1. GREEN URBANISM APPROACHES:
WINGS – ECOLOGICAL CITES, SUSTAINABLE CITIES, SMART GROWTH
Author: Dr. Mirela Newman, newmanmirela@yahoo.com
Ecological City Approach
Origin, Definition and Tenets
The idea of ―ecological city‖ can be traced back to about 1975 when the
Berkeley-based Eco-City movement began. The term ―eco-city‖ was popularized by
Richard Register and the Berkeley Urban Ecology School, as well as by the Australian
movement led by David Engwicht. Mark Roseland traces its origins back to 1975, in
Berkeley, California, with the foundation of a non-profit organization entitled ―Urban
Ecology‖, which stated as its main goal to ―rebuild cities in balance with nature‖
(Roseland, 1997: 2).
According to Roseland, the author of the 1997 book Eco-City Dimensions:
Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet, ―urban ecology‖ gained momentum 12 years later,
in 1987, with the publication of Richard Register‘s1 Eco-City Berkeley. The book
introduced the idea of ecological cities and discussed how the city of Berkeley could be
ecologically rebuilt in the decades to come. The book was accompanied by a new journal
entitled ―The Urban Ecologist‖. Three years later, in 1990, the urban ecology approach
gained momentum with the ―First International Eco-City Conference‖, organized and
held in Berkeley, California. Momentum from the conference lasted throughout the
1
Richard Register was, together with a group of other people, one of the founders of the
original Urban Ecology movement.
1

2. 1990s, a decade that rallied more conferences and ecological cities discussions.
Additional conferences showing a wider, global interest in ecological cities were held in
Adelaide, Australia in 1992 (―Second International Eco-City Conference‖), and in Yoff,
Senegal in 1996 (―Third International Eco-City Conference‖).
Conceptually, the ―ecological city‖—often times identified as the ―sustainable
city,‖ ―sustainable community,‖ or even as the ―green city‖—represents an urban concept
that states the goal or direction for planned urban developments, and promotes the vision
of achieving a balanced, sustainable city in harmony with nature. According to Mark
Roseland (1997: 12), the ―ecological city‖ represents a sort of a visionary urban ideal that
can be defined as follows:
―The Eco-city vision links ecological sustainability with social justice and the
pursuit of sustainable livelihoods. It is a vision that acknowledges the ecological
limits to growth, promotes ecological and cultural diversity and a vibrant
community life, and supports a community-based, sustainable economy that is
directed toward fulfilling real human needs, rather than just simply expanding.
Building eco-cities requires access to decision-making processes to ensure that
economic and political institutions promote activities that are ecologically
sustainable and socially just.‖
This statement implies that cities need to be planned and built with both ecology
and humans in mind, with the goal of achieving and maintaining a balance between
ecological limits and human needs. Implicitly, for these goals to be achieved, there is the
need for wise decision-making processes, and for that purpose an ecological urban
planning can and should provide the framework that guides urban developments.
Two definitions regarding the essence of the ecological city concept are
summarized in Figure 0-1.
2

3. ―Ecological City is distinguished by the degree to which environmental
considerations are incorporated into decision-making in public and private sectors
alike‖…whose objectives are ―to integrate social, economic and environmental objectives
to achieve sustainable development and to give greater attention to providing a better
quality of life for all urban citizens.‖
- OECD: Innovative Policies for Sustainable Urban Development: The Ecological
City (1996: 17)
―The Eco-city vision links ecological sustainability with social justice and the pursuit of
sustainable livelihoods. It is a vision that acknowledges the ecological limits to growth,
promotes ecological and cultural diversity and a vibrant community life, and supports a
community-based, sustainable economy that is directed toward fulfilling real human
needs, rather than just simply expanding. Building eco-cities requires access to decision-
making processes to ensure that economic and political institutions promote activities that
are ecologically sustainable and socially just.‖
- Mark Roseland: Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet
(1997: 12)
Figure 0-1: Definitions of Ecological City
3

4. According to Mark Roseland, a highly recognized authority in the field of
sustainability, planning and ecological cities, the evolution of the ecological city
approach has been influenced by several paradigms that developed over the same period.
From his perspective presented in the introduction to Eco-City Dimensions, Roseland
(1997: 4-12) asserts that in order to understand the dimensions of the ―eco-city‖ concepts,
one has to briefly survey the literature including the following concepts and movements:
 Healthy Communities—a broad conception of public health, developed and adopted
by municipal governments in both Europe and North America, and focused on
medical care;
 Appropriate Technology— a concept which states that technology should be designed
to fit into and be compatible with its local setting, targeting to enhance people‘s self
reliance on local levels;
 Community Economic Development—a concept subject to much interpretation;
 Social Ecology—the study of both human and natural ecosystems, focusing on the
social relations that affect the relation of society as a whole with nature, which
advances a holistic worldview;
 Green Movement—a political trend which takes different forms in different countries,
based on four principles of ecology, social responsibility, grassroots democracy an
non-violence;
 Bioregionalism—a concept centered around the idea of place, territory and bioregion,
oriented toward resistance against destruction of natural systems and renewal of
natural systems;
 Native World View—a philosophy which argues that indigenous cultures developed
sustainable patterns of resource use and management a long time ago and what they
accomplished need to be looked at in much greater detail. The modern world can
learn a great deal from the ―ancient wisdom‖ that helped sustain many of these
cultures.
In synthesis, Roseland‘s widely open array of themes and concepts seems to
suggest that the ecological city approach is much more complex, it goes beyond the green
and ecological components in a city‘s fabric, and evolves around both human and natural
4

