{"id":2005,"date":"2013-01-09T12:01:11","date_gmt":"2013-01-09T17:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/?p=2005"},"modified":"2015-06-01T14:47:52","modified_gmt":"2015-06-01T18:47:52","slug":"from-banlieue-to-biophilia-thinking-about-nature-as-a-basis-for-urban-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/2013\/01\/09\/from-banlieue-to-biophilia-thinking-about-nature-as-a-basis-for-urban-design\/","title":{"rendered":"From Banlieue to Biophilia: Thinking About Nature as a Basis for Urban Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

My second contribution to the Nature of Cities blog was scheduled to fall around that awkward moment at the start of the New Year when productivity is at its lowest ebb. Instead of sitting down to the task at my own snow-bound desk in upstate New York, I find myself seated on a plastic chair in a poured concrete garage smack-dab in the middle of rural Portugal. \u00a0The sun is shining through an open door, the flies are buzzing around a stack of old wine bottles in the corner, and a rooster just announced his presence in the yard out back. \u00a0I\u2019m on vacation, you see, visiting family and spending time in a part of Portugal that has, in many ways, opted out of the networked society that so completely defines my life back in the U.S. \u00a0There are four channels on my aunt\u2019s television set. \u00a0No stray WiFi signals show up on my computer.\u00a0 News still travels efficiently by word of mouth, and neighbors pass the time gossiping at the front gate with anyone who passes by.<\/p>\n

\"\"
On the street in rural Portugal with the author’s family. Photo: Philip Silva.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Being that I\u2019m on vacation, this blog post is less of a watertight exposition on a single topic than a meander through some loosely connected ideas about cities and nature. \u00a0There\u2019s little around me right now to inspire any reflection on cities, yet there are seemingly endless opportunities to contemplate nature. \u00a0For miles around, this ancient coastal plain is checkered with allotment farms, pine forests, and opportunistic stands of eucalyptus trees. \u00a0Much of the rural, self-sufficient lifestyle rhapsodized about in cities back home in the U.S. is unassumingly lived out here, with little conscious thought given to things like environmental sustainability, locally-sourced food, or cultivating a \u201csense of place.\u201d \u00a0People grow their own cabbages and onions, potatoes and garlic, and it\u2019s hardly cause for adulation.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Capucho, Portugal, near Lisbon. Photo: David Maddox<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yet this is Western Europe, after all. \u00a0Rural though the setting may be, the fact remains that these lands have been trampled upon, cultivated, exhausted, fertilized, subdivided, colonized, and conquered millennia<\/a>. \u00a0Aside from the wildlife sequestered in a few national parks, little of what the eye beholds here is likely to be \u201cnative\u201d in the strictest sense of the word.\u00a0 It\u2019s all been shaped, to one degree or another, by human hands with the purpose of serving human needs and fulfilling human dreams. \u00a0It may look like nature, but the landscape was irrefutably drawn by social and cultural forces.<\/p>\n

This problem of defining and delimiting nature \u2013\u00a0especially when it comes to nature and cities \u2013 has bubbled up in more than one contribution to this blog since its inauguration. \u00a0 My first post last July dealt with the idea of cities as cyborgs<\/a>, collections of artificial and natural materials and processes inextricably fused together to form urban settings. \u00a0In August, Brian McGrath introduced the idea of a \u201cnature-culture continuum<\/a>,\u201d urging us to go beyond simply finding examples of nature in cities (trees, green spaces, animals, etc.) when we speak about the nature of cities. \u00a0More recently, Stephanie Pincetl helped us see the city\u2019s built infrastructure<\/a>, crafted from stone and steel, as an important part of any conversation about green infrastructure and sustainable urban living. \u00a0Put another way, Pincetl encourages us to recognize and value the inanimate dimensions of urban nature, though we tend to focus on biological systems in these discussions. \u00a0For the remainder of this week\u2019s post, I want to consider this emphasis on biological systems in our discourse on the nature of cities.<\/p>\n

In his introduction to Uncommon Ground, a pioneering collection of essays published in the mid-1990\u2019s<\/a>, environmental historian William Cronon<\/a> made an exhaustively strong case for critically deconstructing the seemingly fixed concept of nature. \u00a0Cronon and his colleagues argued that the idea of nature couldn\u2019t be taken for granted, its definition assumed to be universal or everlasting. \u00a0Nature, it turned out, is a slippery concept. \u00a0Though Cronon\u2019s task was deconstruction, his aim was, in the end, the creation of a more stable conceptual footing for the modern environmental movement.\u00a0 I\u2019ll let him speak for himself:<\/p>\n

