so they say the world's first eco-city, Dongtan is all but bad news, being sustainable not only environmentally, but also socially, economically and culturally.
im not sure if i will embrace this idea as warmly as i should. after all, being an advocate for out poor environment for the longest time, i should be overjoyed that at last, some sort of concrete action is taking place. still, there's this nagging feeling in me that this eco-city may be just a veiled attempt to get rid of marshes in the region to create more economically viable areas--it's urbanisation all over again, only that it's marketed with the eco label. think about it.
it perturbed me when i read today's papers and a minister was quoted saying that Dongtan will be created over wastelands, thus no harm will be caused to the natural environment.first of all, can agricultural land near a large ecologically significant wetland be considered a wasteland? even if we presume that this agricultural land is not a viable habitat for any flora or fauna and that it is not being used economically, there is no doubt that the adjacent land is.
building a city next to such a natural environment will most definitely have an impact on that area. consider if Dongtan were to be such a successful venture. it would mean that the city boundaries will be pushed further out, and no matter how slowly, it will eventually infringe on the wetlands. trust me, when the time comes for anyone in authority to choose between preserving the integrity of the wetlands or expanding the city further for economical reasons, the latter will most likely be chosen.
also, consider the human impact. it would be silly to presume that the citizens of this eco-city will keep their activites within the city itself. (just look at the mobility patterns of most urban dwellers today) Who is to guarantee that these locals will not be drawn to the wetlands? being physically close to this area, the chances of them frequent-ing(if there's such a word)it for bird watching or whatever reason is alot higher. in fact, i am inclined to believe that developers of this eco-city may in fact, take advantage of this natural landscape near the city and promote it as the city's backyard playground.(of cos not in such blatant terms) think about the higher human traffic that comes not only with the physical distance factor but also with the increased awareness and promotion of the area. think about the carrying capacity of such a fragile environment. enough said.
another bugging thought. will Dongtan work?
Dongtan was built as an attempt to solve an increasing pressing problem faced in China. in the past, towns in China were built fast but of low quality. in lieu of the rapid affluence of the Chinese, towns planning has to undergo a paradigm shift now and focus on the quality instead of quantity alone. thus the whole concept of a sustainable development was born. i find no faults with such a rationale. in fact, i agree the key to a higher standard of living is to go green.
however, by choosing to solve this problem, China neglects another problem which is just as important and pressing. With a rapidly expanding population, China needs to build 400 new towns - nearly 30 a year between now and 2020 - to accommodate more than 300 million people from the countryside. In conjunction with the whole eco concept, buildings in Dongtan will not be taller than 8 storeys. how is that going to satisfy the millions out there in need for proper housing? i believe Dongtan will not be a cheap development of any sort, considering that it even involves the design of its own carbon-free emission transportation system.(can the relatively poorer ones living in countrysides afford it?) furthermore, Dongtan will only maximise its potential as a successful design if the people occupying this new city are the rich, whose way of life will be characterised by "high levels of personal consumption and large per-capita eco-footprints". Dongtan is created obviously for the rich.
how is that sustainable to a country if a general population is denied of proper housing because the government would rather develop an eco-city that not only generate revenue for the country but also put China on the map? (recognition wise of cos, like it's not physically big enough)
i think i can ramble on further but i think enough is said. i do not know if Dongtan can work but i sincerely hope it can. after all, like William Rees of the University of British Columbia said, "It is at least less bad than greenfield cities for the rich based on standard urban designs and architecture." and even if Dongtan fails, like all things, something can and will be gleaned from it as a result.
and being the nerdy green freak that i am, i will be more than happy if there's any glimmer of hope for our ailing earth.
im not sure if i will embrace this idea as warmly as i should. after all, being an advocate for out poor environment for the longest time, i should be overjoyed that at last, some sort of concrete action is taking place. still, there's this nagging feeling in me that this eco-city may be just a veiled attempt to get rid of marshes in the region to create more economically viable areas--it's urbanisation all over again, only that it's marketed with the eco label. think about it.
it perturbed me when i read today's papers and a minister was quoted saying that Dongtan will be created over wastelands, thus no harm will be caused to the natural environment.first of all, can agricultural land near a large ecologically significant wetland be considered a wasteland? even if we presume that this agricultural land is not a viable habitat for any flora or fauna and that it is not being used economically, there is no doubt that the adjacent land is.
building a city next to such a natural environment will most definitely have an impact on that area. consider if Dongtan were to be such a successful venture. it would mean that the city boundaries will be pushed further out, and no matter how slowly, it will eventually infringe on the wetlands. trust me, when the time comes for anyone in authority to choose between preserving the integrity of the wetlands or expanding the city further for economical reasons, the latter will most likely be chosen.
also, consider the human impact. it would be silly to presume that the citizens of this eco-city will keep their activites within the city itself. (just look at the mobility patterns of most urban dwellers today) Who is to guarantee that these locals will not be drawn to the wetlands? being physically close to this area, the chances of them frequent-ing(if there's such a word)it for bird watching or whatever reason is alot higher. in fact, i am inclined to believe that developers of this eco-city may in fact, take advantage of this natural landscape near the city and promote it as the city's backyard playground.(of cos not in such blatant terms) think about the higher human traffic that comes not only with the physical distance factor but also with the increased awareness and promotion of the area. think about the carrying capacity of such a fragile environment. enough said.
another bugging thought. will Dongtan work?
Dongtan was built as an attempt to solve an increasing pressing problem faced in China. in the past, towns in China were built fast but of low quality. in lieu of the rapid affluence of the Chinese, towns planning has to undergo a paradigm shift now and focus on the quality instead of quantity alone. thus the whole concept of a sustainable development was born. i find no faults with such a rationale. in fact, i agree the key to a higher standard of living is to go green.
however, by choosing to solve this problem, China neglects another problem which is just as important and pressing. With a rapidly expanding population, China needs to build 400 new towns - nearly 30 a year between now and 2020 - to accommodate more than 300 million people from the countryside. In conjunction with the whole eco concept, buildings in Dongtan will not be taller than 8 storeys. how is that going to satisfy the millions out there in need for proper housing? i believe Dongtan will not be a cheap development of any sort, considering that it even involves the design of its own carbon-free emission transportation system.(can the relatively poorer ones living in countrysides afford it?) furthermore, Dongtan will only maximise its potential as a successful design if the people occupying this new city are the rich, whose way of life will be characterised by "high levels of personal consumption and large per-capita eco-footprints". Dongtan is created obviously for the rich.
how is that sustainable to a country if a general population is denied of proper housing because the government would rather develop an eco-city that not only generate revenue for the country but also put China on the map? (recognition wise of cos, like it's not physically big enough)
i think i can ramble on further but i think enough is said. i do not know if Dongtan can work but i sincerely hope it can. after all, like William Rees of the University of British Columbia said, "It is at least less bad than greenfield cities for the rich based on standard urban designs and architecture." and even if Dongtan fails, like all things, something can and will be gleaned from it as a result.
and being the nerdy green freak that i am, i will be more than happy if there's any glimmer of hope for our ailing earth.
Comments