|
Annalise V Johns, London-based urban designer brings us the latest discussions from some of the most interesting urban design events around London over the last few weeks. Want to share what's being discussed in your city? Email us. The following is a reflection on the topics discussed at two recent London Society event. The first a launch of Professor Richard Sennett’s latest book Building and Dwelling: Ethics for a City, and a talk by Town Planner Colin Wilson, on How to Plan London, all of which took place amid the close of the consultation for the revised publication of the London Plan. Local political challenges aside, global urban trends namely; the unforeseen impact of automation, the complex presence of plastic, the explosive rise in depression and obesity, and thanks to #metoo, a global awakening to the true reality of parity across all thinkable domains and its impact on economies, I am struck by the lack of dimension provided by these thought leaders on how best to shape a city, and one as intricate as London. Professor Sennett, Mr Wilson and the London Plan continue the age old discussions of spatial organisation; greenbelt or not, density or not, and formal or holistic design, however, in light of growing evidence illustrating the impact urbanism is having on the health of all living creatures; these responses seem rather prosaic. The latest revisions to the London Plan liken it to the American Tax system. Its primary focus on “Good Growth” and “doubling the current rate of homebuilding” are devised in a framework to create a London built for sustainable transport and active travel. How possible is this when as Colin Wilson astutely pointed out, of the 180 policies found in the London Plan a mere 30 are used. It is evident from the growing number of inhumane developments being approved in London, policies are not understood and certainly not taken seriously. What is very clear is built environment experts still lack understanding as to the true influence environment has on human health and the London Plan provides no further clarity of this. A recent study published in the Lancet analyses the “salutogenic effects” natural environments have on mental health and how “urbanicity serve as background factors that potentially trigger or amplify suicidal motives.” The study goes on to say analysis carried out in the Netherlands “confirm the mental health-supporting characteristics of {…} natural environments.” More research is needed but there is a growing body of evidence showing the importance materials within the built environment have on various aspects of human health. A fascinating talk was given at the Future City Catapult in London (15.03.2018) on Neuroscience for the Built Environment. Areceli Camargo shared her explorations into the neurological studies of particular materials and its impact on humans. Reflecting on the changing epidemiology by focusing on non-communicable disease as they affect women in particular, is to start with an intention beyond good growth and instead for an outcome with far reaching preventative mechanisms that result in multiple benefits to society including economic growth. Built environment professional are responsible for the communities whose lives are being shaped through design choices, therefore to create designs that do not adhere to the role of preventative health care measures are operating in vacuum. Materials now exist for streets and furniture to absorb pollutants and excesses of noise pollution. The science exists to make cities for complex natural ecosystems to thrive and reverse climate change, therefore to not adopt such approaches to all built environment working practices seems unprofessional. Progress in this area is a matter of leadership and political will, on the one hand, and of proactive and deliberate measures and accountability, on the other. We need more of all that. About the Author
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Sanity and Urbanity:
|
RSS Feed
