Future cities: Urban planners get creative | DW Documentary 

Yes i think that same thing as a urban planner...

Your point is correct. But urban planning in general is heading in the right direction. Most urban planners would agree that walkability, bikability, and public transportation are the key aspects of sustainable and livable cities.

In most countries, architects are actually trained to design for the human scale. Anthropometrics form part of the architect's basic education; as such, things like pedestrianism, walkability, public mass transportation, etc. are given importance especially in the post-2010s industry. Unfortunately, things like strict zoning (can't mix home and work areas!) and required parking lots (eating up HUGE chunks of space) tie architects' hands when designing spaces.

I totally agree with you, I am an architect and professor of urban planning; with my students I am very clear that we are not the "saviors of the world" there are different professions that are important in the processes of making the city but in the Schools of Architecture they show that urban planning is only done by the engineer and architect and that is very badly.

Your argument overlooks the multidimensional nature of urban planning and the valuable role architects play in shaping cities. It is essential to consider the following points: 1- Holistic Approach: Urban planning requires a holistic approach that takes into account various aspects such as land use, infrastructure, transportation, aesthetics, and sustainability. Architects possess the expertise to integrate these diverse elements into a coherent and functional urban design. By focusing solely on the placement of urban functions, the argument neglects the importance of a comprehensive approach that architects can provide. 2- Designing Functional Spaces: Architects possess the skills to design spaces that are not only visually appealing but also functional and efficient. They understand the intricate relationship between form and function, ensuring that urban spaces meet the needs of the community. By involving architects in the planning process, cities can benefit from well-designed public spaces that enhance livability and promote social interaction. 3- Collaboration with Other Professionals: Urban planning is a collaborative effort that involves various disciplines, including urban designers, landscape architects, transportation planners, and economists. Architects can collaborate with these professionals and geographers to ensure the optimal integration of urban functions with the rest of the city. Their ability to translate conceptual ideas into tangible designs adds value to the planning process and promotes a cohesive urban fabric. 4- Balancing Social, Economic, and Ecological Factors: The argument rightly acknowledges the need to consider ecological, social, and economic factors in urban planning. However, architects are not only responsible for designing different places but can also contribute to addressing these concerns. They can incorporate sustainable design principles, promote walkability, create inclusive spaces, and address community needs through innovative design solutions. By involving architects in the planning process, cities can achieve a balance between functionality and the broader socio-environmental objectives. 5- Adaptive and Innovative Solutions: Architects possess the creativity and adaptability to respond to evolving urban challenges. They can envision innovative solutions that address emerging trends and future needs. By excluding architects from the planning process, there is a risk of limiting the creative potential and missing out on the opportunity to create forward-thinking cities that can adapt to changing circumstances. In conclusion, while geographers play a crucial role in understanding the spatial aspects of urban planning, architects bring a unique set of skills and expertise that cannot be overlooked. By integrating architects into the planning process, cities can benefit from their ability to design functional and aesthetically pleasing spaces, collaborate with other professionals, address social and ecological concerns, and provide innovative solutions. A holistic approach that combines the strengths of geographers and architects is essential for creating cities that are not only well-placed but also well-designed, catering to the diverse needs of the community and promoting sustainable urban development.

I think the problem sergio meant was that there are not enough OTHER people involved in planning and building cities. We need to understand cities, as you said, in a HOLISTIC way. Thus, we need professionals that understand different aspects of a city. None of you mentioned for example the ecology of a city, one of the most neglected things in urban planning. It’s nice to see architects learning to build sustainable buildings or landscape architects use more meadows and green infra instead of asphalt and dead lawns. But there is SO much more to urban ecology and in a crisis like this we will need to build truly in a holistic post-human manner, where other species are recognized as imporant parts of a city. We can’t just be fully in control as humans and think we can survive without other species, we need to support them and let them support us. The future of urban planning (for me) will be more involved in urban ecology and understanding the city as a whole. Ofc change is slow but there seems to be a change in the paradigm.

Totally agree. They talked about personal mobility vehicles and hydrogen refuelling stations as if we could continue moving like we do now. Hydrogen should be reserved for heavy machinery, earthworks and the like, certainly not for "personal" mobility!

