Promoting Sustainable Living, by Justyna Karakiewicz

promoting sustainable livingSuburbia is not a sustainable pattern of living. Too much transport is involved, too much land and energy. A more sustainable way of life will mean settlements with greater density, but that’s not what most of us want. We’re still pretty wedded to the semi-detached house with a garden. People can’t be talked into wanting something else, hectored into high-rises. So how do we make sustainability an object of desire?

That’s the challenge Justyna Karakiewicz considers in her book Promoting Sustainable Living, and she does so by leafing back through the history books to see how the idea of the suburbs was sold in the first place.

The suburbs have not always been with us. They were created, and they were promoted. People didn’t initially want them, and a considerable marketing effort was required to change our aspirations. That’s something of an untold story, and an interesting one.

We know what cities were like in the 19th century – overcrowded, dirty and unhealthy. Reformers such as George Cadbury and the Lever brothers began to experiment with planned communities for their workers, places that were bright and spacious, with gardens and leisure facilities within walking distance of work and home. Ebenezer Howard came up with the garden city, and low-density housing began to go mainstream: in this best of both worlds, you could live in your own home in the countryside but still get to work in the city.

The main investors in these new suburbs were the railway companies, who recognised that if people lived outside the city, they’d need to take the train every day. It was a massive business opportunity, and they threw their weight behind it. But early suburbs took a long time to fill. People weren’t sure that they wanted them.

There were two cultural obstacles at the time: country living, and the railway. Urbanisation had been relatively recent, and country living had associations of grinding poverty. And we may romanticise the steam trains of the past, but the railways weren’t seen positively either. The Victorian railway-building boom had been hugely disruptive. Communities had been divided and people turfed out of their homes – “37,000 people were displaced in London between 1859 and 1867”.

Karakiewicz has been through the archives of the London Transport Museum to see how the suburbs were advertised – emphasizing green space and leisure, wide empty streets free of the city’s crowds. Though what was on offer was mostly the British semi-detached model of housing, posters showed villas in their own spacious gardens. It was “a chance of a better life: one that approximated the life of the upper classes.” The suburbs became aspirational, and so they remain.

The second half of the book takes these lessons and begins to apply them to our current context. Just as you couldn’t sell the suburbs and the commute directly, so efforts to sell sustainability have gained little traction – people aren’t motivated by renewable energy or lower transport needs. Recycling more is not aspirational.

One of the book’s biggest contributions is some original research into what people do actually want, when it comes to choosing where to live. When asked, student-age Australians expressed a preference for walkable communities, with facilities nearby, and a stimulating, safe and pleasant environment. But since city living is expensive, and people don’t like apartments, the suburbs still serve as a kind of default aspiration. Karakiewicz goes on to demonstrate that when they were shown well-designed mixed density urban neighbourhoods, students often changed their minds and said they would like to live their after all.

“Throughout history our first eight thousand years of cities were designed as walking cities” Karakiewicz points out, “with everything available within walking distance. But during the last one hundred years everything changed when cities were designed not for pedestrians but for cars.” We know how to build walkable cities again, developments that are more sustainable and that are great places to live. The bigger challenge is to change the culture, showing people that higher density urban living doesn’t need to mean overcrowding. The book profiles a number of examples, including Singapore and some of the most recent eco-cities being built in China and the Emirates.

Along the way, there are insights into how consumerism developed, including a fascinating profile of Josiah Wedgewood and how he made pottery aspirational. Contributing authors Angela Paladino and Audrey Yue discuss the psychology of sustainability and consumerism.

Karakiewicz is a professor of urban design at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the book is focused on Australian attitudes to housing. It’s not exclusively Australian by any means, and most of the historical aspects are British, but it would be interesting to compare results if the surveys were repeated in Britain. I’d also caution that it’s aimed more at an academic readership than a general one. It is a bit technical at times and sometimes goes off on a tangent. But if you’re working on new urbanism, or interested in communicating sustainability, there’s plenty here to think about.

  • I’ve got a spare copy of Promoting Sustainable Living. If you’d like it, drop me a line at jeremy@makewealthhistory.org and I’ll send it your way.

Tags: ,

5 Comments on “Promoting Sustainable Living, by Justyna Karakiewicz”

  1. Dichasium June 13, 2015 at 5:35 pm #

    See the point Jeremy. Wouldn’t like it to be like those boxes you see in some part of China, of course. And on a different point, outside of surburbia but, in the country, there’s still substantial areas with the opportunity of self-sufficiency on community scales, isn’t there?

    • Jeremy Williams June 17, 2015 at 8:53 am #

      There are rural contexts where full self-sufficiency is possible, but not many – they’re more likely to be places set up with that in mind, rather than existing places making a transition towards that.

      The big challenge is that over half the world’s population lives in cities, the first time that’s been true in human history. That percentage is likely to increase, so creating sustainable cities is a real priority.

      But yes, there is a balance to strike when it comes to density. The book recognises that the suburbs are unsustainable, but few people want to live in towers. They argue instead for medium density, which makes walkable cities that still allow people to have homes and gardens if they want them.

      • Dichasium June 18, 2015 at 9:14 am #

        Thanks. Thinking in extraordinary long terms, cities remind me of the ‘Prodigal Son’ story. We’ll see, but, probably not in my life-time or yours. Or, maybe it could work as an idea WHEN we start seriously thinking about humanity
        globally, rather than, me, my family, my community, my nation, as seperate entities.

        • Dichasium June 25, 2015 at 9:06 am #

          Jeremy ‘The big challenge is that over half the world’s population lives in cities’ –
          I thought: Why do people go to cities? (I expect originally we congregated around rivers with good surrounding soil). At the top end we have wealth and where there’s wealth there are usually some crumbs for those without the means to support themselves. Where there’s wealth from the cities we often need entertainment and excitement (no doubt due to boredom and/or exhaustion), and then much of their consequences, along with the easy transmission of germs and other disease from high density living. And this, even in medium density. Wealth can solve many issues but often they are issues brought about due to the desire to accumulate much wealth in the first place. So, I’m thinking Jeremy, it seems cities could be an anathema and a nemesis for humans, and for Make Wealth History. What do you think?

          And BTW, surely, eventually as population grows, city expands into surburbia, to country, to the hills and so on?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Book review: Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot | Make Wealth History - June 23, 2015

    […] One photo shows Mexico City sprawling across a series of hillsides. (I don’t want to nick it, but go and look at it here and come back). From the height of the photo I found myself imagining the density of human population that entails. Then I wondered what it would take to provide for such a community, in food and water and infrastructure. And every one of those people would prefer to be living in more comfortable, more suburban environments no doubt. Where is the space going to come from to provide that, if lower density housing remains our aspiration? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: