Ecosistemas Urbanos

Las Historias Detalladas (Basados en visitas de campo y entrevistas extensas)

Las Historias Cápsulas

  • SudáfricaEco-Aldea Thlolengo – Una eco-aldea Africana es un modelo de sustentabilidad rural en tiempos de deterioro rural.
  • EUA – Alabama (Condado Hale) – El Estudio Rural – Estudiantes de arquitectura combinan sus estudios con el diseño y creación de vivienda ecológica para sus clientes de bajos ingresos.
  • EUA – California (Morgan Hill) – Accion Femenil para lograr Seguridad Económica – Cooperativas de mujeres generan salarios justos y empleos ambientalmente sanos.
  • EUA – California (Los Angeles) – Parque Natural Urbano – El Parque Natural Augustus F. Hawkins transformó un páramo urbano en un ecosistema natural que vincula a los residentes locales con la naturaleza y revitaliza a su comunidad.
  • EUA – New York (New York City) – Melrose Commons – Los residentes evitan ser evacuados con el aburguesamiento de su colonia con una alternativa de desarrollo urbano.
  • EUA – Oregon (Portland) – El Centro de Reconstrucción – Una empresa que recicla materiales de construcción prospera en un barrio previamente deprimido económicamente.
  • EUA – Texas (Austin) – PODER: El Pueblo Organizado en Defensa de la Tierra y sus Recursos – Un barrio pobre da inicio a un exitoso movimiento ambientalista y de justicia económica.
  • EUA – Texas (Austin) – Programas de Edificación Verde y Opción Verde – Proyectos de vivienda optan por la sustentabilidad en sus materiales de construcción y fuente de energía.
  • EUA – Texas (Austin) – Programa de Conservación del Cañón Balcones – La ciudad de Austin incorpora hábitats naturales in su planificación urbana para protegerse del crecimiento urbano desmedido.
  • Canadá – Nova Scotia – Proyecto Compostero Cero Residuos 2005 – Reciclando residuos orgánicos se ahorra espacio en el relleno sanitario y nutre a la tierra.
  • Alemania – Freiburg – Eco-Ciudad – La ciudad implementa un enfoque multi-sectorial a la sustentabilidad.
  • Alemania – Freiburg-Vauban – Eco-Barrio – La planificación urbana participativa crea un barrio eco-amigable.
  • Austria – Vienna – Recolección de Bioresiduos – La recolección de composta a domicilio da un respiro al relleno sanitario y brinda fertilizante a agricultores locales.
  • Austria – Wienerburg – Proyecto Greenbelt – Un tiradero se convierte en un agradable espacio verde.
  • Bélgica – Hasselt – Ciudad de “Transportación Sensata” – Una ciudad Belga desarrolla alternativas integrales a la construcción de más caminos.
  • Holanda – Groningen – “Ciudad Ciclista” – Una ciudad orientada al ciclismo revive la economía y mejora la calidad de vida de sus habitantes.
  • IrlandaImpuesto a las Bolsas de Plástico – Un ligero gravamen a las bolsas de plástico tiene un gran impacto sobre su consumo y mejora la apariencia de la campiña.
  • Brasil – Curitiba – “Eco-Ciudad” Planificada – Un plan maestro participativo hace de Curitiba una ciudad modelo.
  • Filipinas – Ciudad Marikina – Renovación Urbana – El plan de un nuevo alcalde por restaurar la viabilidad y orgullo de una empobrecida ciudad industrial.
  • India – Auroville – “Eco-Ciudad” Planificada – La reforestación y otros proyectos ayudan a crear una comunidad ecológica, transformando un yermo en un paisaje sano y productivo.

Sudáfrica – Eco-Aldea Thlolengo

by Amanda Suutari

This is a good example of an eco-village in Africa, and a model of rural sustainability in a time of worldwide rural depopulation.

Thlolengo was started in 1991 by permaculturist Paul Cohen. Located some two hours northwest of Johannesburg, this village of 50 integrates traditional African design, modern technology, some of Cohen’s ideas developed from his study of system dynamics and ecological design sciences, and lessons from other parts of the world.

The context is post-apartheid rural South Africa, where various forces (the legacy of apartheid, increasing consolidation of farms, industrialization, lack of land tenure, eroded family structures because of husbands migrating to cities) have left rural farmers disconnected from the land, and increasingly dependent on urban centers for employment and survival. It has three components:

  1. An onsite residential training/research facility, with gardens for botanical research (and over 100 species of medicinal plants), food production, water harvesting and sanitation and energy efficient buildings, as well as a seed library for the surrounding region.
  2. A residential village, designed with permaculture principles with respect to housing layout, and farming, with the surrounding lands managed for erosion control with strategic trees and gardens.
  3. A primary/secondary school which offers basic education for 120 kids in the surrounding area.

Village life is modeled after the South African “lelapa” or homestead, which is the family house with the surrounding support system for natural waste treatment and food security. Houses, built with local materials, can be made more cheaply if the owner supplies labor (“sweat equity”). The cost of these houses are only half the price of the government-subsidized housing, and of much higher quality. Houses are designed for passive solar heating, which can heat water for cooking and bathing.

Services or benefits include: Rural regeneration/ soil services, sense of place, replicability, education systems (traditional and formal)

For more information visit Changemakers.

Volver al inicio

EUA – Alabama (Condado Hale) – El Estudio Rural

by Amanda Suutari

Founded in 1993 by the late Samuel Mockbee, Auburn University’s Rural Studio is a pioneering experiment which combines practical architectural education and badly-needed social services to low-income residents of Hale County, one of the poorest counties in Alabama. Mockbee’s vision was that architecture could be a strong force in combating the squalor and inhumanity of poverty, pointing to the often institutional facelessness of housing and other facilities for the poor.

In 1993, Mockbee left a lucrative private practice and began the Rural Studio. His later projects with his firm had done some projects for charity, and he realized that good design should not be a privilege for the rich. Founding the Rural Studio, he began inspiring students to create simultaneously radical and functional designs for low-income clients. He promoted the innovative use of cost-effective materials, much of which was salvaged and recycled, for example carpet scraps, car parts, old tires, waste cardboard bales, colored bottles, old license plates, concrete or rubble. His vision was a fusion of modern and traditional Southern elements with a strong sense of rootedness to place. He believed that architecture could be oriented towards the community and motivate architects to transform the social environment. This was contrary to the prevailing trend in architecture towards the flashy, grandiose, big-name projects in urban centers.

The first Rural Studio project was completed in 1994, for the Bryant family, a couple in their seventies raising three grandchildren in a dilapidated shack. Their modest needs were for indoor plumbing, a septic system, and comfortable places to sleep. The “Bryant House” was a compact home constructed of hay bales (which were good for insulation) covered in stucco, with a covered porch running the length of the house used for entertaining. The hay bale construction kept the costs down to $16,500. Since then, Rural Studio students have been designing not only low-income homes but a variety of unique structures including churches, chapels, playgrounds, community centers, playgrounds and outdoor pavilions, all of which followed the same resourceful methods of scavenging and recycling materials. It has won grants and awards, and after Mockbee’s death in 2001 he was awarded a posthumous prize for his accomplishments, and the Rural Studio still continues to thrive.

The Rural Studio has also been credited for influencing the education of architecture in the country; for example, in 1992 there were about 8-10 design-and-build programs, but today there are 30-40. Normally projects take place over one year and involve three sets of usually fifteen students working over each semester, so the project progresses like a relay race. The first group establishes contact with the clients and begins the design with the clients’ needs in mind, which is then passed on to the second set of students who choose materials and work out increasingly finer details as the project then gets passed onto the third group of students. Students are not allowed to remove anything created or designed by the previous groups. This gives students hands-on experience in designing and building something real and functional, exposes them to the realities of poverty and related social and environmental issues, as well as giving them an opportunity to provide a valuable community service. The emphasis on local and salvaged materials promotes environmental sustainability in architecture and encourages students to think beyond the discipline’s definition of what building materials are appropriate.