\u201c… our essays may be perceived by some as hostile to environmentalism, part of a general backlash against the movement. \u00a0And yet nothing could be further from the truth. \u00a0Indeed, it is precisely because we sympathize so strongly with the environmental agenda \u2013\u00a0with the task of rethinking and reconstructing human relationships with the natural world to make them more just and accountable \u2013\u00a0that we believe these questions must be confronted. \u00a0To ignore them is to proceed on intellectual foundations that may ultimately prove unsustainable.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Most of the essays that comprise Uncommon Ground ask us to think twice whenever we turn to nature for solutions to human problems. \u00a0It\u2019s not that nature doesn\u2019t offer valuable lessons. \u00a0Yet our ideas of nature are inevitably cultivated from our cultural assumptions and prejudices. \u00a0When we look at nature, we can\u2019t help but see it through a distorting cultural lens. \u00a0For humans, nature is something like a story to be told (and re-told) rather than objective reality that can be exhaustively understood on its own terms. \u00a0When we look to nature for inspiration in tackling urban problems, we need to carefully consider how much of that inspiration actually comes from a tacit set of human values and beliefs. \u00a0Nature, it would seem, is what we make of it. \u00a0What, then, do we make of cities designed in nature\u2019s image?<\/p>\n

The idea that nature offers untapped solutions for urban problems is not entirely new. \u00a0At least a century ago, the Garden City movement<\/a> called for cities that more closely resembled the countryside, with lower population densities and more acreage given over to green space. \u00a0The same planning\u00a0 ideas would live on, albeit distortedly,\u00a0 in the form of Modernist \u201ctowers in the park\u201d<\/a> \u2013\u00a0an urban design strategy familiar to anyone who\u2019s spent time in a North American housing project or a French banlieue<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Lisbon, Portugal. Photo: Philip Silva<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In recent years, the concept of biophilia has inspired some efforts to make cities more livable and sustainable. I n his blog post earlier this year, Tim Beatley described biophilia as the notion \u201cthat we are hard-wired from evolution to need and want contact with nature<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0There are two concepts at play in Beatly\u2019s description. \u00a0First, there\u2019s the core notion of biophilia<\/a>, an experience of love or attraction to living biological systems. \u00a0Then there\u2019s the biophilia hypothesis<\/a>, first put forward by the celebrated biologist E.O. Wilson<\/a> in 1984. \u00a0The hypothesis posits that human beings, having spent much of their evolutionary development as a species in nature, are inherently drawn to natural settings. \u00a0Designing a city with biophilia in mind means making space for nature, however one defines it.<\/p>\n

On the face of it, this would seem to be a common-sense approach to solving some of the environmental ailments found in contemporary cities. \u00a0Yet creeping in the background is all that stuff from William Cronon (and others) about the slipperiness of the concept of nature \u2013\u00a0especially when it comes to determining what is and isn\u2019t \u201cnatural\u201d in cities. \u00a0Is nature just \u201cthe green things\u201d that we find in cities? \u00a0The parks and trees and rivers and shrubs and everything else that wouldn\u2019t be out of place in a rural setting like the one I find myself in right now? \u00a0Or are even the most developed cities already natural places, regardless of how artificial they seem? \u00a0Eric Sanderson made a fine case for moving past this dichotomy<\/a> in his post earlier in the year, helping us \u201cconceive of cities in their entirety as ecological places.\u201d \u00a0Yet if cities are already quite natural on their own, where does that leave the biophilia hypothesis as a prescription for environmentally sustainable and livable cities?<\/p>\n

I want to offer three short \u2013 and, admittedly, incomplete \u2013 observations that I hope will spark further conversation around these themes. \u00a0I\u2019ll keep my points brief, mainly because I\u2019m not resolutely devoted to them and I\u2019m curious to hear what others have to say in response to each general idea.<\/p>\n

Biomimicry beyond biophilia?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Biomimicry<\/a> is the idea that natural processes may hold within them the blueprints for engineering sustainable human technologies. \u00a0Examples abound, from sewage purified in\u00a0 ersatz \u201cliving machine\u201d wetlands to synthetic fibers spun in factories with as little impact as a spider weaving its web. \u00a0Biomimicry promises a future where the materials of an industrial civilization leave no more of a lasting trace on the earth than the objects in a neolithic hunter-gatherer\u2019s toolkit.\u00a0 Janine Benyus\u2019 Biomimicry<\/a> and William McDonough\u2019s Cradle to Cradle<\/a> are both must-read primers for anyone interested in learning more.<\/p>\n

All cities rely on technology. \u00a0Their infrastructures are a complex tangle of human life-support systems, and like any cluster of technologies, they may be made more sustainable\u00a0 through biomimcry. \u00a0We might think of \u201cgreen infrastructure\u201d as low-hanging fruit; a kind of first pass, low-tech approach to biomimcry for urban technology. \u00a0Instead of re-engineering a sewage treatment plant to function like a wetland, just create a wetland. \u00a0In the process, you\u2019ve created a place for humans to experience a biological system within the city. \u00a0Green infrastructures are where the concepts of biomimicry and biophilia overlap.<\/p>\n

\"\"
A house in Lisbon. Photo: Philip Silva<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

However, there remain countless technologies and industrial materials that don\u2019t readily lend themselves to a green infrastructure alternative, all of them integral to the daily function of contemporary cities. \u00a0Moreover, in dense mega-cities, green infrastructure may not be able to carry the burden of tens of millions of people, and you\u2019d be hard pressed to plunk down a wetland in the middle of Manhattan. \u00a0In these instances, it seems to me, biomimicry trumps biophilia. \u00a0Build a sewage treatment plant, and design it to function as much like a wetland as possible, drawing on whatever science tells us about how wetlands work. \u00a0The two ideas aren\u2019t mutually exclusive, but there\u2019s a continuum of feasibility that needs to be appreciated.<\/p>\n

