GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE:
interview with
GREGORY HODKINSON,
CHAIRMAN OF ARUP GROUP
04/12/14
When the Anglo-Danish engineer Sir Ove Nyquist Arup founded the engineering company Arup & Arup Ltd in 1938, it was the first step in the eventual creation of a global, multidisciplinary firm embracing engineering, urban planning and design.
Arup now operates across several continents, and has had a long association with Australia, including a central role in the structural engineering and design of the Sydney Opera House. It's currently responsible for the structural and facade engineering of the three International Towers currently under construction at Barangaroo in Sydney, designed by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, as well as being closely involved in the Sydney Light Rail project, whose construction began in April 2015, the Canberra Light Rail scheme, and the now completed Gold Coast Light Rail, or G:link.
In April 2014, Australian Gregory Hodkinson was appointed Global Chairman of the Arup Group. At his London office, Hamish Robertson spoke to Mr Hodkinson about his vision for the company, at a time of growing concern about climate change, population growth, atmospheric pollution and near intolerable levels of traffic congestion in many cities around the world.
HR Many people think of an engineering company as specialising in concrete and steel, in big infrastructure projects, but your company is more than that - in fact, isn't it re-imagining the future?
GH I think we did start probably as a firm specialising in concrete and steel, and to a certain extent big infrastructure projects, although Ove was a fan of mid century modernist architecture, and one of the things he saw himself doing was supporting modern architects in realising their dreams for buildings. But pretty quickly we started to broaden our activities into a range of other professional disciplines relevant to the built environment, and so today, in addition to engineers of every discipline, civil, structural and mechanical, electrical and telecommunications and lighting and all the other things you might think of in terms of engineering, we also do urban planning; we have an architecture practice, we do resilient work for cities, we do a certain amount of management advisory work, particularly in the built environment, we have an economics planning activity, and so we're a broadly multi-disciplinary firm working on matters relating to the built environment.
HR And you're also meeting the challenge of climate change, of resource depletion, of the reduction of bio-diversity - a whole range of inter-related issues, under the overall heading of "Green Infrastructure".
GH Yes, we are - you know, I think at this time it's clear that the world is confronting a number of significant challenges: climate change is one of them, resource depletion, as you mentioned, is another: with that, and connected to both, is the need to shift our energy sources, and the rate of urbanisation is making it imperative to plan, design, build and operate cities that are liveable, functional, economically useful and socially interactive, and resilient to both natural and man-made effects.
HR Well, of course, since 2007 about half the global population is now living in cities, and that trend is going to increase over the next few decades: this means that with increasing population pressure, increasing traffic congestion, traffic pollution, there are some very difficult, hard challenges to meet - how can "Green Infrastructure" and its related approaches help to deal with these challenges?
GH Yes, well the challenge is there, and of course, as you know, it's more of a challenge than that because although it's now a bit more than half the world's population living in cities, most demographers suggest that it's going to be about three quarters by 2050, and three quarters of a number that's almost fifty per cent larger than the current populations, and this is a totally unprecedented - not just rate, but also scale of urbanisation - particularly concentrated in the developing world, and especially in China and India and to a certain extent Indonesia - in other words, the countries with the largest populations, but completely unprecedented in human history. On top of that, when we get to 2050, most demographers forecast that the population at that point levels off. And this is the idea that with development and wealth at some point family size drops, and so on.
HR So we reach a kind of equilibrium point where the population of the globe stabilises, let's say, at around nine billion - that's still a lot of people!
GH Stabilises at around nine billion, and stabilises around 75 or 80 per cent of that nine billion. So, a couple of challenges there - one, we've never confronted anything of that scale in that sort of time frame - the world has never done it, or anything like it, frankly, and secondly, we've got a one-off opportunity - not only opportunity - obligation - to accommodate that development in a way that's going to be successful - and I'll come back to Green Infrastructure - and that has to happen in about a generation. So the current generation, and the next one coming into the professions, let's say, and this is not just a professional problem, it's a problem for all of mankind, frankly, has this opportunity and obligation to design liveable and functional cities, including expanding and re-engineering existing cities to accommodate this massive urban population. And interestingly, another challenge will be post this period, where the world is geared up to deliver urbanisation at that scale, it'll no longer need it, and there'll be a problem for generations to come - what does the industry, the urban industry do then, because it'll be too big.