For more information visit the Architectural Record.

Volver al inicio

EUA – California (Morgan Hill) – Accion Femenil para lograr Seguridad Económica

by Amanda Suutari

The cleaning industry is notoriously toxic, with products containing ammonia, chlorine, and other dangerous chemicals that cause rashes, nausea, dizziness, and respiratory problems – -or worse, with regular prolonged exposure, putting many cleaners at risk. Many new female immigrants to the US find underpaid jobs in the cleaning industry, with large hotel chains and offices or under-the-table cleaning houses. Before co-forming the cooperative “Eco-Care Professional Housecleaning,” Mexican migrant Mayda Iglesias used to clean houses on her own, earning $40-50 for 6-7 hours of work, where she developed asthma and headaches. She didn’t link this to the products she was using, assuming these were normal reactions to dust and dirt.

While taking English classes at a neighborhood church-sponsored program, she and her partners learned about WAGES (Women’s Action to Gain Economic Security), a project aimed at helping low-income women form cooperative businesses. WAGES had begun in 1995, and some early trainees chose the cleaning industry as this was the field in which they felt most comfortable and experienced. The “eco-friendly” approach was chosen for reasons both economic and social: not only to find a competitive edge in a market niche, but also to promote workplace and community health and safety. Now all the cooperatives WAGES sponsors are eco-friendly cleaning companies. The training program gives skills in communication, business, decision-sharing with co-owners, and technical skills.

In the case of Mayda Iglesias’ cooperative, four are co-owners and employees of “Eco-Care Professional Housecleaning.” Each works 20-25 hours/week and earns $12 per hour, cleaning houses for some 50 customers. All products are natural, home-based solutions such as vinegar for cleaning windows, baking soda for scouring, and liquid vegetable-based soaps for general cleaning. Materials like rags are recycled from old clothing such as T-shirts. The cleaning requires some extra effort and planning (for example baking soda must be sprinkled first on ovens and left to wait while other parts of the house are cleaned), but since she stopped using these products, Iglesias’s asthma and headaches disappeared. The sustainable practices also extend to its promotional literature (printed with soy-based ink on recycled paper) and its office equipment and practices. While 4-5 other cleaning businesses operate in Morgan Hill, none use environment-friendly methods, and cooperative members believe that three-quarters of their customers choose them because of their practices. The enterprise has won local awards for environmental responsibility.

Another WAGES-inspired cleaning cooperative in Redwood City, California, “Emma’s Eco-Clean,” began two years before EcoCare and began initially with five owner-members, but has today grown to fourteen. Each new member receives training not only in environmentally safe cleaning but also air and water pollution as well as energy use, and the cooperative has managed to get full medical and dental insurance for its members. Products are chosen carefully and are biodegradable, scantily packaged, and non-toxic. Initially clients used to leave the house while the house was being cleaned (to avoid the chemicals) but now they stay when the cleaner comes. “Emma’s” has also won several awards, and has gotten a license to sell products which satisfy their eco-safe screening process. They have exhibited at San Francisco’s “Greenfest,” a trade show for sustainable business and organizations, and through this have promoted their practices and offered advice for similar cooperatives in other states.

The high level of trainees’ performance through the WAGES program has challenged assumptions that low-income women can’t grasp financial issues. With estimates by WAGES that its cooperatives have prevented the release of nearly 4,000 pounds of toxic materials into the environment, programs like this one have shown that eco-friendly cleaning businesses have the potential to transform an exploitative and toxic industry.

For more information visit WAGES.

Volver al inicio

EUA – California (Los Angeles) – Parque Natural Urbano

by Amanda Suutari

South Central, a run-down industrial zone of Los Angeles, is best remembered for the riots of 1994 that exploded following the verdict acquitting policemen caught beating up African American Rodney King on videotape. In the early 1990s, some 30% of its mainly African American, Hispanic and Asian residents lived below the poverty line, and 35% had experienced unemployment lasting more than a year.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC), which had been buying land in the Mountains and creating interlinking parkland, through a meeting with a local city council member, acquired a tract of land belonging to the LA Department of Water, which it planned to transform into a park.

The Compton-Slaison intersection, a boundary for four different neighborhood gangs, was an 8.5-acre derelict brownfield, full of pipes and other relics from the Department of Water, closed off by chain link and razor wire fences. The landscape architects who agreed to support the project with the SMMC had plenty of challenges ahead of them (not least of which were skeptics who doubted the merits of bringing nature to the poor when they had so many more urgent needs, and who were moreover assumed to have little interest in nature).

Initial efforts to bring the community into the plans through town meetings and door-to-door surveys brought limited success, until a table was set up at a supermarket across the street from the park, which attracted input and interest from hundreds of residents.

The plan was a collaboration of various agencies, community members, designers, contractors, the SMMC, and community groups such as ArtShare which organizes kids’ workshops on public art.

During initial meetings intended to discuss the park’s design, safety issues continued to dominate, and so designers realized this issue had to be addressed first before going further into the design plans. They finally decided to fence off the park with gates on four sides and employ a full-time park ranger. Resolving these concerns helped to build support for the project and gain needed trust for the design teams. When the community discussed priorities for the park, initial plans to build ball courts were scrapped in favor of facilities for nature education because they were decided to be of higher priority.

The collaboration continued throughout the project, with community members, those involved with nature education and SMMC rangers, for example, present during design meetings, as all of these issues needed to be addressed at the design phase. The plan included a library, visitors exhibit, facilities for nature study, an amphitheater, a stream and fountain powered by a windmill. Hills were created to create a refuge atmosphere from the surrounding neighborhood, and to create microclimates to support native species. The challenge of finding dirt to make these hills (the existing soil couldn’t be used due to pollution) was solved by luck when rainstorms caused landslides near Malibu and left soil removal teams with excess, which was transported to the park. ArtShare LA brought in 140 students and community members to paint tiles and design mosaic benches for the amphitheater, and the two ArtShare artists who built the wrought-iron fence included images of native animals and plants in the fence’s design..

Some materials were recycled, for example, the existing concrete was crushed to make a parking area, and trees and a cactus garden were donated. A grove of pecan and walnut trees and avocado trees was also created.

Some 50 residents were hired for temporary construction of the project, and permanent park maintenance staff were also hired, as well as educators for the wildlife and gardening programs. There are various activities such as a homework club, a Saturday science series, gardening and crafts clubs and events in the amphitheater. There are also programs which take South Central kids to other neighborhood parks and vice versa (bringing kids from Beverly Hills who have been taught to fear South Central). Camping trips, junior ranger and other programs have begun. Once a week, a free bus takes people from the park to other SMMC parks in the mountains. The park acts as a “portal” to the outdoors; Augustus F. Hawkins Park, while small, offers initial exposure to natural spaces which will open doors to learn about and explore bigger, wilder areas in their state and in the world.

The park is widely accepted as a major success and a rarity, which is now inspiring the creation of a similar project called the Vista Hermosa Park. The park has created a new sense of safety and community; while gangs still exist they have a tacit agreement not to fight in the park. Kids’ perceptions of the government has changed as a result of its involvement in the project, and the park has kept them off the streets and in school.

