Half the way through the city schools, i understand where i teach at the university and the rest of the week kind definitive in interested is point tomorrow. Yeah. We still have golf. So just to let the phone in sofia roof where a family of 4 plus a dog had a goldfish living and 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 made is we have the medium did, whether not me to where is it more sustainable to live the city, the country side, or somewhere in between like a suburb this lake, as i get into 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 akin which represents the database 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 give us schema k a c, c o 2 emissions the a 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, picture to get stuff taken 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 of 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 because i think that will change in the long term life. You can compare when you dont have travel and but many people who used to be really proud of being frequent flyers. Now hold on a key to be embarrassing. I think 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. Data is not everyone can simply build a big Single Family home in the countryside, anticipates these mist just doesnt work. So few plots get there just isnt that much space in europe or in the well, theres a whole instant 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 in 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 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 will also help says, determining where the center of any given places ultimately offered times there is no center. Its just a collection of building this them. But if we have these little downtowns then businesses could open that even though it was 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 experiments and model cities like aspirin, 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 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. So if you out 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 plant 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. 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, show me those that will be closer together. Im said you points out the advantages that theyve shown. 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 excuse me. And so on and on. Kindergarten or the fitness application 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 on the it skips it through 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 high on the sites. 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 cutting trains of inner city living and living, sometimes that can be equivalent this is actually a credit context picture. Because if you look at developed countries, cities, they are quite a call because they dont really have big income disparity. And the level for living is largely the say and. But this, this talks a 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 role come to part. And because of that they consume more. 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 1950. So we will actually roll population. And this has changed since 19 fifties at mutual cross. Here. We can see the shaft through a population has been declining. The static is like this best. The sheriff urban population has been following an increase in trans connected. The 2000 h was the 1st year. They were more People Living in cities worldwide. Then in the countryside, the United Nation says that by 2050, around 70 percent of all people will be urban dwellers. By 2015 will be adding more than 2000000 new urban investments into institution and about 90 percent of this new urban population that will 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 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. First, the hendo to send mutation and housing problems and then to hendo to what happened at pollution problems with increasing industrial production. And then they handled todays will consumption oriented problems like the Greenhouse Gas emissions. But cities of air could you go instead, houston, 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 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. Solutions 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 a new concept like going in selectively and saying, okay, 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 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 completely and so we bush calling 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 a name, we dont want to shock some good news this morning dentist. Interestingly, to understand the all the awareness of globally environmental problems such as kind of change is global. Soft tissue is, is not necessary to know compared to the residence in the city. It seemed to 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 cant just sit back because per capita emissions there are for higher than in the rapidly growing mega cities of the south. So all the world cities face 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 move to the past because the historic cities are still with us. Right here we have for sustainability codes. Think back to when youve been on vacation, which safety is encourage you to get around 5 for im reading. Sometimes it just has to do with the beauty of the city. Public space is with facade. Hes in this class, 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 types of kids to m. C. But how do you cities 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 hit 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 to even get on. The density is taken statically. Its like a field of asparagus once again. This is the buildings of the tips of be asparagus, picking up everywhere on the spaces 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. Us. If 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 is 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 put into a changing sort of context. And the context number one is the need to to better adapt tower cities into Climate Change 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 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 this 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 an a to point for example. Then were squeezing out the sponge again off to maybe 2 hours when this thing was clear again. Oh, it was one of our operations, maybe kind of the we have areas where we 1st connected to water retention pools and then not going to slow live operates. And so to instead this last a long, some and a vibration cools 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