SHRAPNEL URBAN PLANNING

Suite 18
336 Churchill Avenue
Subiaco
Western Australia 6008

ABN 37 139 283 692

I have been a bit slow on the uptake in regard to the sustainability issue, because I have always taken it for granted. I have always thought that the art and science of town planning was an exercise in sustainability. Has any planner ever said: "now I'm going to plan a town (or part thereof) that is not sustainable - i.e. is in a form that cannot possibly last or be repeated - and will mess up the environment and ensure that the choices of future generations are severely negatively compromised"? I don't think so.

But of course better ways of doing things are always being found, and it is quite right to continue to refine existing and define new planning objectives, principles and techniques to better suit a rapidly changing world in which both urban and non-urban environments are coming under increasing stress. But exactly what does the term "sustainability" actually mean, or refer to?

SYLLABICATION: sus·tain; TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: sus·tained, sus·tain·ing, sus·tains

1. To keep in existence; maintain. 2. To supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for. 3. To support from below; keep from falling or sinking; prop. 4. To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage. 5. To bear up under; withstand: can't sustain the blistering heat. 6. To experience or suffer: sustained a fatal injury. 7. To affirm the validity of: The judge has sustained the prosecutor's objection. 8. To prove or corroborate; confirm. 9. To keep up (a joke or assumed role, for example) competently. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English sustenen, from Old French sustenir, from Latin sustinre : sub-, from below; see sub– + tenre, to hold; see ten- in Appendix I. OTHER FORMS: sus·taina·bili·ty —NOUN sus·taina·ble —ADJECTIVE sus·tainer —NOUN sus·tainment —NOUN

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; Fourth Edition; 2000

Sustainability as we planners know it seems to be an imprecise amalgam of several of these points, but I think No. 9 "To keep up... competently" in the sense of "to keep on doing" is probably closest to what we are (or should be) talking about. Sustainable development is development with characteristics of such a positive nature that we can confidently keep on doing it, and still be considered competent by ourselves and others.

Points 1 to 3, and some of the other points can be said to apply to some extent to existing development. Clearly though, it takes considerable effort and cost to "keep in existence", "nourish", "support from below", etc, so the legacy of existing development (past development decisions) is clearly a major factor in the capacity of our society to sustain itself. Inefficient, cumbersome or otherwise thoughtless development that is costly for society to sustain over time obviously needs to be avoided in the future. The thing is, the amount of existing urban development on the planet is absolutely massive, so its effective maintenance, while simultaneously creating more competent development to accommodate additional population growth, is a task of such gigantic proportions that it hardly bears thinking about.

A recent discussion document titled "A Sustainability Checklist" produced by the Western Australian Planning Commission sees sustainability in these terms:

"Increasingly, proposals for urban development will need to show that they contribute to the economy, to society and to the preservation and enhancement of the environment"

It is easy to see how urban development might benefit the economy and society, but contributing to "the preservation and enhancement of the environment" is an entirely different matter. What environment - natural, man-made and/ or both? How can any form of urban development (competent or otherwise) actually benefit the natural environment? (Some claim that cities are as natural as termite mounds, beaver dams, etc, but it is unlikely that the WAPC sees cities in this way - i.e. as part of the natural environment). So, it does seem clear that preservation and enhancement of the urban environment - making urban environments healthier places is part of main stream sustainability. Who could argue?

This is well and good but, while efforts for more sustainable urban development should be pursued, I think the results of these efforts will be marginal in terms of the overall impact of the unprecedented extent of human occupation of the planet. While urban development can be designed and implemented which is more efficient in terms of land use, produces pleasant urban environments and to some extent is less damaging to the natural environment, the most important changes in terms of sustainability will have little or nothing to do with urban development per se. Other actions have the potential to be far more important. For example, here's one for our government in Western Australia: Read your own State Sustainability Strategy and DO NOT BUILD ANY MORE COAL-FIRED POWER STATIONS.

Send any feedback or enquiries to ts@shrapnel.com.au
Last modified: December 27, 2007