Most importantly, the project challenged stereotypes of poverty, and showed that natural spaces were as much a priority to lower-income people as to anyone, and that bringing natural areas to poor areas will solve much more than just environmental problems.

For more information visit the American Society of Landscape Architects.

Volver al inicio

EUA – New York (New York City) – Melrose Commons

by Amanda Suutari

In 1990, the New York Department of City Planning and Housing Preservation and Development (CPHPD) leaked a draft of plans to redevelop a derelict 30-block area in the South Bronx. While the plan seemed innocuous, a closer look revealed that it could not have been less suited to the lower-income, mainly Hispanic and African American people who lived there. Large parts of land were to be bulldozed to make room fore new housing which was well out of financial reach for most of the 6,000 residents. Angered by being left out of the proposal’s 9-year planning process, and feeling betrayed by local elected officials and city agencies, local residents formed “Nos Quedamos” (“We will stay”). This group united homeowners, tenants and businesses who decided the only way the residents would not be displaced was if they become an active part of the project.

When the plan was finally presented, Nos Quedamos members voiced their numerous objections over affordability, opportunities for local business, social and community services, use of open space and streets, and building materials, to name a few. In 1994, the CPHPD finally agreed to withdraw the original plan and to meet once a week with the community to develop a new one. Out of these working sessions, and while members actively sought residents’ feedback through several go-by-block surveys and workshops, several goals were developed:

  1. To respect the existing community by including them as a partner.
  2. To provide services currently unavailable, such as proper health, educational, cultural, recreation and commercial services.
  3. To support economic development which is based on the needs and skills of the community.
  4. To create a space which is livable and desirable, which included, among other things, greening of industrial areas.
  5. To create open spaces, mixed-income housing and a variety of housing options.
  6. Economic opportunities through creation of after-school centers, health clinics and recycling initiatives.

The project attracted assistance by many professionals including urban planners, architects, and lawyers, who were able to address social, environmental, housing, infrastructure and design layouts and other community issues. For example, the original plan to have a large park in the center was rejected as it was thought to attract crime, so it was relocated. Some of the buildings were to be designed as low rise housing with stores on the ground floor, which would provide enough people on the street to make them safer. Plans to extend transportation routes were included, to reduce the amount of private parking space.

Environmental concerns were also designed into the project, with the creation of a one-acre public park, smaller midblock parks and community gardens, with options for rainwater harvesting explored and design for water retention. Another area, now with disused railroad tracks, will be a tree-filled buffer zone to separate the commercial/residential areas from the manufacturing area. Materials for buildings will be chosen for environmental soundness. Construction began in 1999 and is expected to take about a decade to complete.

This case shows a few stages in the process of transformation of an urban wasteland to a viable mixed-income, self-sustaining community within the city that worked with, not against, the neighborhood’s cultural and historical identity. It set a rare example of grassroots organizing successfully resisting urban redevelopment, and has attracted the attention of city planners from LA and Chicago. It was a model of collaboration between all diverse groups who had a stake in the process, local institutes and university as well as public and private planners, architects, business, residents, and non-governmental organizations. Finally, it restored people’s sense of community and civic responsibility, and reinvigorated local democracy.

For more information visit the Sustainable Communities Network.

Volver al inicio

EUA – Oregon (Portland) – El Centro de Reconstrucción

by Amanda Suutari

Started in 1998 by Shane Endicott and his partners in Portland, Oregon, The Rebuilding Center is a “nonprofit enterprise.” As a young man Endicott faced the dilemma of many socially-conscious people in search of livelihood: how to support a family without also supporting “the suicide economy.” He had been interested in construction and demolition, but didn’t want to simply “crunch and dump, grind up all that useful wood, metal and brick and dump it in a landfill then go and chop down more trees and mine more iron to build something else.”

With a private loan of $15,000, Endicott and his partners, along with some volunteers, set up shop in a garage in an economically depressed area of Portland. Entirely by hand, they began calling friends, contractors and developers, offering to pick up unwanted items and equipment, and set about gutting apartment buildings, demolishing wood or brick houses, removing old built-in furniture like kitchen cabinets or toilets, renewing them, and selling them at half or less of the retail cost.

The Rebuilding Center now occupies a half-block long building full of its goods where customers from around the city come to buy anything from light fixtures to movie theater seats, door frames, roofing, church pews, hot tubs, appliances, fountains, and other salvaged goods. Its new warehouse, built in 1999, was made from recycled materials. It tries to maintain a closed-loop cycle, where every scrap is saved and renewed, which has diverted thousands of tons of useful materials from landfills while reducing demand for a shrinking supply of raw materials. It recycles an estimated 3,000 tons of materials per year.

While the Center could now afford to expand and ship out more desirable refurbished furniture out of the region, it refrains from doing so as the use of fossil fuels would contradict its goal to reduce fossil fuel use and other environmental impacts and support the local economy. The work is labor-intensive, requiring a large number of staff, but without the maintenance and fuel costs of sophisticated machinery, the Center is still able to pay living wages to its employees (starting at $10/hour for the most unskilled work and increasing with regular reviews and hikes), who also receive full medical and dental benefits. While four other centers in the city opened and failed, RC survived because it was not as commercially-oriented, as it receives support from some 500 part-time volunteers and functions as something like a community center, where customers can also borrow do-it-yourself books from the center’s library.

The Center’s organization is democratically structured, with a low ratio between the lowest-and highest-paid members, the same number of votes per staff on work-related issues, and a hiring process where new people are hired by the people he or she will be working with. With 36 full-time employees, most of whom are from the neighborhood, the Center has been credited in local media for revitalizing the local economy. Financially the company has been operating at surpluses, which are either reinvested into the business or paid out to community projects, one of which, Our United Village (OUV), is a nonprofit organization started by Endicott before he teamed up on the Rebuilding Center. OUV is a mechanism to link people in the community, for example elders teaching neighbors how to make jam, or community scholarship funds paid to young people doing odd jobs like lawn mowing.

The Center received Portland’s “Best Business” award as well as other awards in recognition for its practices.

For more information visit The Rebuilding Center.

Volver al inicio

EUA – Texas (Austin) – PODER: El Pueblo Organizado en Defensa de la Tierra y sus Recursos

by Amanda Suutari

The work of PODER (or People Organized in the Defense of Earth and Her Resources) began with the successful removal of a 52-acre “tank farm,” or fuel storage facility which for 35 years had emitted toxic chemicals and was linked to chronic illnesses for neighborhoods in East Austin, where 88% of the population is Mexican or African American also suffering from high rates of crime and unemployment.

In 1993, after over a year of campaigning, PODER, other community groups and residents succeeded in the closure and relocation of the site, whose three pipelines were owned by major oil corporations, a notable achievement in the state of Texas.

From this success, other initiatives began, including:

  1. A survey given to assess the health problems of residents living around the tank farm was shared and used with communities of several other states.
  2. Helping neighborhoods fight excessive increases in property taxes resulting from both closure of the tank farm, and with the appearance of new high tech IT giants who have moved into the neighborhood induced by major tax abatements from the government (also garnering government funds for one of these, SEMATECH, towards research and development of clean, safe manufacture of microchips).
  3. Pressuring state officials to crack down on the oil companies who have made little effort to clean storage tank sites.
  4. The relocation (to a non-residential area) of a poorly-run recycling facility where overflow was left outside, causing rat infestation, and whose glass crusher at night prevented residents living around the site from sleeping properly.

