Sustainability And Its Impact On Planning Cultural Studies Essay

Published:

'An inconvenient truth' is the award winning documentary film presented by the vice president of the United States Al Gore. It has been credited for raising international public awareness of climate change.

For many whether it would be for an international unscrupulous campaigner publicly and 'forcefully making their opinions heard such as the guys camping in public grounds or for the guy that sneaked inside that civil building and onto its roof, or for radical intellectual individuals such as Mr Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr with their documentaries is that world population is on the rise and unfortunately for them their arguments about sustainability are much more narrower than adhered by them.

All the talk on sustainability has had a direct effect upon architecture and buildings regulations world wide making design process in architecture just a little bit more inconvenient whereby an architect's flexible approach on design has been taken away by multiple regulations needed to abide by.

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Professional

Essay Writers

Lady Using Tablet

Get your grade
or your money back

using our Essay Writing Service!

Essay Writing Service

So how does this relate to architecture? How does sustainability cripple the way we design? In this paper I intend to answer those questions and I intend to address one major issue:. Sustainability and it's impact on planning regulations in recent years: I will do this by looking at how sustainability in late capitalism has been misinterpreted by various organizations and different classes of people thus ending up at the current climate with multiple structures of regulations. How these regulations make workflow for architects more time-consuming and bring to light examples in order to demonstrate how regulations as such may not work. But first in this paper, I will put forth statistical numbers on world population.C:\Users\John\Downloads\640px-Sustainable_development.svg.png

World population

So have you ever interrupted your wonderful life and thought how big the world is? How human interaction is greater than ever, and ever expanding? More to the point have you ever wondered how many of us there are in this world? How the world population is in the rise and its impact on future developments worldwide will change with time? And while that's taking place the perception of sustainability will change too. So here's the truth: world population is currently estimated to be 6,882,200,000 and by 2050 that number is expected to almost be doubled and will rise to 10.500.000.000. It is the combination of population increase in the developing world and unsustainable consumption levels in the developed world that poses a stark challenge to sustainability.C:\Users\John\Downloads\world_globe.jpg

C:\Users\John\Downloads\587px-World-Population-1800-2100.png

Definition of sustainability

The word sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sus, up). Dictionaries provide more than ten meanings for sustain, the main ones being to "maintain", "support", or "endure". Nevertheless, since the 1980s sustainability has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability and sustainable development, that of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

At the 2005 World Summit it was noted that this requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands - the "three pillars" of sustainability.[8] This view has been expressed as an illustration using three overlapping ellipses indicating that the three pillars of sustainability are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing.

To add complication the word sustainability is applied not only to human sustainability on Earth, but to many situations and contexts over many scales of space and time, from small local ones to the global balance of production and consumption and it's the reason of misconception by individuals that is being . It can also refer to a future intention: "sustainable agriculture" is not necessarily a current situation but a goal for the future, a prediction.[20] For all these reasons sustainability is perceived, at one extreme, as nothing more than a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance[21][22] but, at the other, as an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice".[23] It has also been described as a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition"

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Comprehensive

Writing Services

Lady Using Tablet

Plagiarism-free
Always on Time

Marked to Standard

Order Now

How we always fail to look at the bigger picture by squandering in our daily lives thinking where we are going to set our foot next,

A growing and developing population is likely to increase their GHG emissions (expected to double by mid-century), not so severely cut them so fast as to avoid runaway global warming. The Present and Future the growth of the world's population is a problem that many people see as being addressed at some point in the future.