5. ecosystems—ranging from human communities, to technology, economy, and social
organization—as well as around spatial and regional concepts.
The same author (Roseland, 1997: 3) summarizes the ten basic principles of urban
ecology and ecological cities as follows:
1. Revise land use priorities to create compact, diverse, green, safe, pleasant, and vital
mixed-used communities near transit nodes and other transportation facilities;
2. Revise transportation priorities to favor foot, bicycle, cart, and transit over autos, and
emphasize ―access by proximity‖;
3. Restore damaged urban environments, especially creeks, shore lines, ridge lines, and
wetlands;
4. Create affordable, safe, convenient, and racially and economically mixed housing;
5. Nurture social justice and create improved opportunities for women, people of color
and the disabled;
6. Support local agriculture, urban greening projects, and community gardening;
7. Promote recycling, innovative appropriate technology, and resource conservation
while reducing pollution, and hazardous wastes;
8. Work with businesses to support ecologically sound economic activity while
discouraging pollution, waste, and the use and production of hazardous materials;
9. Promote voluntary simplicity and discourage excessive consumption of material
goods;
10. Increase awareness of the local environment and bioregion through activist and
educational projects that increase public awareness of ecological sustainability issues.
The above stated principles encompass the essential views on what an ecological
city should be, and point towards a policy of revision regarding urban developments. The
view derives from the dissatisfaction with the contemporary state of cities, and from the
recognition that things can be changed if approached in the light of the eco-city tenets.
The emphasis on designing and implementing ecological or green urban concepts,
5

6. structures and ways of life make this approach an intrinsic component of green urbanism
approaches.
The 1990 Chicago Symposium
One of the significant steps in consolidating the ecological city approach was
marked by the 1990 symposium2 on ―Sustainable Cities: Preserving and Restoring Urban
Biodiversity‖, which promoted the ecological preservation and restoration of urban
biodiversity in American cities. Organized in Chicago by Rutherford Platt (Professor of
Geography at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst) and Paul Heltne, president of
Chicago Academy of Sciences. The conference was interdisciplinary in participation and
subject matters, uniting scholarly researchers—from geography, ecology, landscape
architecture, forestry, wildlife management, environmental education, and law – private
and public managers, and citizen activists, all interested in promoting and applying
ecological city concepts. It was devoted to recognition of the function of biodiversity
within urban areas, the impacts of urbanization upon biodiversity, and the way to design
cities compatibly with their ecological contexts (Platt, 1994: 12).
The results were published in The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring
Urban Biodiversity (Eds. Platt, Rowntree, and Muick, 1994). The book is a collection of
original essays, with an interdisciplinary content, as well as approach, on the issues of the
ecology of urban communities. Focusing on issues of public policy and public-private
collaboration, the authors assess the impact of increasing urbanization on biodiversity,
2
This symposium benefited of the presence and assistance of a number of Chicago area
organizations including the Open Lands Project, the Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission, the Morton Arboretum, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the
Department of Geography at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
6

7. and propose new ways of preserving and restoring the balance between the natural and
the built environment through planning and design.
The symposium, along with the book which came out of it, point to the fact that
the ecological city approach has developed in an interdisciplinary scholarly context,
stemming from a variety of fields, and that, indeed, it is not just a single, sporadic
approach stemming from Berkeley. The ecological city encapsulates the increasing
concerns over the development of American cities in the second part of the twentieth
century, and echoes the principles of green urbanism. Although focused mostly on the
analyses of biodiversity within urban areas, and the impacts of urbanization upon
biodiversity3, the ecological city approach points to the need for an improved, greener,
ecological urbanism, one which takes into consideration organic or ecological principles
and applies them into cities.
The 1990s were characterized by the intensification of the ecological city
approach, which became richer in content and more appealing to urbanists
internationally. Numerous professional meetings were concerned with how to achieve
and implement ecological city concepts and practices, heralding the advent of urban
ecological thinking and planning. As a result, the 1990s saw an increased number of
initiatives—from the small-scale ones, to the departmental and institutional – at local,
regional, national and international levels.
3
For a good insight on the proceedings and goals of the symposium, please see
Rutherford H. Platt‘s Introduction and Overview to The Ecological City: Preserving and
Restoring Urban Biodiversity, the University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1994,
pages 1-15.
7

8. The OECD Report
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development4 (OECD) was
active in promoting ecological city concepts and management in the 1990s. Committed to
the internal OECD policies, each member promotes policies designed to achieve
―sustainable economic growth‖ and employment, a rise in the standard of living, a sound
economic expansion, and the development of world trade—based on a multi-lateral, non-
discriminatory basis, in accordance with international obligations.
An active agent in a more and more global world, the OECD (1996:3)
acknowledged ―the need for a change in urban policies,‖ argued that ―to remain with the
status quo is to commit our societies to unacceptable costs and risks,‖ and actively
advocated for the necessity of reform and change in the urban approaches, recognizing
that the change will encounter difficulties
―The process of improving the environment will not be easy. But the adjustments
and changes involved should not dissuade governments or the public from making
the effort to implement reforms.‖
Not only did the OECD herald the change required at a larger scale, but it also
became directly involved with designing and advocating for more sustainable,
environmental-friendly urban policies. One of the major OECD contributions was the
publication of the 1990s report Environmental Policies for Cities. The report was based
on the recommendations made by the OECD Group on Urban Affairs, a group that
emphasized the need for integrative strategies for environmental policies.
The Project Group on the Ecological City, established by the OECD Group on
Urban Affairs in 1993, was in charge with the preparation and analysis of national
4
OECD was founded on December 14, 1960 based on a convention signed in Paris. At
present, it is a much larger organization and comprises of twenty-seven countries from
four different continents.
8

9. overviews and case studies of innovative policies. The result was a 1996 report5 of the
Project Group, entitled The Ecological City: Innovative Policies for Sustainable Urban
Development, who proposed that the ―ecological city‖ concept provides a link between
urban policy and economic policy, adaptability being the major factor in serving urban,
environmental and economic objectives. According to OECD (1996: 17) the ―ecological
city‖ is viewed as a city which:
―is distinguished by the degree to which environmental considerations are
incorporated into decision-making in public and private sectors alike,‖
and as a city which
―is simply more effective at finding and implementing solutions to environmental
problems,‖
and whose objective is
―to integrate social, economic and environmental objectives to achieve sustainable
development and to give greater attention to providing a better quality of life for
all urban citizens.‖
Since the beginning of the 1990s, OECD brought substantial contributions to the
ecological city approach. For instance, in 1992 the OECD Group of Urban Affairs,
approved a large-scale project on The Ecological City, and designated the Project Group
on the ecological city as the main investigator. Challenged by several issues confronting
its member countries, OECD recognized the severe pressures on the urban environment,
accumulated over the years, and started advocating for a new agenda of priorities. Thus,
OECD (1996: 15) emphasized that in order to achieve sustainability, better and more
effective, innovative urban policies had to be implemented:
―Cities in OECD countries are under severe environmental pressures, but face
many problems when trying to improve environmental conditions. Major
5
This report was published in 1996 under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of
the OECD.
9