GH Yes, well the challenge is there, and of course, as you know, it's more of a challenge than that because although it's now a bit more than half the world's population living in cities, most demographers suggest that it's going to be about three quarters by 2050, and three quarters of a number that's almost fifty per cent larger than the current populations, and this is a totally unprecedented - not just rate, but also scale of urbanisation - particularly concentrated in the developing world, and especially in China and India and to a certain extent Indonesia - in other words, the countries with the largest populations, but completely unprecedented in human history. On top of that, when we get to 2050, most demographers forecast that the population at that point levels off. And this is the idea that with development and wealth at some point family size drops, and so on.
HR So we reach a kind of equilibrium point where the population of the globe stabilises, let's say, at around nine billion - that's still a lot of people!
GH Stabilises at around nine billion, and stabilises around 75 or 80 per cent of that nine billion. So, a couple of challenges there - one, we've never confronted anything of that scale in that sort of time frame - the world has never done it, or anything like it, frankly, and secondly, we've got a one-off opportunity - not only opportunity - obligation - to accommodate that development in a way that's going to be successful - and I'll come back to Green Infrastructure - and that has to happen in about a generation. So the current generation, and the next one coming into the professions, let's say, and this is not just a professional problem, it's a problem for all of mankind, frankly, has this opportunity and obligation to design liveable and functional cities, including expanding and re-engineering existing cities to accommodate this massive urban population. And interestingly, another challenge will be post this period, where the world is geared up to deliver urbanisation at that scale, it'll no longer need it, and there'll be a problem for generations to come - what does the industry, the urban industry do then, because it'll be too big.
HR That question of size is crucial, isn't it, because if western, OECD countries have problems of congestion, over population, look at a place like India, where in 1974 - I mean the population was 600 million - it's now doubled that, it's now 1.2, pushing up to 1.3 billion, and India is still years behind China in dealing with these issues: looking at that particular country, are you optimistic, cautiously optimistic, that they can get a handle on this?
GH Well I think we have to be optimistic, because the alternative is unthinkable, really. I think the Chinese are doing a very good job. Recently I had the opportunity to visit Shenzhen, which was one of Deng Xiaoping's nominated major city developments, and I think in the course of twenty five years or so that's gone from being an insignificant fishing village to a city in excess of ten million people. And not just a big city all of a sudden, but a city that's planned, and a city that functions, a city that has a business community that works, a city that has a social infrastructure that works, the transport infrastructure is being increasingly developed, the relationship between land use and transport is sensible and sensitive, and, you know, it's becoming a resource sensible and sensitive city as well. So I think the Chinese in many respects are showing the way - out of necessity. Now, they have the luxury, if you like, of having a directive ability, because of their social and political structures, to get things done that the Indians don't have, but I think, frankly, we've got to think that that capacity can be developed in India, because if it can't, it'll be disastrous. The recently elected government in India is showing signs of taking this very seriously, they have plans for urban development, they're moving towards a strategic plan for "intelligent cities" or "smart cities", or smart and green cities. They're still discussing the definition of that, and perhaps the plan for the country, and there's thinking there at the higest levels in India, and I've got to be optimistic that they can do things there too.
HR China, of course, has embraced the concept of the Garden City, which was first pioneered by Ebenezer Howard in the late 19th century. However, his vision was probably rather different from the one that the Chinese are now adopting, given changing technology and the need to integrate, as you say, all these various aspects of Green Infrastructure into city planning.