In this paper, I intend to address one major issue. How long 'stainability' But first in this paper, I will see how the theories of sociologists and demographers fit into the Earth's population problem. THEORIES MARX 1818-1883 Karl Marx viewed a capitalist society as an economic system that was bound to fail. In Marx's opinion this eminent failure was based in the design of the system. According to Marx, In the capitalist economy there are two major groups; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production, have the power. The proletariat are those that work for the bourgeoisie and are at their mercy. At the economy develops, the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat grows wider and

6,890,700,000: That is a current figure of an estimate to the world population. The world has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Black Death around the year 1400.[2] The highest rates of growth-increases above 1.8% per year-were seen briefly during the 1950s, for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s; the growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and declined to 1.1% by 2009. Annual births have reduced to 140 million since their peak at 173 million in the late 1990s, and are expected to remain constant, while deaths number 57 million per year and are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040. Current projections show a continued increase of population (but a steady decline in the population growth rate) with the population expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion in the year 2050.[3][4][5]

World population is in the rise and it's impact on future developments worldwide will change with time and so it's the perception of sustainability in all

World population is currently estimated to be 6,882,200,000 and by 2050 that number is expected to almost be doubled and will rise to 10.500.000.000

3dramatically. Most importantly, the operative status of the urban project today is strictly intermediary. Whereas in the past, architects and planners concerned themselves with highly precise, calculated and definitive plans, today's urban designer has quite a different task. Because in the current political context, urban-scale design has become an increasingly accessible and unregulated venture for private investment, the central occupation of urban design has shifted to the construction of sophisticated, high-profile, branded advertisement campaigns used to leverage popular, 'democratic' support for large-scale real-estate development. Its inspiration is market speculation and its objective is the facilitation of growth. In so far as such projects in themselves no longer bear pretensions of actually executing what they propose (and often what they propose is left deliberately unclear), their service is to lend the architect's endorsement to an anonymous body that will carry out the project in its name. The drawings produced have little need for coherence with that which may or may not actually be built. Instead the success of urban design depends only on the composition of images and text, and their corroboration with the language of sustainability.

Not surprisingly, however, because such ideals feed off an economy of good intentions, they remain beyond scrutiny since the survival of our species seems to depend on their promise. Yet also implicit in such ethical posturing is a kind of imposed state of exception, paralysing the process of architectural criticism. Introducing this silent suspension of judgement, the language of sustainability plays a crucial role in the propagation of such work, for the purpose of urban design ultimately remains to equip the absolutely ordinary with a rhetorical supplement of ethical goodness. Thus, by posturing in this way, the rhetoric of sustainability at once deflects criticism while guaranteeing support for its virtuous cause.

In a gracious gesture towards nature, great heed is paid to the habitats and migration patterns of animals dwelling on the site, native flora and fauna are catalogued, efforts are made to account for the unique systems of symbiosis that must be preserved, and so on.

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

This Essay is

a Student's Work

Lady Using Tablet

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Examples of our work

In, for example, Foster and Partners' Biometropolis, a 71-hectare masterplan for a new urban biotechnology campus and 'sustainable mixed-use community' in Mexico City, the overabundance of nature conveniently relegates the architecture of the city to a small patch of the background. In this way, architecture, as a material and formal entity, must itself disappear: it is but an unfortunate necessity of the city that it has not yet been able to do without. Instead, the architecture of eco-cities must compensate for its burden to nature with the application of green roofs, vegetation on facades and an overuse of glass - architecture's triumphant act of self-annihilation.

Despite all of the apparent methodological newness of contemporary urban design, one must ask how novel such an approach actually is. In this regard, it is instructive to recall briefly the history of modern urbanism itself. Indeed, if we trace the birth of the

term 'urbanism' back to the nineteenth century as a category whose ideological content closely adhered to the political reforms of liberalism of the time, we can observe several important connections with the present notion of urbanism and urban design.1 Nearly a century after the physiocrats' discovery of the 'naturalness' inherent to social and economic relations, the transformations of the state would begin to realize the full potential of this nature through a nineteenth-century programme of political liberalism.

Furthermore, envisioning the city through a scientific lens drained it of its political consistency. In doing so, urban form was rendered independent from the actual

organization of the city. While major experiments in new formal configurations became prevalent in the late nineteenth century, nearly all products of such work - from Cerda's redesign of Barcelona to Haussmann's reconstruction of Paris, to the development of the grid in American cities - rested on the simple idea of combining materially functioning systems with individual points of connection. In other words, through the administrative lens of urbanism, the city was reconstituted as a set of integrated infrastructures, which attempted to organize the city into a singular system of managed circulation. In this

way, what is truly 'modern' about the city of the nineteenth century is its complete dependency on infrastructure. What was once based upon a representational model for the structuring of cities was abandoned for a more generative framework, where

functionally generic systems of organization could be reproduced and deployed at different scales and for different uses.2 Thus, with the introduction of the sewerage system, for example, what started as a programme for the sanitization of the city was soon seen as a generalized model for conceptualizing not only other systems of infrastructure but the entire city itself: nodes and corridors, circulation and connectivity, production and consumption all seemed to characterize the generic repeatability of the modern city. Principled in this way, the city's form, whether rigidly composed, or loosely 'organic', would increasingly belie a common indeterminacy at the heart of the city's organization: by reorganizing it along systems of infrastructure, the city could be conceptualized as a kind of abstract grid, whose elements distributed across it would reveal a `functional equivalence' between them. Space began to be characterized by seriality and interchangeability, rendering value and quantity indistinguishable.' This condition

Yet to say that the eco-city is simply the current iteration of modern urbanism in general would reveal little else about the underlying ideological objectives of such design. In fact there are several novelties apparent in 'sustainable' urbanism that are worthy of note. First, the incorporation of nature within the domain of infrastructural control is new in so far as it produces a rhetorical inversion with regard to the inherent virtue of urban design. Second, due to several key political and economic transitions that have taken place in the past decades, the city as a whole has become the object of private investment, creating for perhaps the first time in modern history the idea of the private city. This shift has attained its apogee thanks to the emergence of `sustainability', exposing purely capitalist urban development to a discourse laden with salvation. Just when

it was becoming clear that the history of the modern city coincided with the history of ecological disaster, the figure of the city was transfigured into a technological structure of redemption, granting an eschatological urgency for large-scale real-estate development. Fear, mobilized by ecological crisis, will remain at the heart of this urgency.

Modernist planners and architects alike have made use of this crisis-reform cycle to marshal political and economic force behind their projects. Le Corbusier's famous maxim, for example, 'architecture or revolution', is precisely such a cry for reform.' In light of this economy, the specificity of 'crisis' in its modern application has been all but uniform. In its more contemporary proliferations, Koselleck tells us, `the concept of crisis, which once had the power to pose unavoidable, harsh and non-negotiable

alternatives, has been transformed to fit the uncertainties of whatever might be favoured at a given moment?

Upon closer inspection, it will become apparent that, rather than

approaching the true depth of ecological catastrophe, such projects address an altogether different anxiety

Compounded by

the rhetoric of ecological disaster embedded in the eco-city, we can view this imagery as a kind of visual catalogue of all that is threatened and must be preserved. Far from a concern for the annihilation of nature or nature in such images appears not as

a endangered wilderness, but as an abundant and manipulable surface, an (overused) accessory to the urban - such imagery makes visible another far deeper fear: the fear of loss, not of a threatened nature and its capacity to sustain life, but of the conditions which sustain a threatened liberal utopia. By simply stripping the technological and vegetal accessories from such imagery. this fear of loss becomes clear: the compositions propose little more than a liberal nostalgia for the present - a present which is ethereal, simulated. Ethics in this rhetorical structure ultimately serve to discipline the architectural imagination, reducing it to a pathological reinterpretation of the present.

From this perspective, the role of the eco-city becomes evident: it is merely a phantasmic screen, prohibiting us from confronting the true terrors of ecological catastrophe. while at once imploring us to silently identify this terror with the collapse of liberal capitalism itself.

. The zero-emissions 'technology cluster', Masdar. an eco-city project by Foster and Partners for Abu-Dhabi, for instance, presents itself as the liberal answer to ecological catastrophe: an enclosed, self-contained economic free zone.