10. environmental problems in cities in the past were overcome with economies far
less productive, knowledgeable and inventive than ours. Yet very often – and
ours seems to be such a time – problems accumulate and persist for years before
major efforts are made to address them. Urban societies and economies possess
unique capacities for problem-solving that have yet to be applied fully to the
environmental challenges of today.‖
Aware of the favorable conditions for a change in urban policies, the OECD fostered
discussions on the ecological city concept and policies in its member countries, e.g.:
 Australian National Ecological Cities Workshop6 1994 Danish National Report for
the OECD Project on the Ecological City7 ;
 French Report on the Ecological City for the OECD Group on Urban Affairs8 ;
 Norwegian Report on the Ecological City for the OECD Group on Urban Affairs
Project9;
 Swedish Ecological City Report10;
 National Overview Germany11.
Regional Ecological Cities Symposia in New England
From the early and timid beginnings—which stem back in the middle of the
1970s, to the slow but steady growth of interest manifested in the 1980s, and all the way
into the prolific and intense events of the 1990s—the ecological city approach evolved
and branched into an array of theoretical concepts and pragmatic projects. It entered the
6
Held in Brisbane on November 16-19, 1994. See Foulsham and Munday in The
Ecological City. Achieving Reality (1994).
7
See Laursen and Eisling (1994).
8
See Ministry of the Environment, and Ministry of Public Works (1994).
9
See the Norwegian National Overview (1995).
10
See National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (1995).
Presented at the 3rd session of the Project Group on the Ecological City. See Pahl-
11
Weber (1995).
10

11. new millennium with more clearly defined concepts, continuing the efforts consolidated
in the 1990s.
In recent years, driven by the impetus to engage in regional self-assessment
through locally organized ―Ecological Cities,‖ the northeastern corner of the United
States saw a number of regional ecological city symposia of national significance,
focused on issues of eco-city development, e.g.:
 The 2000 ―Ecological Cities‖ Symposium held in Amherst12;
 The 2000 ―Boston Ecological Cities13‖ Symposium; and
 The 2002 ―The Humane Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st Century‖
Symposium14 which celebrated the work of William H. Whyte15, and addressed a
wide range of urban ecological issues including urban livability, open space and
public spaces, interaction of urban and ecological systems, ecological restoration,
green design, green infrastructure, regreening the old neighborhoods, city parks,
urban environmental education, and the green urbanism experience from Europe.
12
Organized and funded by Rutherford Platt, Director of the Ecological Cities Project at
the University of Massachusetts, it focused on the emerging interest in ecological cities
approaches, and underlined the desire to symposia in several metropolitan areas,
including Boston, New York, Chicago, Hartford, and the California Bay Area. The
purpose was to assembly scholars, practitioners and activists from diverse disciplines,
researchers involved with urban ecosystem research, and to discuss new approaches to
preservation and restoration of natural areas and ecological processes within cities,
suburbs and the urban fringes, and to stimulate a national dialogue about urban
ecosystems and what can be done within the already existing American cities.
13
Held on November 10-11, under the local auspices of the Boston College Law School
and Watershed Institute.
14
Organized by Rutherford Platt in collaboration with the NYU Steinhard School of Education and the
Wallerstein Collaborative for Urban Environmental Education.
15
William H. Whyte (1917-1999) is the author of The Organization Man (1956), The
Last Landscape (1968), and City: Rediscovering the Center (1988). As a prominent
analyst and proponent of shared spaces and open land in and around American cities,
Whyte explored the premise that the livability of urban communities relates closely to the
balance of built and unbuilt spaces. He focused on conserving open space on the urban
fringe for farming, outdoor recreation, watershed functions and amenity, as well as on the
11

12. In conclusion, it can be stated that the ecological city (Figure 0-2) represents
more than just a simple theoretical concept. It is an ecological approach applied to cities,
one that requires coherent, integrative, and sustainable strategies. Applying an ecological
definition of sustainability to urban communities might be viewed as an oxymoron
(Greenbie, 1990), especially in the light of the traditional views, according to which
urbanization destroys natural phenomena and processes (Platt, 1994: 11). However, it is
the task of ecological cities to promote urban sustainability –meaning that the city should
be inherently adaptable, characterized by diversity and variety in both natural and built
environments.
social use of shared urban spaces – including streets, parks, plazas and ‗privately owned
public spaces.‘
12

13. Figure 0-2: Ecological Cities: A Shared Vision
(source: Rutherford Platt – Ecological Cities Project, 2002)
13

14. According to Platt (1994: 11-12) urban sustainability can be viewed in two
senses:
―The first concerns the protection and restoration of the remaining biological
phenomena and process within the urban community itself – ―the greening of the
city,‖ in the phrase of Nicholson Lord (1987). In the second sense, urban
sustainability refers to the impact of cities upon the larger terrestrial, aquatic and
atmospheric resources of the biosphere from which they draw sustenance and
upon which they inflict harmful effects. Sustainability in this sense would
involve issues of transportation, energy conservation, air and the water pollution
abatement, material and nutrient recycling, and so forth.‖
The ecological city relies on the concept of ecology – which implies that the
urban system survives by adapting to change—and requires innovation and creative
thinking, which are critical for its design, functionality and evolution. In order to achieve
ecological cities that have a lower ecological footprint16 there is the need for
implementing the ecosystem approach in urban planning, as well as for a combination of
policy instruments, financial, regulatory and strategic tools.
Sustainable Cities Approach
The ―sustainable city‖ approach may be traced back to about 1980, when
heightened environmental awareness and the renewed interest in cities sparkled the
sustainable cities movement.
16
A city should require smaller areas to sustain its level of resource consumption and to
absorb the waste produced in it.
14