PODER began teaming up with other neighborhood groups to look at issues of regulations, taxes, policy and design of infrastructure, which have major implications for East Austin residents, despite the fact that decisions were taken without the input of those most affected. Such issues have growing importance to PODER and other neighborhood groups and they have launched various Land Use/Rights campaigns, including:

  1. Forcing the city to “downzone” the tank farm site from “industrial” to “community/commercial” and “neighborhood/office” in order to prevent new industrial-level occupation or development in the area. These zoning categories are also integral to the concept of “smart growth” (the prevention of sprawl and unplanned haphazard development).
  2. Getting the passage of an ordinance requiring neighborhood residents to be notified and given opportunity to voice concerns any time an industrial facility wants to locate or expand in East Austin.
  3. Forcing the City Council to impose a 90-day moratorium and initiate a land-use study in East Austin.

They are also involved with various transportation issues:

  1. Conducting a transportation/safety issues campaign, and raising money for transportation improvements for East Austin residents, including bus shelters, sidewalks, bike racks, additional street lights and signs.
  2. Working at the state and national level with organizations to reform transportation, especially with the construction of a light rail transport system whose design has not yet taken into account the community, economic, and transportation needs of East Austin residents, especially youth.
  3. Programs aimed at ethnic “minority” youth for addressing educational, environmental, social and economic justice, including a youth employment program serving young people of 14 or 15 years old.
  4. Technical support and training of residents and PODER members in IT to help narrow the “digital divide.”

Working with other neighborhood groups such as El Pueblos, community members are being given the tools, information and motivation to work with local city and transportation agencies to get investments that improve safety and livability of communities.

This case highlights the concept of “environmental justice,” and how environmental issues in low-income communities are inherently bound up in historical, social and economic forces which have shaped land use, zoning regulations and demographics. It also shows how the system enables middle or upper classes to externalize the costs of their lifestyle onto the poor and politically marginalized on many levels, for example through flight into white suburbs which is draining the tax base from inner cities, or through siting of commuter freeways, industrial sites, or landfills in poor neighborhoods. As one PODER executive member pointed out, “Land-use practices and transportation design are the worst agents of these injustices.” Rather than simply battling each new issue piecemeal, PODER is pushing for changes at the deeper level of fiscal regulation, zoning policy and transportation design.

For more information visit PODER-Texas.

Volver al inicio

EUA – Texas (Austin) – Programas de Edificación Verde y Opción Verde

by Amanda Suutari

Both programs have won recognition as leaders in the sustainable building and energy sectors. Since the 1980s, Austin launched the Energy Star Program which rated energy efficiency of new homes.

In the early 1990s, there was a sense among the more progressive architects and builders that more could be done beyond energy savings. Materials in house building, for example, are generally inefficient as the used building materials, containing mined materials and other recyclables, mostly end up in landfills because of the low disposal fees. In 1990, with a grant from the Urban Consortium for Energy, a partnership between Austin Habitat for Humanity and American Institute, with the help of volunteers, created a demonstration project which helped to promote the program to buyers, builders, developers and architects. Green building principles view the house as a system, which includes four main areas (water, energy, materials, and waste). The program began as a checklist which focused on site, energy, water landscape, waste material issues and indoor air quality which later evolved into a rating system ranging from 1-5 stars (5 being the highest). Green practices included in the system might include:


  1. Recycled carpets made from PET bottles to use of fly ash in concrete.
  2. Straw bales for insulation.
  3. Reduction of toxins which are found in many building materials and paints, for example formaldehyde-free fiberboard, low volatile organic compound recycled materials in carpeting.


  1. Composting toilets, greywater recycling or rainwater harvesting.
  2. Xeriscaping in gardens to conserve water use (as opposed to traditional lawns or non-native plants unsuited to the climate).


  1. Use of solar panels.
  2. For heating: “passive solar energy” or design or positioning to optimize natural sunlight for heating and lighting.
  3. For cooling: design of windows for ventilation, strategic planting of trees to provide shade and moisture, creation of a porch to provide shade for walls, the inclusion of windows in rooms to allow for cross-ventilation, the choice of galvanized metal roofing to avoid heat buildup


  1. Options for backyard composting.
  2. Choice of materials for recycleability.

Austin currently has slightly different programs for residential, commercial, multifamily and municipal buildings (setting standards with the construction of its new airport and other City buildings). The program also offers technical support and assistance for architects and builders, puts out educational publications for builders, promotional and educational materials for buyers, and offers financial incentives for builders and the public. The program has largely relied on using market forces to achieve critical mass and drive the standards into the mainstream instead of appealing to regulation to force it there.

In 1992, Austin had the only green builders program and the National Association of Homebuilders had little awareness or interest in promoting it; but today the NAHB hosts green building conferences and many similar programs are thriving around the country.

Integral to the program is the Green Choice program, considered one of the more successful utility-sponsored green power programs in the US, especially considering it is in the country’s fossil fuel capital. The program offers a choice to consumers to pay extra for energy from renewable sources (which in Austin would be wind, solar or biogas from a landfill) at 3.3 cents/KW-hour as opposed to standard fees of 2.8 cents/KW-hour for standard fuel sources (which rely on coal or natural gas). While of course these renewable sources can’t be singled out to provide energy to individual subscribers, the program operates so that the more subscribers pay for the program, the more green power sources will be contracted out, displacing conventional sources. The program also promotes renewable energy and provides low-cost loans for installation of solar panels, as well as offering rebates for improvements to energy efficiency (i.e., upgrades to more efficient air conditioners or other appliances).

For more information visit the Austin Green Building Program and the Austin Green Choice Program.

Volver al inicio

EUA – Texas (Austin) – Programa de Conservación del Cañón Balcones

by Amanda Suutari

In the 1980s, Travis County in central Texas was growing, with most development in the periphery of Austin. The Balcones Canyonlands, a natural area of limestone hills, spring-fed canyons, caves, springs, and sinkholes (below which is an aquifer which supplies water to some 1.5 Central Texas residents) are home to unique species found nowhere else in the world.

When it became clear that the Fish and Wildlife Service would list species found in the area as endangered, such as two songbirds (the golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo), some city and regional planners worried that enforcing the ESA (Endangered Species Act) would lead to an ad hoc checkerboard pattern of development across the county.

In 1988, the city of Austin and Travis County formed a steering committee that would create a plan for economic stability and that would protect certain species. A series of meetings were to begin a grueling, 8-year long process of public meetings with agencies from three levels of government as well as scientists, developers and environmental organizations. In 1992, Austin’s mayor supported a $US 22 million city bond, with which the Nature Conservancy acquired land, as the first step towards creation of the Balcones Canyonlands Nature Preserve which came into being in 1996. The Preserve is a multi-agency conservation effort which includes the Nature Conservancy Texas, the Lower Colorado River Authority, the Texas Audubon Society, various government agencies and industry.

It works through acquisition of targeted land in the reserve deemed to be habitat of several endangered species or “species of concern.” The final goal is to acquire and manage 30,428 acres, approximately 80% of which had been acquired by 2002. Certain reserves have various levels of regulation and conditions, for example some are required to provide for maintenance, patrol and biological management, biological monitoring and research, as well as restriction of activities such as biking or hiking. Others are open to various recreational or development activities, including hunting or building. It is meant to strike a compromise between development and conservation. It works under a system of “incidental take permits,” where acquired land is given mitigation “credits” for infrastructure development; that is, development in the acquisition causing direct or indirect damage (or “take”) of an endangered species is “compensated for” by purchasing the credit which goes towards acquisition of other land in the reserve.

The Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Program (BCCP) was among the first of regional multi-species habitat conservation plans, which has served as a model for locally-based habitat protection programs that balances competing needs of developers and conservationists. It has had mixed reviews of its success. Restrictions on mountain bikers has drawn criticism from sport/adventure enthusiasts who say their impact is minimal and far less invasive than the construction of strip malls or subdivisions built close to the edge of reserves. Others say that development at the edges of reserves means the area of the reserve is much smaller than it appears, as a large buffer zone is needed between pristine and developed areas. (These songbirds, for example, need a 100-meter distance away from human settlement). Still others say that the BCCP was designed to allow development to continue, and that developers pay for the right to destroy habitat (much as the greenhouse credit trading critics say it allows industries to buy the right to burn greenhouse gases). For example, the BCCP allows “take” of 55% of black-capped vireo and 71% of identified golden-cheeked warbler habitat. The original habitat documents prepared by scientists identified a region more than twice the size of the current target.

But many environmentalists do concede that while it is far from adequate, the BCCP is better than nothing, and that it has potential to protect a large tract of land from being swallowed up by development characteristic of Texas. It has been praised as increasing badly-needed trust between developers and environmentalists, and built a strong relationship between the city and county staff. It has also set the wheels in motion to establish other land near BCCP boundaries.

For more information visit the National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research and the Austin Chronicle.

Volver al inicio

Canadá – Nova Scotia – Proyecto Compostero Cero Residuos 2005

by Amanda Suutari

This was an ambitious plan for the small town (population 600) of Annapolis Royal to achieve zero waste by the year 2005. It was chosen to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of nearby Port Royal, which is Canada’s oldest European settlement, and was modeled after the low-waste lifestyles of the French settlers who arrived there.

In 1996 an environmental coalition called the Annapolis County Environment Protection Association (ACEPA) was formed to oppose the siting of a large landfill in an environmentally sensitive area. The plan for the project began in 1997, where members researched various alternatives to realize the goal, contacted experts and read technical literature. Their challenge was to break away from the provincially-mandated regional waste management, where despite high fees to participate, a small town like Annapolis Royal would have virtually no input in decisions affecting them.

Curbside collection of recyclables had been in place in Annapolis Royal since 1991, and after the province of Nova Scotia banned organic material from its landfills, many regional recycling/composting programs began, but they involved hauling organic waste, sometimes great distances, to central facilities.

Since the town had a small population (and small tax base), it wanted to find a solution that did not rely on fossil fuels to transport wastes long distances to a central facility, and was cheap and easy to use, particularly for the large population of elderly residents. They realized that the curbside collection and centralized composting was costly, so they found there was potential to save on tax dollars which would make up for any of its initial investments.

ACEPA formed a committee to handle the project, which had a lot of support with the public and elected city officials from the beginning. The whole project was created municipally, the information meetings were open to the public, and it still enjoys a high level of support and participation from the community.

Some 30% of Annapolis Royalis waste stream is organic. Three low-tech systems were put in place:

  1. “Green Cones” for individual backyard composting; these were cheap aerobic digesters which would handle meat, bones, dairy and other kitchen waste not composted.
  2. Neighborhood composters for use on streets or near multiple-unit dwellings.
  3. “Earth Tubs” which processed commercial volume up to 200 lbs/day, for businesses that produced higher levels of organic waste (supermarkets, restaurants).

The town exceeded its goal of diverting 50% of its waste from the landfill by 2000, with 53% being diverted. Before the start of the program 40% of its residents were composting to some degree; by 1999, 82% were composting. The waste from neighborhood composters and Earth Tubs are sold to farmers, gardeners and soil blenders. Around Nova Scotia, other municipalities are studying and copying the program, or adopting similar programs after learning of Annapolis Royal.

This case is interesting because the purpose of the project was to have a waste reduction program and purchasing choices that would allow residents and businesses to be “waste-free” by 2005 with a minimum of personal effort. This is a good illustration of redesigning a local system of purchasing, distribution and waste management that makes it “cheap and easy” for ordinary citizens to protect the environment rather than the other way around, and proves that if these conditions are put in place, people participate willingly and enthusiastically.

The whole of Nova Scotia’s waste-disposal program could be seen as a larger tipping point. When a large landfill was fast approaching capacity, and scheduled to close in 1996, with opposition to building a new one, a few strong leaders in the provincial government and municipalities began thinking of other solutions to the waste problem, since the story of aging outdated waste facilities was all over the province. This was the initial decision to ban not only organic waste but bottles, cans, cardboard, and other recyclable materials from landfills. After initial opposition from municipalities and citizens the situation has evolved to the point that Nova Scotia met the Canadian government goal to divert 50% of its waste from landfills, where no other province has come close. Now a burgeoning recycling industry has evolved, with tires and other “waste” being converted into car mats and other products, which has created at least 600 new jobs.

Services/benefits: Social relations, waste management, saving money, sense of pride, cultural heritage values.

For more information visit the Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada.

Volver al inicio

Alemania – Freiburg – Eco-Ciudad

by Amanda Suutari

Called Germany’s environmental capital, this 900-year-old city with a population of 205,000 is located in the southwest part of the country near the French and Swiss borders. 80% of the city was destroyed during World War II, but most of the houses were rebuilt in the original style. The Greens have a large stronghold here (some 25% of the population).

In the 1970s, the siting of a nuclear power plant 30 km from Freiburg resulted in protest and resistance from a large part of the city, causing the plan to be dropped. The city went on to develop and support alternatives to nuclear power, and attracted researchers and the creation of institutions to realize these goals. This explains the high concentration of ecologically-minded experts, industries, research institutes, architects and urban planners in the city. The city’s major initiatives include:

  1. Traffic planning: Reduction of dependence on cars without reducing the mobility of people or businesses. An affordable local transit system (trams and buses) has grown to include the surrounding regions, including its two adminstrative districts (Vauban being one of them) covering an area of 50 square kilometers. Infrastructure for cyclists has increased to 400 km of bike paths. A third of journeys are now done by bicycle. This has reduced air pollution.
  2. Energy/climate protection: There are regulations that new houses comply with low-energy housing standards (making use of passive solar energy through design of windows, positioning). The houses are 3% more expensive but energy costs are reduced by 30%, so money is saved in the longer term. For active solar energy, national subsidies and regional energy supply companies offer financial support. This is thought necessary to create an economy of scale that will result in price decreases. To keep this in perspective, solar energy only supplies 0.2% of its total consumption, yet Freiburg uses the most solar power in Germany. Co-generation also has been developed, including use of methane gas from the municipal waste disposal plant which provides electricity and heat for 10,000 people at 30% less emissions. Overall, Freiburg produces 50% of its own energy.
  3. Waste disposal: Waste is sorted into four types, one of which is organic (as with Vienna), collected in public “bio-bins.” The results of this is that garbage was reduced from 140,000 tons in 1988 to 50,000 tons today (within the last few years). From 2005, residual waste must undergo thermal treatment in order to make organic components inert and reduce landfill gases and leachate, which will then go to a low-emissions incinerator.
  4. Urban planning/natural resources: A new zoning plan has declared 42% of Freiburg’s extensive territory off limits to development (houses, suburbs, even roads).

In some ways this resembles Curitiba, Brazil (see South America) in the municipal commitment to environment without the strong social flavor. But the tipping point is interesting in that the strong environmental awareness of citizens arose out of their uniting over the nuclear power plant, which helped create an engaged citizenry involved in decisions affecting them. Also, by making the connection between energy consumption and nuclear power, they went a step further and began looking for alternatives.

For more information visit the Conference on Ecocity Development.

Volver al inicio

Alemania – Freiburg-Vauban – Eco-Barrio

by Amanda Suutari

Vauban is a residential district of Freiburg, where a participatory approach shaped its planning, and was based on a vision where ecological, social, economic and cultural needs would be integrated.