If these claims are indeed correct, the fantasy that the 'ecological future' is also (and only) a liberal future must be dispelled if only because constructing such fantasies as `eco-cities' is itself perverse. For what they promise is paradoxically to transform a

crumbling political system into a terrifying condition of utter exclusion and deprivation: their only true assurance is the privatization of the urban realm itself. Liberalism's use of fear in the face of true crisis is neurotic since it can be so easily alleviated by partial and irrelevant 'solutions'. In this way, perhaps the true crisis we face is the persistently liberal treatment of 'crisis' itself, for such a 'tendency towards imprecision and vagueness ... may itself be viewed as the symptom of a historical crisis that cannot as yet be fully gauged?'

George carlin

I am not one of those people who's worried about everything. You got people like this all around you, country is full of them now, people are walking around all day long every minute of the day worried about everything. Worried about the air water, worried about soil insecticides pesticides food additives, radon gas worried about saving endangered species. Let me tell you about saving endangered species: saving endangered species is one more attempt by humans to control nature, its arrogant meddling, its what got us in trouble in the first place doesn't anybody understand that: interfering with nature. Over 90% way over 90% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are gone, they are extinct and we didn't kill them all they just disappeared, that's what nature doesm, they disappear these days at a rate of 25 a day regardless of our behavior: I say let them go gracefully, leave nature alone, haven't we done enough? We are so self-important, every body has got to save something now, save the beesm save the trees, save the whales, save snails and the greatest arrogance of them all save the planet! Are you kidding me? We hardly know how to take care of ourselves yet! We haven't cared for one another yet and we're going to save the planet! I am quite tired of this inert ideas. I am tired of earth day. I am tired of these self-righteous enviromentalists, these bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren't enough bicycle pads, people trying to make this world safe for their Volvos besides environmentalist don't give a toss about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't, you know what they care about a ean place to live their own habitat. In awe that some day in the future the might be personally inconvenienced, narrow unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me besides there is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong: the planet is fine, the people are not a clear difference. Compared to the people the planet is doing great: it's been here 4.5 billion years ago, did you ever do the maths: the planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and we have been for what a 100.000 years max 200.000 and we have been engaged in the heavy industry for a little over than 200 years, so that's 200 years against 4.5 billion years and we have the conceit to somehow think that were a threat, that somehow we are going to put in jeopardy this eautiful 'little blue-green ball' that's been around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds worse than us: been through earthquakes voulcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, continental drifts, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundred and thousands of years of bombardment by comets, asteroids and meteors, world wide floods, tidal waves wide fires, cosmic rays, erosion, recurring ice ages and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference!? The planet is fine, it isn't going anywhere, we are: we are going to go away and we aren't going to leave much of a trace either, well maybe a little Styrofoam but the planet will be here and we'll be long gone, just another failed mutation, just anotherclsed end biological mistake, a evolutionary cul-de-sac, the planet will shake us all like a case of bad fleas, a surface nuisance, you wanna know how the plan te is doing then ask those people in pompay who are frozen itno position from voulcanioc ash. Wanna know if the planets alright ask those people in mexico or Armenia and most recent Haiti or hundreds of those other places buried under tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week, how about those people who leave in Kilauea, Howaii who build their homes right next to that active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in their living room. The planet will be here for a long long, looong time after we're gone and it will heal itself and it will cleanse itself cause that's what it does it's a self-correcting system: the air and the water will recover will recover the earth will be renewed, and if its true the plastic is not degradable, well the planet will incorporate plstic into a new paradigm 'the earth + plastic'. This earth does not share our prejudice towards plastic, the plastic just came out of the earth, the earth sees plastic just as another one of its'children', it could be the only reason why the earth allowed us to spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it needed us. It could be the answer to our aged old philosophical question 'why are we here?', 'plaaastic' you ingorants. So thhe plastic is here now we can phase out and that's started already don't you? I mean to be fare the planet sees us as a mild threat something to be dealt with, and I am sure that the planet will defend itself in a form of a large organism

I think we are part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand a higher order, call it what you want but it doesn't punish it doesn#t reward and it doesn't judge at all it just is and so are we, for a little while

These 'fund raisers' who hold charity events in wanting to raise £100.000 for children in need yet but seem to be indifferent to the champagne bill which totals £250.000 being one of the finest of drinks imported on the day straight from france.