15. Origins
The 1987 Brundlandt Report
The idea of promoting sustainable development goes back to the 1987 Report of
the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundlandt
Commission17. According to this report (WCED, 1987: 43)18, the concept of ―sustainable
development‖ refers to:
―development which meets the needs for the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖
Since that time, three main concepts outlined the evolution of this predominantly
European urban approach: ―sustainability,‖ ―sustainable development,‖ and sustainable
cities.‖
Along these lines, Graham Haughton and Colin Hunter (1994: 17), stated that
there are three basic principles that underpin the ―sustainable development‖ concept:
―Principle of inter-generational equity. In considering any human activity, the
effects on the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations
must be considered. This is sometimes also referred to as the principle of futurity.
Principle of social justice. This is concerned with current generations, where
poverty is seen as a prime cause of degradation. Sustainability requires that
control over distribution of resources be more evenly exercised, taking account of
basic needs and common aspirations. Wider participation in environmental
strategies and policies is an integral element of achieving this aim, sometimes also
known as intra-generational equity.
17
The Brundtland Commission was named after its chairman, the Prime Minister of
Norway.
18
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was set up at the
request of the United Nations General Assembly in 1983, as an independent body. It
mandated to evaluate and make recommendations as to the interacting relationships of
environment and economic development in shaping the future of the society from the
perspective of the year 2000 and beyond.
15

16. Principle of transfrontier responsibility. At the broad level, stewardship of global
environment is required. More specifically, transfrontier pollution needs to be
recognized and controlled. Where feasible, the impacts of human activity should
not involve an uncompensated geographical displacement of environmental
problems. Rich nations should not overexploit the resources of other areas,
distorting regional economies and ecosystems. Similarly, the environmental costs
of urban activities should not be displaced across metropolitan boundaries, in
effect subsidizing urban growth.‖
The two authors acknowledge that large-scale political challenges are required when
pursuing the sustainable development philosophy, and suggest the emphasis should lie on
the ecological requirements, which can operate from the local, to the global scale.
The 1987 Our Common Future Report
The publication of the famous Our Common Future report, submitted in 1987 by
the World Commission on Environment and Development to the UN General Assembly,
constituted a cornerstone in the development of the sustainable cities movement. It raised
important issues and warned that immediate measures needed to be taken in order to cope
with the increasing environmental problems. This report was well received by various
governments, international organizations, and by the scientific community. Although
predominantly a political document, focusing largely on the issues of economic growth,
the report provided a comprehensive, well-informed assessment of the critical problems
regarding the natural world and the global resources, and laid down the principles of
sustainable management. It thus opened the doors to new future approaches, advocating
for the implementation of the concepts of ―sustainability‖ and ―sustainable management‖
in every aspect of the social, cultural, political, economical, and environmental
endeavors.
16

17. The 1988 International Congress on Nature, Management and Sustainable Development
One of the immediate responses to this cornerstone report was the organization of
a historic worldwide congress: ―The International Congress on Nature and Management
and Sustainable Development‖, which was held in 1988, in Groningen, the Netherlands.
More than seven hundred participants, distinguished scientists and policy-makers from
forty-three countries (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Central America, South
America) attended the congress. The goals of the congress were summarized by Verwey
(1988: V) in the preface of the 1988 book Nature Management and Sustainable
Development, which stated:
―not only draw attention to the problems and hazards involved, but also, indeed
in particular, to approach these problems in a way in which would avoid doom-
laiden thinking and promote a realistic and constructive attitude.‖
The discussion was mostly non-urban. It focused on the place of nature
management and sustainable development in the policy of the United Nations, of the
(then) European Communities, as well as in the policy of the Netherlands. It
encompassed broad topics covering the management of the atmosphere, climatic change
ad risks in sea level changes, the management of tropical forests and of European forests,
the management of mountain forests in the third world, the management of protected
areas, grasslands and wetlands, the management of the transboundary rivers and seas.
Some of the key issues that pervaded all sessions were highlighted in the conclusions of
the Congress:
 The approaches to sustainable development should be based on considerations of
long-term security, at international, national and community levels;
17

18.  Since the population increases and the over-consumption of the resources is
undermining sustainable developments worldwide, any approaches to sustainable
resource management should therefore include population-resource balance as a
fundamental concern;
 The general public needs to be fully informed about the environmental, economic,
legal, political and commercial implications of sustainable development.
Sustainable Cities
Haughton and Hunter‘s 1994 Sustainable Cities, dealt with the issues of
―sustainability‖ and urban development – concepts built on the growing interest in the
role of cities in the sustainable development process – and examined both the specific
problems of environmental degradation and the contribution cities can make to attaining
global sustainability. They advocate an urban focus on environmental problems, pointing
out that it is at the urban level where many environmental problems arise and where
many environmental problems are experienced most intense.
Haughton and Hunter (1994:12) viewed cities not only as places of environmental
problems but also as ―important cultural environments…the accumulation of different
human-made artifacts in the built environment…where there is a real tension with aspects
of the natural environment ―, and as places with a great potential to be ―more
environmentally friendly than many realize,‖ especially when urban design is well
managed and integrated with nature.
Haughton and Hunter (1994: 27) laid out their own definition for ―sustainable
cities‖ by drawing upon earlier ideas on green cities and urban sustainability pushed
forward by their contemporaries (e.g., Berg, 1990; Breheny, 1990; Leff, 1990; Mayur,
1990):
― A sustainable city is one in which its people and business continuously endeavor
to improve their natural, built and cultural environments at neighborhood and
18

19. regional levels, whilst working in ways which always support the goal of global
sustainable development.‖
According to them, economies and environmental problems become increasingly
international in scope. Given the interdependencies involved in urban growth, economic
development and environmental change, cities can no more be regarded in isolation.
Sustainable cities requires a certain degree of control and management implemented at
different scales— ranging from local, to regional and global—through long-term, well-
defined integrated policies and strategies. Haughton and Hunter‘s (1994) primary thesis
is that sustainable cities can make a major contribution to improving the global
environment. For that reason, they advocate for a fundamental change in the way we
look at cities, and for a comprehensive urban scale analysis in the light of the sustainable
urban management and development strategies.
Smart Growth Approach
Origins: Growth Management Concept
―Smart growth‖ originated in the United States in the late 1960s as part of the
―growth management‖ concept. The term was popularized in the 1970s, and revisited
again in the 1980s and 1990s. The postwar period in the United States was characterized
by rapid change, in the following three ways: (1) demographic change, which involved
both absolute population growth at various scales and a massive geographic redistribution
of households; (2) intra-and interregional migration, with the former chiefly characterized
by the ―white flight‖ from central cities to suburbs, while the latter was characterized by
long-distance moves from the ―frost belt‖ of the Northeast and Middle West census
regions to the South and West; (3) growth of the metropolitan population, with an
increase from 118 million in 1960 to 197.7 million in 1990. Percentage wise, the
19