Sociobiology \u2013 biophilia\u2019s conceptual underpinning \u2013 is a contested idea<\/strong><\/p>\n

The biophilia hypothesis grew out of sociobiology<\/a>, a field of research predicated on the idea that human behavior and culture are products of the biological evolution of the species. \u00a0Like biophilia, the field owes its development to E.O. Wilson<\/a>, who set down the parameters of sociobiology in the mid-1970\u2019s. \u00a0Sociobiology held out the promise of synthesizing the natural and social sciences for a comprehensive approach to understanding humankind. \u00a0However, the field was not without its detractors. \u00a0No less an authority than evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould<\/a> would, along with others, criticize sociobiology as a narrowly \u201cdeterministic view of human society and human action<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

There isn\u2019t enough space on this blog to rehash the many debates that followed <\/a>Wilson\u2019s publication and Gould\u2019s critique. \u00a0My point here is simply to emphasize that sociobiology, which gives the biophilia hypothesis its underlying logic, is not a universally accepted approach to understanding humankind. \u00a0In fact, the debate continues to this day, with significant arguments against sociobiology coming from scholars across the social sciences. \u00a0Yet in many of our efforts to draw on the biophilia hypothesis to create greener cities, we treat the concept as an established fact. \u00a0I won\u2019t take a stand one way or another right now, but I do think we need to let the debate into our discourse on the nature of cities in order to make our work more resilient, rigorous, and, ultimately, more relevant.<\/p>\n

Is biophilia bigger than \u201cNature\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we hold the biophilia hypothesis to be true, then what are the qualities of biological systems and \u201cnatural\u201d settings that make them so attractive to humans? \u00a0How do we evaluate an urban setting to determine whether or not it adequately answers to the biophilia hypothesis? \u00a0How does the human eye \u2013\u00a0and the human heart \u2013\u00a0tell nature from its own creations? \u00a0Does a hardscrabble community garden make the cut? \u00a0A lonely street tree? \u00a0What if it\u2019s an Ailanthus<\/a>, that much-reviled invasive plant that thrives so comfortably in cities? \u00a0We\u2019re back to that issue of defining nature, in all its slipperiness, in order to better understand biophilia in cities.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Graffiti on a wall is Lisbon. Photo: Philip Silva<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

As a result, I struggle with how nature is defined when the biophilia hypothesis is applied to urban planning and design. \u00a0I have a hard time lumping a single tree, a community garden, a wetland, a window box, a green roof, a flock of birds, an urban park, or any number of other phenomena all into the same category. \u00a0And, despite contradicting myself, I also wonder we\u2019ve taken too narrow a view of the things that trigger a biophilic response in cities. \u00a0If a garden can elicit a feeling a biophilia, why can\u2019t any other object of beauty crafted by human hands? \u00a0If we celebrate the presence of nature in cities because it provides unique opportunities for surprise, wonder, and reflection, what other aspects of urban living fulfill those needs? \u00a0I personally feel the same magnetic pull from a technicolor graffiti mural as I do from a well-designed park or a lovingly maintained garden. \u00a0All three grab the eye with the visual equivalent of a complex polyrhythm. \u00a0All three are vibrant expressions of life, human and non-human alike.<\/p>\n

What might we discover if we keep pushing the boundaries of biophilia, including more and more things that don\u2019t normally show up on a list of \u201cnatural\u201d phenomena? \u00a0How would our notion of the biophilia hypothesis change? \u00a0What would urban design and landscape architecture have to add to the conversation, given their focus on creating vibrant and interesting public spaces within cities?<\/p>\n

This blog post started with me reflecting on my rural surroundings in central Portugal. \u00a0By the time I got to putting down this last sentence, I had relocated south to Lisbon to spend the rest of my vacation with friends in the capital city. \u00a0As my train pulled into the riverside terminal last night, I couldn\u2019t help feeling relieved to find myself back in an urban setting. \u00a0I was bored in the countryside, uneasy and out of place. \u00a0Beautiful though it may be, uninterrupted nature is not for everyone. \u00a0Maybe neon lights<\/a> and street art<\/a> and sidewalk benches packed with people<\/a> from all walks of life have a place in our understanding of biophilia, too.<\/p>\n

Philip Silva
\nIthaca, NY USA<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My second contribution to the Nature of Cities blog was scheduled to fall around that awkward moment at the start of the New Year when productivity is at its lowest ebb. Instead of sitting down to the task at my own snow-bound desk in upstate New York, I find myself seated on a plastic chair […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":6936,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[300,273,299],"tags":[73,49,28,25,29],"coauthors":[169],"class_list":["post-2005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-essay-art-and-awareness","category-essay","category-essay-place-and-design","tag-biophilia","tag-communities","tag-design","tag-europe","tag-what-is-urban-nature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2005"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thenatureofcities.com\/TNOC\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}