It is also abit disapointing that soo few people realise that we have to question why we need that transportation at all. Nothing in our modern way of life is sustainable, everything is created around a consumer capitalistic mindset. Pretty much everything created in the city is just consumer goods, without real purpose for human wellbeing. In the real world it is simply not needed. It is just a created need by someone, to earn money. This gives you the wellfare we got in western society, it makes poor people elsewhere do our dirtywork when they believe in the dream that we just created. We create sick behaviors and needs to profit from others. It is nothing but legal theft. And everyone buys into this. It is free market capitalism. You have to ask the bigger question. It doesnt matter if you ride that electric scooter that you charge with your own solar panels on your apartments roof, everything around it is still needed. We have lived our destructive way of life for basicly 150-200 years. Two cenutries ago your footprint were 1/100-1/500 or even greater then what it is today. Humans have to step back, to solve this issue, there is no other way. But humanity will walk the way of green capitalism, unaware of the religion they got.

Where I live (the Netherlands) every city/town is already designed like this. So we should look to the next step

people love cars, many dont want to interact with others, don't want to be squeezed together during transport, they want their own comfort of space and temperature.. in a democracy you cant force people to give up their comfort of transportation, cos your idea of the future... i do think city's need to bann fossile fule cars at some point, but saying you cant have a car at all , that you have to use this or that, is infringing on personal freedom.

@@mrdot1126 Car culture doesn't have to die for cities to be walkable/cycable and have good public transport. I would suggest watching the video of Not Just Bikes called the Best Country for drivers. It shows how walkable and cycable neigbourhoods benefit drivers.

That is all less profit. When profit is the main driver, what is best doesn't matter, only what is more profitable.

@@cheweperro suburbs aren't profitable for cities. this is also the future for the US

@@miles5600 they are profitable for the people who benefit from it, they are not profitable for the city itself - that is correct. It is cheaper for a developer to destroy new land and build suburds than to redevelop suburbs into a higher density multi use zone.

@@cheweperro depends where, if land is cheap than suburbs kinda good. if land is expensive than they probably won't build suburbs there, instead apartments are way better and profitable.

@@miles5600 yes, it always depends

.

True

Nothing is impossible!

@@alexandermuller950 try folding a piece of paper 9 times you muppet

@@civilservant9528 actually he is partially right. If you put enough effort, deal with following problems etc. You may get a fine result. And, the world paper folding record is 12 times. 😊

To see how will look the future of ours cities you must take a look at NEOM project and Venus Project by Jacques Fresco. It's a waste of resources to continue in building the cities like today. Even that we don't need 50 floors up like The Line in NEOM. 15 to 20 will be enough if we have business at the basement of the building, commercial stores, schools and hospitals on the first and second floor and apartments up to 15 or more floors. All integrated in the same building.

Many emthy retail spaces should have been converted into office or studio. But the city ordinances/ regulations are the road block

Adaptive reuse may be a novelty in a relatively young nation, like the US, but throughout history, cities were often built over, and using materials of the previous settlement. Of course, locally sourced materials like stone, timber, clay, etc formed the corporeal expression, with lesser energy put into it, unlike cement, steel and glass of today.

I guess the environmental benefits don't apply as much if the new construction would dramatically increase density, as in converting a single-family home to apartments. Denser residential buildings not only decrease emissions per family housed in construction, but it also generally decreases the lifetime emissions of the residents.

The problem with American cities is urban sprawl. Adaptive reuse is more applicable to urban centers of relative density or that allow densification through the reuse of existing building stock (for example, old industrial buildings, office towers or parking lots that are converted into mixed-use housing or urban farms). But a car-dependent city that is too spread out is unsustainable today and will continue to be so in the future. In any case, each situation deserves a particular study. The energy consumption during the useful life of a building can represent 75% of the total energy invested (including maintenance costs). If the building is very inefficient, sometimes it is more energy efficient to replace it, but, as I said, each case is unique. The energy and ecological footprint of the building stock is not usually taken into account and it is very good to pay attention to it. PS: Sorry for my english (google translate)

Lesson 2- Just because you said it Dosent make it true. Did your ex was an architect? 😂 Who hurt you?

Lesson 3 - Lets see who get more likes, Lesson 1 vs Lesson 2.😅

is that true? how is that work? is architect want to build portofolio with great review from their customer? that means they want to build the best building for you right

@@andricoprimawijaya698 no, the photos in their portfolio are primarily about aesthetics

Lesson 1 makes sense.

but this one may have fallen short, and not just because it includes a promotional video for Toyota.

oh yeah? like the time DW pushed the vax?? It's the same as all the other propaganda MSM.

Even when watching this video I couldn't help but think "but why would you pick wood or clay, when concrete is so much stronger when bombed".

