get around. I thought im reading. Sometimes it just has to do with the beauty of the city. Public space is with facade. Hes in his glass. Thats an element of sustainability as well. And this is, i think, beauty even found somewhat unscientific, should definitely be an important sustainability stand, the test types of homes. 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 at paris, we have what i cool horizontal density. Buildings on 7 o 8 stories high in hong kong on the asian city is dominated by high rises. Its the opposite to even get on. The density is taken statically. Its like a field of asparagus. Once again, this is the buildings of a 10 sippy asparagus, picking up everywhere and the space between them time for the usable anymore. Oh, interesting kind of. They just provide clearance. After this is different, the way the buildings are arranged, create interesting public spaces. You go to the street which widens out closet, then was a square. And after that, a very narrow alley. Hes got a whole city is sort of laid out and i can apartment on the public space is well designed and easy to use. Then people are willing to accept grey 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 tower cities into United Nations<\/a> forecasts will be living on earth and 2050. They all live in one spot, a joy can take megacity, a utopian dream for 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 lived 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 jose from the city center, and you know, we can see, come that roost wallabies and pull somethings cutting all the way ive taught it all away. When i spend half the way through the city coast, i understand where i teach at the university. And the rest of the week kind of an advantage that was applied for laura. Yeah. Which did you off and golf . I sort of mentally vote in sophia was home where a family of 4 plus a dog had to go to be living in a 70 square meter apartment in Lower Manhattan<\/a> and things got some better to be on 5 blocks away. We could probably phone twice as much space of what that twice the number of squared made is good for us. Its about optimizing living situation. Not maximizing how many square meters we have the medium good. Whether not meet the where is it more sustainable to live the city, the country side, or somewhere in between like a suburb. Somebody because they can be york is like the golden center. And of course, the city can expand like the ag, what wants to be avoided at no 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 in the suburbs or they can built with nice houses and neat lawns, climate degradation on a plate. There should be good lives to southern or residential areas. Basically grew out of consumers thinking and behavior. And yes, they climate killer schema k. The same as soon as the c o 2 emissions the 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. The gosh, big general keeps that. 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 or the countryside far from the noise and confinement at 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<\/a> homes. The trend began after the 2nd world war, one affluent white. People move down to what are known as the suburbs. For some 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<\/a> homes use comparatively large areas of land and they have High Development<\/a> costs no matter where theyre built. The streets, electricity networks, and Sewage Systems<\/a> only benefit a few. In terms of construction alone, residents already have high c o 2 Emissions Per Capita<\/a>. The irish come on, we really cant afford this kind of status and i know that this has to be a paradigm shift, but i think that will change in the long term life. 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 will come with buildings as well. I think the board and i mix a game in one area of hamburg there havent been any new construction areas allocated for a Single Family<\/a> 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 with in the end, it comes down to stopping and building altogether. Data is not everyone can simply build a big Single Family<\/a> home in the countryside, anticipates hes just just doesnt work. So few plots. Keep that just isnt that much space in europe or in the world as 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 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<\/a> 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, and actually force everyone to lead us or compact me in one country. You not, but in general, it would be better if we could make the city populations moment densities 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<\/a> on the other the biologist, Edward Wilson<\/a> made a radical proposal in 2016. He suggested making half of the earth in Nature Conservation<\/a> 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 lumina attorney finished in the one solution for already existing residential areas would be to renovate the houses that make them more efficient on done. And then to develop Public Transportation<\/a> that will automatically become more affordable. When the suburbs become more densely populated fios wont of us. That will also help says, determining where the center of any given place is. These are all for me, 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 with and then it was having a bakery or a Convenience Store<\/a> like, oh, well, maybe even the supermarket line for the month. And that would mean shorter distance is a key concept for urban planners. Is the so called 15 minutes City Residents<\/a> should be able to get anywhere they need on foot by cycling, or with Public Transit<\/a> in just 15 minutes, including to work shopping or recreational activities. Paris is a 4 runner here, but there are 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> 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. Escape the home and it seemed to me its about creating a center near the Actual Center<\/a> of the city. That does is it where authentic daily life can perhaps on fall. And in this compact, you have them the same gun on the ship. 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. Coping hill has minimum Carbon Emissions<\/a> and does a Recreation Center<\/a> for residents in the danish capital. Mixed land use and short city distances are very 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 been certification. You might have the most people say then suffocation. Okay, fine. But nothing might back yard like plastic reaction. You dont go around trying people to help you to sit together instead, you point out the advantages to this one is really important to get people on board and to ask them, what do you need to get in your neighborhood . Okay, thatd be new st crowns or a kindergarten and so on and on kindergarten or the fitness application office, the opportunity for people to send you them which is fulfilled and show them how the quality of public spaces improve. So the tip given in on the, gets a to a home the and now we come to the important and very challenging. Political question is how do we achieve this idea . 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 traditional c o 2 emissions on the one hand, its the end of behavior on the other item on the. 