20. metropolitan proportion of the US population rose from 65.9 percent to nearly 80 percent
(Platt, 1996: 305-306).
These combined postwar forces of change impacted negatively especially ―the
smaller and mostly newer suburban communities [which] were frequently ill-prepared for
[these] changes,‖ and they caused ―traffic congestion, demands for new schools and other
public services, loss of open space and visual amenities – in general an erosion of their
cherished small town atmosphere‖ (Platt, 1996: 306). The need for ―growth
management‖ was sparkled by the rapid postwar changes, and started in the small and
fast growing suburbs in the 1970s:
―Although most had some form of basic zoning and subdivision regulations, they
generally lacked experience in dealing with ‗big city‘ developers. Towns under
25,000 very likely had no professional planning staff and depended on their
volunteer boards, occasionally assisted by an outside consultant, to cope with the
onslaught. It was among these smaller but fast-growing suburban jurisdictions,
especially in the sunbelt states, that the idea of ‗growth management‘ became chic
during the 1970s and early 1980s.‖
Also, Platt (1996: 306-307) points out that growth management might have been
around ―as long as Euclidian zoning, which, at least in theory, ‗manages‘ new urban
growth through limits on land use, bulk, and density,‖ and explains that
―by 1970 there was a growing consensus in many fast growing communities that
neither zoning nor subdivision regulation could address (1) the timing or pace at
which growth was permitted to occur or (2) the ultimate character of the
community when fully developed,‖ as ―urban sprawl,‖ a phrase popularized by
sociologist William H. Whyte (1958; 1968, produced ―wasteful pattern of land
use that encroached on farmland, floodplains, natural areas, and other open
space.‖
As a result, growth management evolved during the early 1970s in a variety of forms
reflecting the lack of any dominating technique or approach.
20

21. Evolution of the Smart Growth Concept
Both smart growth and (the previously discussed) sustainable development pursue
development that is environmentally sensitive, and they contain land development
practices with broad ―ecological‖ consequences for urban communities. According to
Schmitz and Bookout (1998), when used in the context of smart growth, the word
―ecological‖ transcends biology and the relationships among organisms and their
environment. It incorporates other systems that are part of the human environment with
the natural environment, including economic systems, community systems, and social
systems. ―Smart growth and sustainable development are compatible‖, and smart growth
―can be seen as a path to sustainable development‖ (Schmitz and Bookout, 1996: 69).
Within this broader context, Schmitz and Bookout (1998: 69) define ―smart
growth‖ as a comprehensive approach to accommodating development that recognizes
the link between quality of life and patterns and practices of development, and
―Promotes growth and land development that build community, protect
environmental systems, take full advantage of opportunities in brown fields and
the inner city, maximize return on private and public investment, and safeguard
human health.‖
The dominant pattern of land development in the United States in the past 50
years has been low density, single use and suburban. This growth pattern has become
quite controversial, bringing critics and defenders to debate how it affects local fiscal
health, environmental quality, and character of a community, economic growth, and
investment in infrastructure. As a result, public officials, developers and
environmentalists started promoting the concept of ―smart growth‖ (Schmitz and
Bookout, 1998: 68-69). According to them,
―[smart growth] accepts that new housing, businesses and jobs must be
accommodated and that the economy, the community, and the environment must
21

22. be served and fostered in the process‖ and ―may bring …‘prowgrowth‘ and
‗antigrowth‘ together with a common agenda of community well-being, economic
prosperity, and environmental protection.‖
Interestingly, in the past two decades the two terms ―smart growth‖ and ―growth
management‖ are used almost interchangeably. Growth management is nowadays
referred to as smart growth, and has evolved gradually in different stages: from its
emphasis on preserving environmental resources by setting limits to new development in
the 1960s, to the more broadly focused planning and governmental approach aimed at
supporting and coordinating the development process. In The Limitless City, Gilham
(2002: 156) defines ―smart growth‖ as:
―managed growth that attempts to fulfill the need to provide for growth (both
economic and in population) while at the same time limiting the undesirable
impacts of growth.‖
Gilham views smart growth measures as offering an array of promising ways to
change the pattern of urban development in the United States (2002: 160), and
summarizes the smart growth approach as:
―a term that has grown out of growth management initiatives undertaken across
the country from the late 1960s into the 1980s. The unbridled growth of the
1990s brought new urgency to issues posed by suburbanization, and a wide array
of groups has banded together under the burgeoning smart growth movement,
which was built upon the growth management techniques from earlier decades.
Yet, smart growth remains a wide umbrella, and different groups carry different
agendas within the movement.‖
Initially developed as a reaction to what was perceived as the negative impacts of
urban sprawl, or of highly dispersed development patterns that characterized the previous
half century, the ―smart growth‖ concept targets to eradicate many of the problems that
have been previously targeted to be solved by the previous urban planning approaches.
Gilham (2002) explains that in the United States, by the 1990s there were a
number of factors at work that triggered the search for new approaches to urban
22

23. development. These include the increasing overall national affluence, continuous
population growth, technological change, and growth of car ownership that takes
advantage of both the world‘s largest highway system and low taxes on vehicles and
gasoline, as well as government policies that rewarded suburbs and penalized cities—
including the federal mortgage insurance programs that promoted new housing on
outlying land rather than repair existing city housing. Additional factors include tax
deductions for mortgage interest, zoning codes and regulations—all of which reinforce
low-density housing in the suburbs by requiring large lots and thus increasing the number
of affluent tax payers—and the fear of crime in the inner city neighborhoods, which was
reinforced by the social pathologies of public housing. All these factors have favored and
accelerated the rapid and unplanned land developments and encouraged urban expansion
in the form of mostly unplanned dispersed urban development depicted as ―urban sprawl‖
(Gilham, 2002).
In the United States the sprawl phenomenon has spiraled out of proportion, and it
is no longer equated just with a type of dispersed development, but rather with an
unstoppable, unsustainable, ‗not so smart‘ type of development. This kind of
development is characterized by large, separate zones for residences, shops and
businesses, pattern which leads to worse congestion, escalating tax rates, disinvestments
in older communities and the consumption of open space. The widespread concerns
about urban sprawl have unleashed a wave of innovation, including smart growth
initiatives and tools that range from creative economic incentives, to new construction
technologies, rewritten building and zoning codes, sophisticated marketing and
demographic forecasting techniques. Thus, by the early1990s, there was a strong demand
23