Since the 1930s, Vauban had been a French army barrack. After the peace treaty in 1991, Freiburg city bought this 42-hectare area from the German government, and decided to make it a new residential area for 5,000 people to meet housing shortages in Freiburg. The plan was to provide good quality housing for young families, and to counteract suburbanization by recycling this site rather than eating into virgin land (it is thought that there is no need in Germany to do this anymore as there are enough disused industrial or military sites in its inner cities). The plan also included dense design, low-energy standards for housing, preservation of existing old trees and integrating them into the new designs and large amount of green spaces, public transportation and access (trams), and further infrastructure such as schools.

From the beginning, the approach was participatory, and followed the principle of “planning that learns,” which allowed for flexibility. More than 50 workshops were held, which included citizens, architects, a local non-governmental organization, engineers, financial experts and managers of co-building projects. Funding was provided through various institutes, the city of Freiburg, the state government, and the German government in the form of tax breaks for co-building builders. Technical resources were readily available as Freiburg has been committed to environmental sustainability since the 1970s. (Co-building, which has provided homes for 1,200 people, means a collection of housing units built together where members have input in the process and are designed for social interaction, i.e., with common spaces, meeting rooms, public gardens or kitchens, etc.) It was also made available to people of varying incomes.

A car-free initiative was also launched, and owners of cars must park them in multi-story lots outside the periphery of the district. Some 40% do not own cars, and other alternatives such as car-sharing also exist. The housing met all low-energy standards, many of which use solar installations and a new design of vacuum toilets for use in a biogas plant. A co-generation plant uses wood chips and natural gas. With this extended participation, people became more active in the community in general and started their own initiatives including a magazine, festivals, and other community events. The valuable points about this case is that the ownership of the land by the city (and the variety of financial resources, tax breaks and technical resources, as well as the strong support of a non-governmental organization), allowed the city to take responsibility for the entire planning without becoming dependent on private developers. It highlights the unnecessity of clearing natural land for new development since many decaying industrial zones in Germany are available for “recycling.”

For more information visit the Forum Vauban.

Volver al inicio

Austria – Vienna – Recolección de Bioresiduos

by Amanda Suutari

In 1988, Vienna was incinerating 62%, and dumping the other 38%, of its household wastes. The city had two incinerators and a landfill site, and officials were expecting increases in garbage without any plans to build new incinerators or landfills in the next few decades, so a few of the more responsible members of the city government began looking for alternatives. The city began to separate collection of paper, glass, metal, plastics, and finally “biowaste” (kitchen waste). Studies at a local institute had shown that composting had potential to save the city money, and the municipal parliament granted funds for the initial investment. The goal was to have a system that was cheap and user-friendly. It was understood that the system would not work without public support and commitment, so information leaflets about the collection service and backyard garden composting were printed in 11 languages and widely distributed, and an information service and phone line were set up to answer questions. The challenge was making high quality compost with low heavy metal content that could be used in gardens and organic farms.

The composting plant went into operation in 1992, and the city set up collection sites called Biotonnes which were distributed in the streets so that each one would serve 65 inhabitants, and one Biotonne would theoretically be found within a distance of 35-40 meters from each residence. The contents were collected weekly on average.

At the same time, some city agricultural estates began to move towards organic farming, which meant the composting system would be well-timed to replace the commercial fertilizers and pesticides the farms had been using. These farms set up some do-it-yourself projects where citizens could join in organic farming with experts. The results:

  1. The annual diversion from the landfills is 90,000 tons, generating a savings of US$10,000,000 a year; this is more than 10% of Vienna’s total waste collected.
  2. Farm estates have converted 230 hectares to organic farming, using 2,500 tons of compost. Some of the vegetables grown there are sold in local markets.
  3. Some of the compost is given to residents for their gardens.
  4. Using the compost has caused the number of earthworms to increase, and has helped reduce the amount of disease and pests in crops.
  5. The program has been presented at international congresses, which has attracted interest from politicians and technicians especially from Central/Eastern Europe.
  6. The system is self-sufficient, i.e., costs are covered by city taxes for waste collection.

Benefits or services restored: Waste management, savings, fueled interest in organic farming, composting, and the environment, set the standard for the rest of Austria whose own municipalities are in varying stages of improving waste management, its close proximity to rapidly developing Eastern Europe (where there has been some interest) provides an alternate model to the Western throwaway society.

For more information visit Best Practices.

Volver al inicio

Austria – Wienerburg – Proyecto Greenbelt

by Amanda Suutari

West Wienerburg, which is now a suburb of Vienna, had a history of brickworks. When the raw materials ran out, the area became a dump for waste and building debris. In 1978, the city of Vienna hosted a competition for ideas to create, among other things, a landscape plan for Wienerburg. The plan included various requirements for design appropriate to the natural conditions. The size was 60.2 hectares with several wooded areas interconnected to create a corridor. There are sports facilities, areas for recreation and picnics, woods, ponds, meadows, bicycle and walking paths. The park was designed to make optimum use of rainwater and so no artificial irrigation was required in creating the green space. This provides a model for future greenbelt creation which doesn’t deplete groundwater.

Residents and users participated in planning and creating the project along with the municipality, and therefore have a sense of involvement in the project. This means vandalism and pollution have been minimal. Local children and youth were involved with tree and greenery planting. One benefit is that local people are using cars less in favor of walking and bicycling.

Services or benefits include: Pollution reduction, aesthetic, open space conservation/recreation

Volver al inicio

Bélgica – Hasselt – Ciudad de “Transportación Sensata”

by Sandra Brauner

Hasselt is the educational and commercial heart of the Limburg province in the eastern region of Flanders, Belgium. When in 1996 Hasselt’s 68,000 residents and 200,000 commuters were faced with high numbers of traffic crash victims and intense traffic congestion, the city council of Hasselt decided to act. Rather than trying to build new roads, which not only would have been too expensive but would have also exacerbated traffic jams, high death rate, and environmental pollution, they implemented the following measures:

  • Converted Hasselt’s main highway into a bikeway and walkway
  • Restricted trucks and buses in the city center
  • Made the inner city ring road of Hasselt one-way for all vehicles except for buses, which are allowed to drive on the contra-flow bus lane
  • Made its buses free, paid for by city taxes

All told, these regulations were a great success. Car use in the city was reduced, thus lowering the death rate, reducing both environmental pollution and traffic jams, and increasing the quality of life for residents and commuters. The transformation of the inner city ring road of Hasselt into a “Green Boulevard” that is two-way for buses, but one-way for other drivers has further reduced pollution, and has made public transport more visible. Due to higher visibility, free transit, increase in frequencies and number of lines (in 1996, there were only 3 bus routes with about 18,000 service hours/year, now there are 11 routes with more than 95,000 service hours/year), the use of public transport has risen dramatically, with ridership increasing tenfold. In addition, half of the respondents in a survey affirmed that, since the buses are free, they have been coming to the city center to shop more often, thus making positive contributions to Hasselt’s economy.

The transit system in Hasselt cost taxpayers approximately $1.9 million in 2006, amounting to 1% of their municipal budget and making up about 26% of the total operating cost of the transit system. The Flemish national government covered the rest (approximately $5.4 million) under a long-term agreement. For comparison, according to Dave Olsen, a bicycle and public transit consultant, researcher, and advocate based in Vancouver, Canada, 1% of the City of Vancouver’s municipal budget for 2007 was about $8.5 million.

Finally, seeing that bikes are the most sustainable form of transport, Hasselt policy makers implemented a system in which one can borrow a bicycle, tandem, scooter or wheelchair bike free of charge.

Clearly, Hasselt sets a great example of sensible and sustainable transportation for other cities around the globe.