GH Well I think we have to be optimistic, because the alternative is unthinkable, really. I think the Chinese are doing a very good job. Recently I had the opportunity to visit Shenzhen, which was one of Deng Xiaoping's nominated major city developments, and I think in the course of twenty five years or so that's gone from being an insignificant fishing village to a city in excess of ten million people. And not just a big city all of a sudden, but a city that's planned, and a city that functions, a city that has a business community that works, a city that has a social infrastructure that works, the transport infrastructure is being increasingly developed, the relationship between land use and transport is sensible and sensitive, and, you know, it's becoming a resource sensible and sensitive city as well. So I think the Chinese in many respects are showing the way - out of necessity. Now, they have the luxury, if you like, of having a directive ability, because of their social and political structures, to get things done that the Indians don't have, but I think, frankly, we've got to think that that capacity can be developed in India, because if it can't, it'll be disastrous. The recently elected government in India is showing signs of taking this very seriously, they have plans for urban development, they're moving towards a strategic plan for "intelligent cities" or "smart cities", or smart and green cities. They're still discussing the definition of that, and perhaps the plan for the country, and there's thinking there at the higest levels in India, and I've got to be optimistic that they can do things there too.
HR China, of course, has embraced the concept of the Garden City, which was first pioneered by Ebenezer Howard in the late 19th century. However, his vision was probably rather different from the one that the Chinese are now adopting, given changing technology and the need to integrate, as you say, all these various aspects of Green Infrastructure into city planning.
GH Yes indeed, and when I said the Chinese in many ways are leading the charge in this direction, I have in front of me a book that's recently been published by Dalian University of Science and Technology - the book's in Chinese, as you can see, but it's entitled something approximating "Low Carbon Ecological Space - Rethinking the Multidimensional Approach to Urban Planning". And this is taking the Garden City idea to the next level again - in other words, it's not just about green urban environments, but it's about urban environments that make a circular use of resources. So waste becomes a resource, and resource becomes waste in a circular way, and so on, and I've got to say that the thinking embodied in this Chinese work is at a very progressive level, and is moving very rapidly. For example, the book that I'm showing you, happens to be authored by my colleague Mr Stanley Yip. Stanley is now working on his next book, because these models of urban development in China are moving so quickly - the thinking is progressing and progressive. So I'm quite optimistic about the ability, certainly in China, to move towards a sustainable - and I use that term broadly, you know, thinking not just about the environmental impacts, but also the economic and social ones - a sustainable model for urban development, and some of that thinking I know from various initiatives I've seen underway through international groups and bilateral discussions and so on, is also moving across into the Indian context. So we're entering into an interesting, and in many ways exciting period. It happens to be that there are forces at work that are causing us to have to get our act together in this respect. But I think it's a good thing, because I do see the outcome as being more liveable, more sustainable, and more resilient cities, but we've got to get on and do it quickly because of the scale of the issue that we discussed in the beginning.
HR Also, we have to make cities healthier by encouraging people to get out of their cars, and one of the paradoxes about China's enormous strides in its economic growth over the last few years, is that they've stopped riding bikes to work, and have taken to cars, with consequent adverse effects on their health.