24. for new or revised concepts and policies that could deal with these problems in a more
integrated way.
In the United States, the smart growth approach was revisited and refined in the
early 1990s. It can be argued that ―smart growth‖ (represents the American approach to
green urban planning and development, and at the same time (Figure 4-3) one of the
green urbanism developments. However, it is important to add that American smart
growth is neither largely implemented, nor nationally coordinated by the federal
government. It is rather promoted by independent organizations and planning agencies
that have recently come together to form a network. This situation appears to stem from
a number of substantial differences between European nations and the United States,
including
 different types of government—federal government in the US versus strongly
centralized governments in many European countries;
 different legal and administrative frameworks and financial laws;
 different perceptions of the urban land—with urban land perceived as an
inexhaustible resource in the US versus the perception of urban land as a scarce and
highly valued resource in Europe;
 different types of planning—with most European countries having strong national
planning systems, while US does not have national planning;
 different degree of trust in planning and planners—largely speaking, planning is
perceived negatively in the US, while planning is largely accepted as a necessity in
most European countries;
 different property rights laws, and other factors; and
 lack of a broad-scale national or regional vision of smart growth in the United States.
What characterize smart growth are not necessarily the elements it focuses on, but
rather the manner in which it combines its three main components—economy,
24

25. community and the environment—into a more cohesive theoretical formulation.
According to the Smart Growth Network (2002: i) the concept is defined as follows:
―Smart growth is development that serves the economy, community and the
environment. It provides a framework for communities to make informed
decisions about how and where to grow. Smart growth makes it possible for
communities to grow in ways that support economic development and jobs; create
strong neighborhoods with a range of housing, commercial and transportation
options; and achieve healthy communities that provide families with a clean
environment.‖
In addition, smart growth advocates suggest that this integrated approach to urban
development could bring solutions to a number of problems that affect the quality of
urban life. By addressing a wide range of quality of life issues—that became
increasingly significant not only for all American urban communities and dwellers, but
also for local and state policy makers, planners, and developers—smart growth
proponents hope to rally support to their cause and advance a better urban life. If their
claim is totally valid it is up to the future to show its real life implications.
Briefly, smart growth aims to:
 encourage compact forms of urban development, both commercial and residential,
and to promote integrated land uses;
 reduce air and water pollution, by promoting and encouraging more efficient patterns
of development that maximize mass transit and reduce the need for automobile use;
 enhance economic competitiveness by reversing the trend of isolated, concentrated
poverty in urban inner cores though a variety of revisions and changes.
Americans are consuming more land than ever before, thus creating a situation
with tremendous implications for the future that in order to solve, will require both a
thorough analysis of previous patterns of urban development and a revision of future
policies. For instance, during the last decades of the twentieth century, Americans
developed land three times faster then the country grew as a nation. Between 1982 and
25

26. 1997, the amount of urbanized land used for development increased by 45 percent, from
approximately 51 million acres in 1982 to 76 million acres in 1997. During this same
period, however, population grew by only 17 percent. This means that the United Stated
consumes land for urban development in an ―unwise‖ or ―non-smart‖ fashion that needs
to be urgently addressed through an integrative, broader, coordinated approach, such as
the ―smart growth.‖ To do this, United States would need the political will and a
supportive legal, administrative, and fiscal framework that would favor national or at
least regional planning (Smart Growth, 2002).
26

27. ―Smart growth is development that serves the economy, community and the
environment. It provides a framework for communities to make informed decisions about
how and where to grow. Smart growth makes it possible for communities to grow in
ways that support economic development and jobs; create strong neighborhoods with a
range of housing, commercial and transportation options; and achieve healthy
communities that provide families with a clean environment.‖
-Smart Growth Network (2002: I)
―Smart growth is a term that has grown out of growth management initiatives
undertaken across the country from the late 1960s into the 1980s. The unbridled growth
of the 1990s brought new urgency to issues posed by suburbanization, and a wide array
of groups has banded together under the burgeoning smart growth movement, which was
built upon the growth management techniques from earlier decades. Yet, smart growth
remains a wide umbrella, and different groups carry different agendas within the
movement.‖
-Oliver Gilham: The Limitless City. A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate
(2002: 160)
Figure 0-3: Definitions of Smart Growth
27

28. This rapid land consumption and pattern of growth is believed to be due in large
part to consumer demand, but some of it also due to non-market incentives, such as
zoning and tax breaks that encourage larger homes (Smart Growth Network, 2002: 9).
Theoretically, smart growth‘s main goal is to avoid such patterns and create vibrant,
healthy, diverse, livable, more compact urban centers. It actually promotes a ―smarter‖
pattern of development that could sustain an overall better quality of life, reduce land
consumption, preserve open spaces, decrease urban sprawl, protect the environment,
wildlife, wetlands and watersheds, reduce services and support a stronger economic
development. These goals point to the fact that smart growth encapsulates many of the
principles and tenets put forward by other green urbanism approaches previously
discussed in this chapter. However, the problem with the ―smart growth‖ approach in the
United States seems to be the lack of implementation of smart growth principles at wider
scale. The strong market forces, combined with private interests and land ownership
rights, to mention just three of the main ―break factors‖, seem to impact negatively many
of the local and/or regional decisions regarding ―smarter‖ developments. Hence, while
smart growth seems to have evolved into a more sophisticated and broader theoretical
concept, it still lacks the tools and general framework to implement it into practice.
Ten principles of smart growth are summarized in Figure 0-4. They provide not
only the conceptual framework for the smart growth approach, but they also provide a
better understanding of the goals and tenets of smart growth. They point to the steady
efforts made to implement a more sustainable, better way of coping with urban
development and its consequences, and suggest that while the implementation of a broad
smart growth strategy is possible, it is also true that achieving smart growth is going to be
28

