It was to be the ultimate urban paradise. Hundreds of pages of plans, maps and charts detailed the construction of a state-of-the-art eco-city called Dongtan on China’s Chongming Island, at the mouth of the Yangtze River. Energy-efficient buildings would be clustered together to encourage residents to travel on foot; only battery- or hydrogen-powered cars would be permitted in the development. Surrounding organic farms would supply food; sea breezes and the burning of husks of China’s staple crop, rice, would furnish power. Canals and ponds would incorporate the local wetlands, providing restful views for humans and continued respite for migrating birds.

Yet for all its grand goals, this island city-to-be remains unbuilt. Whether China has abandoned the project totally is unclear. It was originally slated for completion in 2010 but has failed to proceed beyond the construction in 2009 of a tunnel and bridge linking Chongming to the mainland. It is one of numerous planned eco-cities around the world that have fizzled, many because of cost. Even if every planned eco-city were successful, however, their effect on overall energy use and emissions would be minimal because the vast majority of urbanites would still live in existing cities. All these reasons suggest that we cannot rely on new construction to fully address the challenges of feeding, housing and transporting urban populations in ecologically sound ways. We need another solution.

4 Comments

1. 1. PGracey 02:21 AM 8/25/11

   I was involved in a very small way with a 1980's "urban experiment" a planned community meant to provide housing, work, shopping services,entertainment, all within short enough bicycling and jogging distances in an isolated backcountry setting such that automobiles would only be used on weekend getaways. There was at the time of the initial buildup only one major and one minor route into the plateau area. A bridge for cars,bikes and pedestrians over a wildlife gully was the main entrance. All facilities were sized to be complimentary to each other, and discounts were offered to the employees of the businesses to help make the new housing affordable when those new plants were opened away from their original locations.
   The concept was to entice people to a more sustainable living locus of activities without a high price for the use of cars. The integrated bike paths were laid out with commuting in mind. There was plenty of parking provided as laws required and at no cost. But the scale of the development necessary to include these provisions made biking and walking unpopular as commuting modes, even with densely spaced housing and custom built factory facilities. Those paths are thought of as recreational today.
   
   Within five years that bridge was doubled in size to accommodate the long distance car commuters coming to the plants from the old locations. The bridge also had to accomodate those going out of the area to work who had taken the subsidy to buy housing there, but then found a new job elsewhere. As long as we continue to base all our social services around the concepts of "acceptable driving time" and affordable fuel costs cars will remain our transport of choice.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. bucketofsquid 09:52 AM 8/29/11

   I don't ever see "green living" ever taking off on a large scale because it is based on a fallacy. The idea that cities grew as a center of wasteful inefficiency is clearly ridiculous. Cities grew as centers of efficiency and they continue to be so. The definition of efficiency has gotten more exacting and so we see improvements in electricity and fuel consumption. This trend toward efficiency will continue and will take advantage of improvements in telecommunications that allow less travel. As alternative fuels gain value and eventually become able to compete with fossil fuels, the need to limit energy consumption will diminish. There is also the trend toward smaller families in industrialized nations that should reduce demand over the next century.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. scots engineer 07:29 AM 9/2/11

   "Even recycling is not a panacea - Dubuque, Iowa,halted it's glass recycling program, according to Mayor Roy Buol,because trucking the material to far- flung processing plants added more to the city's emissions than dumping in a landfill. What's wrong with that statement? Is there any enduring reason why processing plants need to be few and remote from most of their customers? For Mayor Buol, landfill sites were obviously much more local and less expensive - at least in the short term..With planning constraints compensation for disturbance and loss of amenity, it is now cheaper in some parts of Europe to tunnel than to build roads or railroads on the surface. This suggests to me that utilitiies like waste processing for optimum treatment could be sited much closer to the sources of wastes and the transports to and from these facilities likewise underground,for the most part.There is a good case to be made for above ground higher level monorails( where the cars hang below the rail ) which could be retro fitted in many urban settings much cheaper than building new metro lines. It is a disturbing fact that metro cars ( at least in Europe) cost several times a similar passenger capacity in urban buses. We are talking here of about $1.5 million per car. Monorails could enter and leave buildings well above street level and greatly improve access both for everyday use and emergency. The rails themselves are enclosed apart from the slot on the underside, which would make them far less affected by snowfall than surface transports.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. scots engineer 07:34 AM 9/2/11

   "Even recycling is not a panacea - Dubuque, Iowa,halted it's glass recycling program, according to Mayor Roy Buol,because trucking the material to far- flung processing plants added more to the city's emissions than dumping in a landfill. What's wrong with that statement? Is there any enduring reason why processing plants need to be few and remote from most of their customers? For Mayor Buol, landfill sites were obviously much more local and less expensive - at least in the short term..With planning constraints compensation for disturbance and loss of amenity, it is now cheaper in some parts of Europe to tunnel than to build roads or railroads on the surface. This suggests to me that utilitiies like waste processing for optimum treatment could be sited much closer to the sources of wastes and the transports to and from these facilities likewise underground,for the most part.There is a good case to be made for above ground higher level monorails( where the cars hang below the rail ) which could be retro fitted in many urban settings much cheaper than building new metro lines. It is a disturbing fact that metro cars ( at least in Europe) cost several times a similar passenger capacity in urban buses. We are talking here of about $1.5 million per car. Monorails could enter and leave buildings well above street level and greatly improve access both for everyday use and emergency. The rails themselves are enclosed apart from the slot on the underside, which would make them far less affected by snowfall than surface transports.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this