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<\/a> 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 density, vacation and political measures. But theres one thing we havent fully answered is city or Country Living<\/a> 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<\/a> are lower than in the surrounding suburbs. Yes. If you look at the cup and kind of in a city living and weve already, sometimes they can be equivalent. And this is actually a quite complex picture, because if you look at developed countries, cities, they are quite equal because they dont really have big income disparity. And the level for living is largely the same. But this is talks a different picture of the fuel go to the cities in the developing countries. Because in many cases, induced developing countries of investments have higher income, send out role counterpart. And because of that they consume more so usually to urban cousins, footprint industry to use a much, much higher than their little come to part. So its not possible to, to make a blanket statement about whether city or Country Living<\/a> is more damaging to the environment. But the potential of cities to fight Climate Change<\/a> 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 crops. Here we can see the shaft real population has been declining, static, effective best. The sheriff urban position has been following and increasing trends connected. The 2000 h was the 1st year they were more People Living<\/a> in cities, world wide, been in the countryside. The United Nation<\/a> says that by 2050, around 70 percent of all people will be urban dwellers. By 2015, we will be adding more than 12 feet in new urban residents into our cities and about 90 percent of this new urban population go be added into cities in africa and asia. The sustainability battles ill 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 in 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 handle the war, 10 out pollution problems with increasing industrial production. And then they handled todays will consumption oriented problems like the Greenhouse Gas<\/a> emissions. But cities where people are going cities tend to global solve. For example, like logos, debbie or jakarta. They dont really have the luxury of getting with this problems one by one. The latest report as he entered Governmental Panel<\/a> on Climate Change<\/a> 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 into 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 to and say so im the 1st will build out the infrastructure of local transportation and other points of basic infrastructure to approve. But that often fails due to a lack of funding. This type of we have to consider new concepts like going in selectively and saying, okay, well make a type of top here. You maximize, why not smoking, quote. That way, basic infrastructure such as water or electricity could be used. Communally Modular Systems<\/a> could be deployed to handle urban growth. These are a simple prefabricated frameworks in which residents can build small accommodations. The on the dispute and quincy, the so basically the problems we have without residential areas should be avoided completely or at least reduced order. So mean this to complete me until the bush playing and i 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. Dentist. Interestingly, to understand the all the awareness of Global Environmental<\/a> problems such as kind of change induced global soft tissues is not necessarily no compared to the residence in the cities in the global. No. The problem is that the complex challenges they are facing makes it so much harder for them to take action. Look, a lot of north cant just sit back because per capita emissions, there are far higher than in the rapidly growing mega 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 of 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 does have devices. Interestingly, we dont have to pull 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 youve been on vacation, which safetys encourage you to get around. I thought im reading. Sometimes it just has to do with the beauty of the city. Public space is with facade. Hes in his glass. Thats an element of sustainability as well. And this is, i think, beauty even found somewhat unscientific, should definitely be an important sustainability stand, the test types of homes. 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 at paris, we have what i cool horizontal density. Buildings on 7 o 8 stories high in hong kong on the asian city is dominated by high rises. Its the opposite to even get on. The density is taken statically. Its like a field of asparagus. Once again, this is the buildings of a 10 sippy asparagus, picking up everywhere and the space between them time for the usable anymore. Oh, interesting kind of. They just provide clearance. After this is different, the way the buildings are arranged, create interesting public spaces. You go to the street which widens out closet, then was a square. And after that, a very narrow alley. Hes got a whole city is sort of laid out and i can apartment on the public space is well designed and easy to use. Then people are willing to accept grey to density but is greater density enough to face the issues post by Climate Change<\/a>, 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 tower cities into Climate Change<\/a> into the extreme heat for example, an hour or so treaty shows that every bits of green in the city actually comes the idea of a spar and she 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 and sustainable urban planning. The aim is having is 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 extension. Essentially, functions like an ex open style sheet. Well, once it 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 after maybe 2 hours when this thing was clear again. Oh, it was one of our operations, maybe kind of the we have areas when we 1st connected well water retention pools will be of im not going to slow live operates for to instead this last a long, some and a vibration close down the city, common features of sponge cities, our 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<\/a> so that the city no longer has to import as much. Its a step towards self sufficiency. The i think the rest and the growing city is such and they need to think about how you can to provide display 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 2 and some already exist overland project. A couple of fish in Vegetable Farming<\/a> to safe space space was growing alongside perch fish droppings, fertilize the plants. Its called aqua clinics, saves water and fertilizer, and reduces c o. 2 emissions the lacey potential then to try to supply ourselves much more locally and much in the root system. I know most of these things company, when 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 wheels, perhaps produced behind the chickens to maybe even heat the offices. But no one took the heights. Whether we turned to innovation was looked back at historic cities. We have all the tools necessary to live sustainably. The Sticking Point<\/a> 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 its 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 delaney gets closer to potential is far greater to make urban 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 before the 2015. And very importantly, this kind of commitment by these cities actually really gives the National Government<\/a> 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 in the past 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<\/a> whether we live in a city country side or separates the the, the k i extend are right at the International Minutes<\/a> or so 2023. What kind of the Technology Already<\/a> do today . Read reports. I am unaware. She likes most the most impressive innovation, Artificial Intelligence<\/a> in color, red in 30 minutes on d w. The, theres always a breeze among the uh, and its people are in constant motion. The country is known for it in some is found. His legacy continues to shape the country to this day. Mongolia, pre owned during this con accounts of the empire. In 16 minutes on d w, the we said there was never giving up or every weekend on the da da da is it is someplace hiring to see more people than ever on the move world wide. And such a pretty high successive in cardboard. Back on the left side of the image and find out about bailey story. Info. My grand the youre watching the dr. News life from balance and out create cues. More than 2000 people in morocco, buildings collapse, and speak to sleep at Home Software<\/a> to create stripes, the historic city of Motor Carriers<\/a> and Village Stores<\/a> and the access mountains. Also had the g. 20. You agree for me to join summit exploration and environment of the summit . Totes meetings and will be announces to groups. Adults effects which calls on contracts to refrain from using full support auditorium, game trust","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800509.us.archive.org\/1\/items\/DW_20230910_033000_42_-_The_Answer_to_Almost\/DW_20230910_033000_42_-_The_Answer_to_Almost.thumbs\/DW_20230910_033000_42_-_The_Answer_to_Almost_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240703T12:35:10+00:00"}