GH It's interesting, isn't it. You know, I think that thinking is rapidly... you know, the Chinese are on a very fast learning cycle. I'll tell you a little story. In the early 1990s I was invited, as part of a small team of western urban experts of one kind and another, to give a lecture in the university in Shanghai. I'm a transportation engineer by background. My lecture was on the need for metro, underground urban metro, in rapidly developing, large scale cities. And I started with a theoretical model where I'd shown that once you get to a city of a certain size, the only reasonable way of transport had to become a metro, and it had to become by definition underground metro, because there simply wasn't enough space at street level to be able to move people around, whether by car or by tram. You know, you need to use the multiple levels available to you once you get below ground. Anyway, I gave that lecture, and then I applied that theory to a couple of rapidly developing Asian cities, one of which was Jakarta, and one was Shanghai. At the end of the lecture, we were invited to come and meet the mayor of Shanghai, and we were in one of those green rooms off the main lecture hall, and we sat in big Chinese armchairs side be side, rather than facing each other, and the mayor's interpreter asked me: did I recommend two or three ring roads around the centre of Shanghai, and I said, well actually the thesis of my talk had been around the need for a network of underground metros. And he translated this to the mayor, and came back to me and said - "no, no, you don't understand, the mayor wants to know should we have two or three ring roads round the centre of Shanghai." And I said to him: "All right then, two". I take absolutely no credit, and I'm sure my talk wasn't influential in their thinking at all, but in a couple of years they were building a world leading metro network, and now they have one of the best anywhere in the world, and indeed it is the only way for large cities to exist, to be able to transport people around by rail. On the healthy side, we're planning and designing cities that take into account people walking and cycling. And this has got to be the way forward - first of all from a purely logistical point of view, we can't, as you pointed out, we simply can't have people driving around in private cars, it doesn't ... the traffic jams simply don't work. I think the average commute in Los Angeles is over two hours these days. That just become completely wasteful, and actually doesn't work beyond a certain size. But also, we want people to be healthy in cities. It's important - it's important for them, of course, but it's also important for society, and for the cost factor, of medical care that's involved. So designing cities that encourage walking, facilitate cycling, and provide an environment where that's do-able, is part and parcel of good urban planning.
HR Also, we have to make cities healthier by encouraging people to get out of their cars, and one of the paradoxes about China's enormous strides in its economic growth over the last few years, is that they've stopped riding bikes to work, and have taken to cars, with consequent adverse effects on their health.
GH It's interesting, isn't it. You know, I think that thinking is rapidly... you know, the Chinese are on a very fast learning cycle. I'll tell you a little story. In the early 1990s I was invited, as part of a small team of western urban experts of one kind and another, to give a lecture in the university in Shanghai. I'm a transportation engineer by background. My lecture was on the need for metro, underground urban metro, in rapidly developing, large scale cities. And I started with a theoretical model where I'd shown that once you get to a city of a certain size, the only reasonable way of transport had to become a metro, and it had to become by definition underground metro, because there simply wasn't enough space at street level to be able to move people around, whether by car or by tram. You know, you need to use the multiple levels available to you once you get below ground. Anyway, I gave that lecture, and then I applied that theory to a couple of rapidly developing Asian cities, one of which was Jakarta, and one was Shanghai. At the end of the lecture, we were invited to come and meet the mayor of Shanghai, and we were in one of those green rooms off the main lecture hall, and we sat in big Chinese armchairs side be side, rather than facing each other, and the mayor's interpreter asked me: did I recommend two or three ring roads around the centre of Shanghai, and I said, well actually the thesis of my talk had been around the need for a network of underground metros. And he translated this to the mayor, and came back to me and said - "no, no, you don't understand, the mayor wants to know should we have two or three ring roads round the centre of Shanghai." And I said to him: "All right then, two". I take absolutely no credit, and I'm sure my talk wasn't influential in their thinking at all, but in a couple of years they were building a world leading metro network, and now they have one of the best anywhere in the world, and indeed it is the only way for large cities to exist, to be able to transport people around by rail. On the healthy side, we're planning and designing cities that take into account people walking and cycling. And this has got to be the way forward - first of all from a purely logistical point of view, we can't, as you pointed out, we simply can't have people driving around in private cars, it doesn't ... the traffic jams simply don't work. I think the average commute in Los Angeles is over two hours these days. That just become completely wasteful, and actually doesn't work beyond a certain size. But also, we want people to be healthy in cities. It's important - it's important for them, of course, but it's also important for society, and for the cost factor, of medical care that's involved. So designing cities that encourage walking, facilitate cycling, and provide an environment where that's do-able, is part and parcel of good urban planning.
HR This brings us on to Sydney, which is not a large city by global standards, but by Australian standards it's becoming quite large - four point seven, four point eight million, probably five million in a few years time. The very thing that makes Sydney an attractive place, apart from its climate, is its topography, but this also presents enormous challenges in terms of traffic management. Now the current New South Wales government, as well as introducing a light rail, which your company is involved with, is building more freeways - do you think that is the way to go, or is it just compounding the problem in the future?