29. different in each community. In any case, one distinct feature of smart growth appears to
be its emphasis on integration, its goal to combine the economic, environmental and
community interests into one, long-term cohesive, integrated approach.
Like their predecessors concerned with the patterns of urban development and the
quality of life in the urban centers, the promoters of the smart growth concept and its
policies acknowledged the severe problems facing the American communities
everywhere. In 1996, they came together to form the Smart Growth Network, which is
now a broad coalition of 32 organizations that support smart growth strategies. This
recently formed network consists of private, public and non-governmental partner
organizations seeking to create smart growth at various scales of resolution ranging from
neighborhoods, towns, cities, and regions across the United States. A review of the
partners in this network suggests on one hand the large interest raised by smart growth
approaches, and, on the other hand, the complex array of issues that smart growth hopes
to improve.
29

30. 1. Promote mix land uses – commercial, residential, recreational, educational, and others
– in neighborhoods or places that are accessible by bike and foot;
2. Implement a more compact morphological pattern of development that leaves
undeveloped land open to absorb and filter rainwater, reduce flooding and storm
water drainage, and helps achieve the density of population needed to support viable
transportation alternatives;
3. Provide quality housing and a range of housing choices to accommodate the housing
needs of all residents and advance the idea of accessibility to work and place of
residence;
4. Advocate for walkable communities and pedestrian friendly features, including
sidewalks, as well as an appropriate mix of densities and uses, compact street
intersections, and the construction of small-scale neighborhoods;
5. Create distinctive, attractive, functional communities with a strong sense of place,
which should not only respond to basic housing or commercial needs, but also help
foster a sense of civic pride and community cohesion;
6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas;
7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities, in particular the
urban core and first-ring suburbs which were abandoned for the newer, low-density,
dispersed developments on the urban fringe;
8. Provide a variety of transportation options – an essential key of smart growth which
aims to improve the already overwhelmed transportation system, to reduce traffic
congestion, and improve the quality of everyday life for every dweller;
9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective, with the
acknowledgement that private sector is crucial to supplying the large amounts of
money and construction expertise needed to meet the growing demand for smart
growth developments;
10. Encourage community and stake holder collaboration in development decisions,
through periodic public hearings and consultations on planning or zoning decisions;
Figure 0-4: Ten Critical Principles of Smart Growth
(source: Smart Growth Network, 2002)
30

31. Green Urbanism Approaches In Europe
This section outlines the particular features of the European Green Urbanism,
linking a number of issues that have confronted European cities with some of the
solutions, approaches and policies to solving them. Initially, a brief historical review of
the various challenges that Europe has constituted the cradle for the twentieth century
green urbanism planning to the twentieth century European urban problems is presented
along with the argument ideas, concepts and policies. This is followed with a discussion
around the European Union spatial policies and the context in which they were shaped.
Finally, there is a discussion of the significance of European sustainable cities.
Fundamental global, regional and national changes in the economy, technology,
demography, politics, and environment are reshaping urban places all over the world, a
process that has accelerated in the last decades of the twentieth century. As the global
market becomes increasingly more competitive and complex, different geographic
regions and countries are compelled to respond to both the global forces and the regional
and national forces, in accordance with their specific inherited framework.
The European continent has responded to these challenging global and regional
transformations in its own specific manner, by trying to preserve its inherited features and
patterns, on one hand, and by trying to open up and be an active and integral part of the
global market, on the other hand. Furthermore, competition among European cities has
been promoted by processes of globalization, European integration, informationalization
and the opening-up of Eastern Europe (Van den Berg, Braun and Van der Meer, 1998: 5).
These processes have accelerated in the past decade or so, and led to significant
economic, social and technological modifications of the urban structures at various scales
31

32. of resolution. These rapid changes also brought along a change in the way different
national governments view and support their spatial and urban development and planning
processes. As a response to the various challenges facing European cities at the end of the
twentieth century in their search for finding solutions to the urban dilemma, came the
realization that city governments cannot cope by themselves. Their challenges demand a
joint effort of different layers of government, other public institutions and private sectors.
(Van den Berg, Braun and Van der Meer, 1998: 7).
In other words, the necessity of approaching urban planning and urban
development in a longer-term, more integrated, sustainable manner received increasing
attention, and was materialized, in many European countries, in a sustained effort to
introduce new urban concepts and national policies that would meet not only the internal
challenges, but also the external ones posed by an increasing globalized world. Not only
were the various European governments open to embrace new ideas and strategies
regarding their cities – including the green urbanism or sustainable cities approaches - but
they were also the ones that supported them politically and financially.
Taking up the theme of the Western European search for finding solutions to
urban problems, R. H. Williams (1996: 204) reminds us that in order to provide a basis
for identifying issues, several studies have been undertaken into urban problems in the
European Union and into the comparability of urban data from different member-states.
In order to illustrate the difficulty of the task, Williams points to one detailed study done
by Cheshire and Hay at the end of the 1980s. Their study produced the concept of the
functional urban region based on the analysis of a wide set of data, meticulously collected
from every city over 330,000 people, within 12 European Union countries. Later, efforts
32

33. were channeled towards creating new urban concepts, new urban policies, and integration
of cities into their regional and national contexts, all with the goal of finding solutions to
the urban problems in various European cities.
The European Union, as the most urbanized region in the world, with 79 percent
of the total population in 1992 living in urban areas (CEC, 1994), has, since the early
1990s, adopted and pursued an explicit spatial policy and planning agenda that aims to
achieve a more balanced urban spatial development in each of the member countries.
Consequently, since the early 1990s, the European Union has a common spatial planning
policy, or, in other words, a common town and country planning policy19.
It is essential, at this point, to introduce the conceptual framework regarding the
spatial planning terminology. According to Williams (1996: 7), the word spatial is used
to express:
―a focus on the location and distribution of activity within the territory or space of
Europe.‖
In addition, Wilson (1996, 7) also gives a broad definition of spatial policy:
―any policy designed to influence locational and land-use decisions, or the
distribution of activities, at any spatial scale from that of local land-use planning
to the regional, national and supranational scales.‖
Wilson (1996: 10) also states the significance of an international terminology20,
and specifies that the term spatial planning is a general Euro English21 concept, which
19
The Treaty on European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty, includes references in
the English text to town and country planning, the equivalent text in other languages
being an exact translation of the term spatial planning (Williams, 1996: 3).
20
See R. H. Wilson‘s book European Union and Spatial Policy and Planning (1996: 57-
62) for a very interesting discussion of problems associated with the worldwide use of the
English language, translation issues and terminology.
33