For more information visit:

Volver al inicio

Holanda – Groningen – “Ciudad Ciclista”

by Amanda Suutari

The Netherlands is well-known for its high percentage of bike users, and Groningen has led the way in this initiative. Groningen is the nation’s sixth-largest city with a population of 170,000. With 57% of its inhabitants travelling on two wheels, it has the highest rates of bike usage in the West. In the mid-seventies, prompted by worsening traffic jams in the city center, as well as the oil crisis, city planners decided to dig up a six-lane motorway in the center of the city. It was replaced by greenery, pedestrian areas, cycleways, and bus lanes. Several other regulations were imposed, such as:

  1. Banning parking in the central market square.
  2. Access priority was given to public transportation.
  3. Through traffic in the city center was discouraged and all downtown through lanes were blocked.
  4. Traffic circulation was also changed so that one-way streets made it easy to get out of downtown but hard to enter.
  5. Parking garages were built within walking distance from the city center.

The aim of this was to force cars to take longer detours at the same time as providing improved infrastructure for bicycles. So in addition to the regulatory measures, infrastructure was also developed to allow people to absorb the new policies into their lifestyles. In other words, making it “cheap and easy” to adopt an environment-friendly lifestyle. New city center buildings must provide cycle garages, there are thousands of parking spaces or street racks for bicycles, and under city hall a bomb shelter was recycled into a bike park.

Initially, there was revolt over the regulations by store owners, who feared the economy would suffer. But in fact the opposite has happened. After these changes were underway, outmigration (to larger urban centers) slowed down and reversed, rents are now the highest in the Netherlands, and businesses who are not included in car-free zones want the program expanded, and are requesting bans on cars where their stores are located. Gerrit Van Werven, who helped to develop the policy, says, “This is not an environmental program. This is an economic program. We are boosting jobs and business. In this city it has been proved that planning for the bicycle is cheaper than planning for the car.”

Another important spinoff has come in the dynamic of traffic. Such a large number of cyclists has slowed down traffic and changed the attitudes of car drivers who have less power in reduced numbers. This has improved road safety. The program costs about US$40 million per year, but a study suggests that each car which the policy keeps off the road saves US$350 million in “invisible” costs such as pollution, parking, health, infrastructure, and quality of life. Groningen has set an example for the rest of the country, where, by the end of the 1980s, all Dutch cities with over 50,000 residents had some form of pedestrian areas off-limits to cars.

For more information visit the Global Ideas Bank.

Volver al inicio

Irlanda – Impuesto a las Bolsas de Plástico

by Amanda Suutari

Before March 2002, Ireland’s 3.9 million people were using 1.2 billion plastic bags per year. These bags were generally non-recyclable, took 20 to 1,000 years to break down in the environment, were littering the countryside and clogging storm drains, as well as adding to the burden on the country’s landfill sites. Worldwide some 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles are killed by suffocating on plastic bags. Ireland’s mostly rural population’s waste disposal system is poor, making it an ideal place for this kind of initiative.

The idea of the “plastax” or tax on plastic bags was first floated in 1999 and finally in March 2002 the Environment Minister launched the program, one of the first of its kind in the world. For every bag used at the checkout counter of the supermarket a 9p (about 15 cents) surcharge was added. The revenue raised from this would be put into a fund for environmental projects such as recycling of refrigerators and other large appliances.

But the Environment Minstry’s goal was less about raising money than changing consumer behavior. Before imposing the surcharge, the government launched a TV advertising and billboard campaign to promote and explain the program to consumers. The program has been greatly successful. While there was some initial minority opposition to the program, generally it has recieved popular support from large supermarket chains and consumers, who have quickly adjusted lifestyles by bringing reusable bags to the supermarket.

The results have been immediate. Within the first three months of the program use of bags went down 90%, and raised $3.45 million for the Irish State coffers. There has been a noticeable improvement in the environment as a result. The program has also attracted attention of the UK and US, especially the former which is considering adopting a similar program.

For more information visit Clean North.

Volver al inicio

Brasil – Curitiba – “Eco-Ciudad” Planificada

por Amanda Suutari

Los medios frecuentemente mencionan esta ciudad como modelo para los países en vías de desarrollo por sus varias iniciativas con respecto a desechos, diseño, áreas verdes, programas sociales y, particularmente, su sistema de transporte. Ha demostrado que con planificación previa una ciudad puede mantener la calidad de vida aún cuando crece rápidamente, evitando algunos de los problemas característicos de las explosiones demográficas urbanas en el Sur.

En los 1950s la población de Curitiba era de 150,000 habitantes; hoy es una gran ciudad con casi 1.6 millones. En los 1960s un grupo de jóvenes arquitectos notaron que la ciudad estaba al borde del crecimiento exponencial. Querían ver un desarrollo distinto al que sucedía en las demás ciudades Latinoamericanas, basadas en el auge de crédito que resultó en la crisis de endeudamiento de los 1980s. Ese desarrollo consistía de costosos proyectos de infraestructura, como fueron carreteras, rascacielos, centros comerciales y otros proyectos vistosos.  Afortunadamente en Curitiba los gobernantes se mostraron receptivos a las ideas de los arquitectos con respecto a las necesidades humanas y el medio ambiente. Cuando este grupo de diseñadores presento su caso al alcalde, éste propuso un concurso para diseñar un Plan Maestro para la ciudad.  Las mejores propuestas fueron circuladas y sujetas a debate público antes de regresarlas a los arquitectos, quienes se encargaron de desarrollar e implementar la versión final en base a estos resultados.

Entre otras cosas el plan maestro contempló el apoyo económico para el desarrollo urbano con la creación de zonas industriales, e impulsó la autosuficiencia al asegurar que todos los distritos urbanos contaran con servicios educativos, de salud y de recreo, así como áreas verdes. Para lograrlo, la gestión del tráfico tuvo que ser integrada a los planes de uso de suelo, ya que por su diseño eran inseparables. Se incorporó suficiente flexibilidad en los reglamentos para contemplar posibilidades futuras.

El pivote del diseño fue el sistema de transporte. Se diseñó para que fuera tan eficiente como un sistema de metro, pero a una fracción del costo, con cinco arterias radiales que salen del centro y sobre las que transitan diversos autobuses (locales y express) en carriles exclusivos y que cruzan varias rutas concéntricas, formando una especie de telaraña. Algunas de los autobuses de las rutas express llevan hasta 300 pasajeros en compartimentos triples. Cada parada de autobús tiene forma tubular donde se paga por un extremo para entrar, y se sale del otro, eliminando la necesidad de pagar abordo (lo cual aumenta la eficiencia y reduce el tiempo de las paradas), protegiendo a los pasajeros del clima, y brindando acceso a los minusválidos. El sistema es una colaboración sin subsidios entre los sectores público y privado, en un esfuerzo por hacer uso de las fortalezas de ambos. Con este sistema, la densificación urbana sucedió de manera natural a lo largo de las rutas. La gente gasta aproximadamente 10% de sus ingresos en transporte, y el uso per capita de gasolina es bajo a comparación a otras ciudades Brasileñas.