Eurocommie nonsense.

Euro

com

Not allowed in cities because of emissions.

Cars simply dont last that long sustainably. They start breaking down constantly

How's a global 2 child policy sound?

Thank you for watching!

Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.

To see how will look the future of ours cities you must take a look at NEOM project and Venus Project by Jacques Fresco. It's a waste of resources to continue in building the cities like today. Even that we don't need 50 floors up like The Line in NEOM. 15 to 20 will be enough if we have business at the basement of the building, commercial stores, schools and hospitals on the first and second, and apartments up to 15 or more. Make more sense to have all next to your home, meet more people and make more activities every day. We really don't need so many streets and loose our time driving or staying in traffic for hours every day in special now when many people have 2 or 3 jobs.

It is 22:17 mins in. He is awesome. Heat conservation is why windows in pre industrial UK were all small. Folk huddled round their hearths. The hearth tax was because if you could afford more than one, you must be able to afford higher taxes. Beauty is v often functional. Think how much you love the design of your car?

Here in Bolivia we are planning cities for the Third World. Since we don't have money because of imperialism, we use common sense.

@@zurdomasista can you go more into detail please……

@@zurdomasistalet’s go bolivia, speaking as an american

To see how will look the future of ours cities you must take a look at NEOM project and Venus Project by Jacques Fresco. It's a waste of resources to continue in building the cities like today. Even that we don't need 50 floors up like The Line in NEOM. 15 to 20 will be enough if we have business at the basement of the building, commercial stores, schools and hospitals on the first and second, and apartments up to 15 or more. Indeed we see in movies a lot of dystopian ways to build up a city without anything natural in it

Riad type buildings should be the norm in all hot climates like Dubai or Arizona or Australia. Instead those places built awful American suburbs that are too spread out and have dead open space meaning nobody can walk without dying from the heat, thus everybody drives (which means local businesses die and a cycle of everything become more car dependent ensues). Small 6-10m wide streets, trees everywhere for shade, natural thick stone walls to keep buildings cool, and interior courtyards that serve as private or even communal space. It really is the perfect urban form for such places, which is why it is so sad that it is ignored in favour of the philistine and inefficient American experiment.

@@toddlithgow I wish architects gets inspiration from around the world, buildings, homes should not be the same old looks. Fashion designers frequently get inspirations from other cultures/ history, why not architects?🤷

I thought I was the only one ha! Riads are amazing they're essentially inside out cities, they could also be adapted for cities in colder climates like Anchorage, Reykjavik etc.

Cages for unwary. Unaware consumers

True

They meant construction-grade sand. Look into it, they were being serious.

To see how will look the future of ours cities you must take a look at NEOM project and Venus Project by Jacques Fresco. It's a waste of resources to continue in building the cities like today. Even that we don't need 50 floors up like The Line in NEOM. 15 to 20 will be enough if we have business at the basement of the building, commercial stores, schools and hospitals on the first and second, and apartments up to 15 or more.

Yes indeed! WEF members are everywhere, and not just in Government positions. Digital currency coming our way sooner than we think. Universal Basic Income. Microchiped medicines. All discussed, at WEF members meeting in Davos Switzerland, this year! Almost forgot, Yuval Noah Harari wants us to eat bugs, he's WEF too!

Unfortunately all the cities needs rethinking. To see how will look the future of ours cities you must take a look at NEOM project and Venus Project by Jacques Fresco. It's a waste of resources to continue in building the cities like today. Even that we don't need 50 floors up like The Line in NEOM. 15 to 20 will be enough if we have business at the basement of the building, commercial stores, schools and hospitals on the first and second, and apartments up to 15 or more.

Was like a prison lol

True.

It depends on the planning school you attended. My school had a basic common year with architecture, and we did both urban planning and design workshops as part of our curriculum.

@Carlos S We did too at the University of Oregon, and I was teaching international planning at Portland State University with studio sessions. But design lessons were very shallow as planning students typically don't have architecture training (don't know how to use tools like Sketchup or Revit), so they have a brisk understanding of siting but that's pretty it. I have to learn Sketchup on my own to make my final presentation stands out while most other groups just use PowerPoint or even Paint to illustrate their master plan.

I live in a field with my goats, chickens and rabbits

@@robbiepmusic country of city is the choice. suburbs have to go

Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment, Ibrahim!

Very sad to hear JESUS LOVES YOU . Embrace him and Repent he is the only way truth and the life. Give your life to Christ.