34. should be understood as the equivalent for the British town and country planning, or,
more specifically as the concept that defines the process of:
―planning the spatial or territorial location of activities and physical development
at any or all spatial scales, from the building precinct (for which formal and
legally binding plans are required under some member-states‘ spatial planning
systems, for instance the German Bebauungsplan and the Dutch
bestemmingsplan), to that of regions, nations, and Europe as a whole. Spatial
planning is in fact an exact translation of the German Raumplanung and comes
close the sense of the French amenagement du territoire.‖
What is fundamental for our discussion on European Green Urbanism is the
acknowledgement that Western Europe, unlike any other region of the world, has
managed to come together not only for economical and fiscal reasons under the umbrella
of the European Union, but also for spatial and urban goals led by the European planning
community. Thus, since the 1990s, there is possible to identify a European planning
community, consisting of a network of people who are interconnected through an
exchange of ideas and other informal links. These exchanges occurs through the
functions of local planning authorities and firms, by participation in Council of Europe
activities or EU lobbying and networking programs, or through taking an active role in
planning associations (Wilson, 1996: 11).
In his book 1996 entitled European Union Spatial Policy and Planning, R. H.
Wilson dedicates a whole chapter to the historical development of spatial policy
development, and argues that chronologically, the European Union spatial planning
policy has evolved, since the 1950s, successively, in a period of time subdivided into five
time periods, and has incorporated the changes brought about by the changing structure
21
According to Wilson (1996: 10), the term Euro English is defined as the use of English
words to convey non-British ideas and concepts, which is used constantly in the context
of EU affairs, and is an essential medium for the discussion of planning in a pan-
European framework.
34

35. of the European Union, marked by its successive enlargements. What follows constitutes
a summary of the main spatial planning chronological stages highlighted by Wilson
(1996: 65-90).
Stage One was marked by the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and included agriculture and
transport as the key policy sectors with a spatial significance, with no clear regional
policy yet in place.
Stage Two was marked by the 1970s and the first enlargement, with Denmark,
Ireland and the United Kingdom joining the European Union. As a result, two main
components of the spatial policy were added: regional policy – which dates back to the
Paris Summit of October 1972, and environmental policy – which is directly associated
with the accession of the United Kingdom in 1973.
Stage Three occurred in the early 1980s, when Greece was welcomed aboard, at a
time when the EU spatial structure and greatly increased disparities provided the stimuli
for the development of the idea of a spatial policy framework for Europe as a whole.
During this significant stage, fundamental steps of longer-term significance were taken in
the development of the European Union spatial policy, which came in the form of
conceptual thinking, as well as through the introduction of new policy instruments and
the adaptation of the already existing ones. During the later 1970s and early 1980s, many
local and regional authorities in several countries were developing policies for urban
economic development, and many local industrial estates, access roads, factory
conversions and new factory building projects were undertaken as part of local authority
economic development programs.
35

36. Stage Four occurred in the 1990s, a period marked by two significant events: the
German reunification in October 1990, and the European summit at Maastricht in
December 1991 – which approved the Treaty on European Union, as well as by the
changes in Central and Eastern Europe and the prospects of an eastward enlargement.
The consequences of the German reunification, for instance, went beyond issues
concerning German institutional and political changes; they had considerable spatial
implications for both Germany and the European Union, confronted not only the with the
incorporation of a new territory, but also with the reality of environmental and economic
legacy of the centrally planned economies. The 1991 Maastricht Treaty had major
impacts on spatial planning: a) it expanded the scope of the European Union policy by
amending the treaty to create an European Union competence in spatial planning; b) it
included references to ‗town and country planning‘ in the environment title, Article 130s
– which while in its British sense id does not equate with spatial policy, the equivalent
text in the French and German versions comes very close to doing so; c) it increased
emphasis on economic and social cohesion; d) it reinvigorated the European transport
policy; e) it enhanced environment powers; f) it increased funding; and, perhaps, most
significantly g) it clearly identified European Union Spatial policy as one of the priority
concerns.
Stage Five occurred in 1995 and it is identified as the fourth enlargement, which
basically took two main directions: northwards and eastwards. This stage was of great
significance in relation to both the changing spatial structure of the European Union, and
to the evolving spatial planning policy.
36

37. To summarize, the chronological development of the European Union spatial
policy is a reflection of the changes in its overall spatial structure. It is also the outcome
of a specific ―thinking European‖ philosophy that permeates the spatial planning ideas
and policies, one that incorporates a whole range of European features and aspirations
ranging form the physical-spatial patterns to the social-cultural features, and to the
economic and political development dimensions as well. In addition, the European
Union spatial planning policy draws extensively upon the experience of the member
countries, each of them with their own national spatial plans and policies, and their own
specific planning philosophy stemming from their respective specific geographical
realms. The goal of the European Union is to integrate a number of ideas that come out
of national, supranational, transnational, and regional studies, and ensure their
implementation at different spatial scales.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Europe, and in particular the western
half of Europe, has represented a flourishing cradle for green urbanism ideas, concepts,
philosophies, tools, strategies and policies. These ideas evolved around a greener, more
positive, smarter way of thinking about urban development in general. This greener
outlook on urban development and planning has evolved around the early twentieth
century garden cities and green belts concepts, and, later around the ecological cities
concepts, and more recently around the end of the twentieth century green or sustainable
cities.
The reason Europe has both fostered and pushed for greener urban philosophies
and policies since the beginning of the 2oth century seems to be obvious. The argument
includes the temporal threshold that divided the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which
37

38. culminated with the disastrous effects of the industrial era on the cities and metropolitan
regions of the time, and which, in turn, launched a serious search for solutions to the
urban, economic, environmental and social problems. Since Ebenezer Howard and his
followers raised the issue of planning and building a better, greener, more equitable city
for the urban dwellers of his time the issue of tackling and finding solutions to the
increasing urban problems was forever altered.
38

39. 39