En 1971, el gobierno militar de Brasil nombró a uno de los arquitectos visionarios, Jaime Lerner, como alcalde de Curitiba. Sus logros incluyen:

  1. Ofreció 1.5 millones de árboles a los miembros de la comunidad, para su cuidado.
  2. Resolvió el problema de las inundaciones al redirigir agua de las tierras bajas hacia lagos en 17 parques nuevos, y se contrataron adolescentes para mantener limpios los parques y las rutas de ciclismo.
  3. Creó una zona peatonal en el centro de la ciudad. Al principio el plan fue opuesto por comerciantes, pero acordaron a un periodo de prueba de 30 días que fue tan exitoso que comerciantes que quedaban fuera del proyecto pidieron ser incluidos. Una de estas calles, Rua das Flores, cuenta con jardines que son cuidados por los jóvenes.
  4. Acordó con comercios e instituciones para que adoptaran a niños de la calle (un problema enorme en las ciudades Brasileñas) dándoles alimento o un pequeño salario a cambio de sencillas tareas de jardinería u oficina.

Los desechos son separados en dos categorías: orgánico e inorgánico. En los barrios empobrecidos donde no llegan las rutas de recolección, la gente puede entregar sus bolsas de basura en centros de acopio y recibe a cambio boletos de autobús o frutas y verduras de granjas vecinas. Los desechos son llevados a una planta procesadora (hecha de materiales reciclados) donde trabajan inmigrantes recién llegados, discapacitados, y demás gente necesitada separando latas, botellas, plásticos y demás materiales reutilizables, algunos de los cuales son vendidos a varias industrias. Por ejemplo, el poliestireno es triturado y usado como relleno de colchas para los más pobres. El programa cuesta lo mismo que un relleno sanitario, pero es más limpio, ofrece más empleos, apoya a los agricultores, y es más ecológico, porque dos terceras partes de la basura es reciclada (uno de los índices mas altos del mundo). La ciudad atrae la atención de arquitectos, urbanistas y ambientalistas de todo el mundo y ha ganado varios premios, entre estos uno de la UNESCO por desarrollo urbano.

Para mayores informes visite In Context.

Volver al inicio

Filipinas – Ciudad Marikina – Renovación Urbana

by Amanda Suutari

Since 1787, “Mariquina,” as it was known before the entry of the US, located in metropolitan Manila, is a 2,150-hectare area bordered by mountain ranges and a river. Known for its large shoe industry, this otherwise faceless town had been a dirty city with haphazard shantytowns lining a blackened, polluted river, with no proper garbage disposal, and whose apathetic population was jaded by years of neglect by authorities.

This situation began to change when incoming mayor Marides Fernando came in with a vision to revamp the city in the model of Singapore, which has been praised for its efficient services, clean air and water, and civic responsibility. Fernando believed in the “Broken Window Pane” theory, which describes how citizens will become alienated from dilapidated surroundings, losing their motivation to maintain them (and the corollary that a new sense of cooperation will develop if there is a concentrated effort to rehabilitate them).

A Marikina City Development Authority (MCDA) was created to come up with a master plan which ranged from services to infrastructure to environment and legislation. The initiatives include:

  1. A riverside development plan, with a river cleanup program, public education about protecting the river, and the creation of pathways, parks and other public places. This made the riverside safer and cleaner, which encouraged people to spend leisure time there. There was also an economic development strategy with the creation of a commercial area near the river, with bars, restaurants, and stores. Cultural and historic heritage were also promoted with the preservation of a historic shrine, and a shoe museum. Ample space has been provided for parks, playgrounds, and promenades.
  2. A settlement office was set up to provide adequate shelter for shanty dwellers. Those living in slums by the river were relocated to a model resettlement area. The city’s ultimate goal is to have a squatter-free city. One way to do this was under the Community Mortgage Program, which helps residents to own the lots that they occupy.
  3. Strict zoning regulations were enforced, which complemented the relocation of shanty dwellers. The zoning also was aimed at illegal vendors who were seen as obstructions on pedestrian areas. At the same time, a public market was set up, and its safety standards are being regularly tested.
  4. A waste management program was set up, with a materials recovery facility, garbage collection services, and enforceable anti-littering laws.
  5. Education program and supplies fee coverage for eligible elementary and high school students.
  6. A program to encourage payment of taxes by offering discounts on government services for those who fully pay their taxes. The MCDA’s master plan, modeled on Singapore, may seem somewhat top-down and draconian, and the effects of its policies on relocated shanty dwellers and “illegal street vendors” bears more investigation. Nevertheless, its vision stressed that proper services and enhanced quality of life was possible as long as citizens cooperated and acted responsibly as well. The city has won multiple awards, and is attracting attention from other municipalities interested in taking similar approaches in other cities, which has contributed to a strong sense of pride of Marikina natives.

For more information visit the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Volver al inicio

India – Auroville – “Eco-Ciudad” Planificada

by Amanda Suutari

Auroville began in the late 1960s as a planned community drawn on some of the ideas of spiritual leader Sri Aurobindo, who ran the Sri Aurobindo Ashram near Pondicherry, India, and a woman known as “Mother.” It has grown into an internationally diverse community of 1,700 scattered about in 100 settlements, and while the community began over 30 years ago, there are plans to design the area into an eco-city with distinct zones.

There was no causal trigger linked to this specific place. The site was chosen in the late 1960s simply because it was close to the Ashram (place of worship). But the poor economic and environmental conditions benefited from the diversity of social and environmental initiatives which began and are still going on today.

The area, which some 200 years ago was densely forested, was by 1968 a barren dust bowl which had been cleared over the years, by farmers, by loggers who exported the wood, and by developers to make the cities of Pondicherry and Kalapet. When early settlers to Auroville arrived, the soil was poor, devoid of trees and other vegetation, and monsoon rains and winds swept tons of topsoil into the Bay of Bengal every year. Local villagers were very poor; many were walking over 2 km daily to find water and their diet was mainly gruel made by millet grown in infertile fields. Some sold their land to Auroville, some began working on the early projects.

Supported by domestic and international foundations, reforestation and trial-and-error water management (through the use of “bunds” – -raised earthen banks to stop runoff of water) began.

Since then over a million trees have been planted with species for various uses: ornamental, timber, fencing, fruit/fodder, nuts.

As trees grew, microclimates formed, attracting animals and birds which have further disseminated seeds and enriched the environment. The Indian government supported some replanting efforts and commissioned a study, in order that results from the project could be shared outside the community. Now “greenworkers” from Auroville are working on other reforestation schemes in India (with Tibetan refugees in Karnataka, tribal areas in Tamil Nadu and a large project in Palani Hills).

Much of the reforestation is in a green belt surrounding the future city area – -this is intended to be a buffer zone to protect it from intrusion of suburbs from Pondicherry.

Other projects include:

  1. Organic farming, using nitrogen-fixing hedges grown around fields which grow grains, pulses, millets; there are also fruit and nuts, and some wetland cultivation (rice). This, like the forestry, is collectively managed by an international team, including workers from neighboring villages.
  2. With farming, forestry, and waste management there is a diversity of technique and technology, including solar or wind-fed electric well pumps, desludging of septic tanks (which is processed in pits with co-composting and used in forestry), use of biogas cookers.
  3. Composting of waste (used in farms).
  4. Water management techniques such as bunds and check dams (seen on website).
  5. Various flourishing handicraft industries such as incense making, needlework, leatherwork.
  6. Medicinal herb forest and institute with training and workshops.
  7. Educational programs for children in neighboring villages.
  8. Development, health and social programs aimed at women, children, and the elderly.
  9. The emphasis is on use of local materials (i.e., bamboo).
  10. Information technology development and training.
  11. Seed banks, seed exchange programs.

Services/benefits provided: food/fiber, fresh water, fuel, genetic resources, natural medicines, climate regulation, water regulation, waste treatment, erosion control, water purification, cultural diversity, poverty alleviation, spiritual and religious values, social relations, sense of place, ecotourism, local industry and economy, social welfare, enrichment of quality of life, education.

For more information visit Auroville.

Volver al inicio

Verified by MonsterInsights