A minute. It would actually be better if we move to cities. What would that look 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 young. 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. To rework 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. 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, come to our rooms 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 in like tomorrow. Yeah. We still have golf, so just to let please. The opponent, sophia, was where a family of 4 plus the 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 of what that twice the number of square made is called for us. Its about optimizing our living situation. Not maximizing how many square meters we have, the medium did, whether not meet the 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 for you 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, southern or residential areas. Basically grew out of consumers thinking and behavior. And yes, they climate give us schema k, the. 5 Associates Name is sooner than 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 c o 2 budget. Gosh, pick good look, its to take. So that 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. 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, i, 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 because 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 its more like you to be embarrassing. Thats what youre probably thinking that shift will come with buildings as well. So i think the board and i mix 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. 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 or 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 ways that would be the most important response in 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 would also help says determining where the center of any given places ultimately offered times that is no center. Its just the collection of building this them. But if we have these little downtowns, then businesses could open that email and send it to us having a bakery for a Convenience Store like, oh, well, maybe even a 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 to 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. 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 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 to shane gun on that and that seems to work pretty well. Heres good. So if youre up 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 dense. If occasion you might, most people say, then suffocation. Good. Okay, fine. But nothing might back yard. 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 office the opportunity for people to study them which is fulfilled and showed them how the quality of public space is improve, substitute given in and yes gets a to a home the and now we come to the important and very challenging political question is how do we achieve this high temp . 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 and those 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 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 cap and kind of in a city living and were living sometimes that can be equivalent this is actually a credit complex picture. Because if you look at the 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 of different picture if you go to the cities in the developing countries. Because in many cases, induced developing countries of investments have hiring comes in the real counterpart. And because of that they consume more. So usually the urban causing footprint in the city is a much, much higher than their little come to part. So its not post able 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 nation up until 1950. So we will actually roll population and this has changed since 19 fifties mutual across here. We can see the sheriff rule population has been declined, that it looks like this best. The sheriff urban population has been following an increasing trend connected. The 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 urban residents interested twos and about 90 percent of this new urban population that will be added into cities in africa and asia. The sustainability by tools thatd 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 citizen, 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 more 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 we have to consider new concepts 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 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 and so we bush calling it i so, so all of the out the ice bank called for instance, does have some of the bottom reason to use 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 is global. Soft tissues is not necessary to know 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 on 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 billed for 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, i think back to when hes been on vacation, which since hes encourage you to get around by phone, honestly, sometimes it just has to do with the beauty of the city, public spaces, with facade, hes in his glass, thats an element of sustainability as well, and this is, i think, beauty even found some what unscientific should definitely be an important sustainability stand, the types of kids to them. 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 call our as onto the density buildings on 7 o. 8 stories high in hong kong on the asian city is dominated by high rises. Its the opposite. You can get on the density is taken statically. Its like a field of asparagus month. So again, this is the buildings of a tips of be asparagus, picking up everywhere on the spaces between them. Toms really usable anymore. Oh, interesting kind of. They just provide clearance. This is different. The way the buildings are arranged creates 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 150 is sort of laid out and i can apartment under 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 is high, this can be part of the solutions, but it is how to 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