GH It's a problem, isn't it. It's not only the topography, maybe not even primarily the topography. Cities that had, it appeared at the time, the fortune, but in retrospect I'm sure we'll think misfortune, of having their major development phase in the age of the automobile, because the automobile was becoming ubiquitously available, you know, every home had at least one at some point, it allowed cities to spread out and develop a very low density, home by individual home: this is the problem of Los Angeles, that it grew up in this era of wealth and private car ownership, which allowed people to live in that low density environment, so they could have their own garden, and so on and so forth, and that actually, I'm sure when we look back, we'll decide was a mistake. In Sydney's case, Sydney is a bit like L.A. in that sense, most of its urban development occurred at a time when car ownership was broadly available, and before the time that traffic congestion became a major consideration, not to mention the other considerations to do with the impact on the environment, and whatever's coming with fuel and so on, but I think it's never too late to do something about it. And it would be a mistake in my view to continue that pattern of low density development. It's not to say that some road building might be a good idea in the meantime, because that may be the right thing to do, but continuing the pattern of low density development is the issue, and think we should make sure that we don't do that.
HR And do you think it's possible to retrofit sprawling suburbs to make them healthier places in which to live, by building cycleways, walking paths and so on, to encourage people to use their cars less often?
GH Yes, I do think, I mean there's not a magic wand that can be waved in that respect, but, you know, I myself have been involved in retrofitting suburban environments to make them more conducive ... you know, one doesn't do it overnight, and because of private ownership of individual homes and the private investment involved in that and so on, it's a massive challenge. But over time, one thing that I think is particularly encouraging is the idea of transport oriented developments, so as public transport, particularly rail and light rail, as public transport is developed - but also it can be busway or guided bus, or whatever it is, to specifically densify development around the stations and the nodes and the transfer nodes and so on, to make use in an effective way of that infastructure, so the idea that we have to do our urban land use planning and transport planning hand in glove, simultaneously, I think is also a sign for redeveloping our suburbs in the future.
GH It's a problem, isn't it. It's not only the topography, maybe not even primarily the topography. Cities that had, it appeared at the time, the fortune, but in retrospect I'm sure we'll think misfortune, of having their major development phase in the age of the automobile, because the automobile was becoming ubiquitously available, you know, every home had at least one at some point, it allowed cities to spread out and develop a very low density, home by individual home: this is the problem of Los Angeles, that it grew up in this era of wealth and private car ownership, which allowed people to live in that low density environment, so they could have their own garden, and so on and so forth, and that actually, I'm sure when we look back, we'll decide was a mistake. In Sydney's case, Sydney is a bit like L.A. in that sense, most of its urban development occurred at a time when car ownership was broadly available, and before the time that traffic congestion became a major consideration, not to mention the other considerations to do with the impact on the environment, and whatever's coming with fuel and so on, but I think it's never too late to do something about it. And it would be a mistake in my view to continue that pattern of low density development. It's not to say that some road building might be a good idea in the meantime, because that may be the right thing to do, but continuing the pattern of low density development is the issue, and think we should make sure that we don't do that.
HR And do you think it's possible to retrofit sprawling suburbs to make them healthier places in which to live, by building cycleways, walking paths and so on, to encourage people to use their cars less often?
GH Yes, I do think, I mean there's not a magic wand that can be waved in that respect, but, you know, I myself have been involved in retrofitting suburban environments to make them more conducive ... you know, one doesn't do it overnight, and because of private ownership of individual homes and the private investment involved in that and so on, it's a massive challenge. But over time, one thing that I think is particularly encouraging is the idea of transport oriented developments, so as public transport, particularly rail and light rail, as public transport is developed - but also it can be busway or guided bus, or whatever it is, to specifically densify development around the stations and the nodes and the transfer nodes and so on, to make use in an effective way of that infastructure, so the idea that we have to do our urban land use planning and transport planning hand in glove, simultaneously, I think is also a sign for redeveloping our suburbs in the future.
HR Do you also think we could be helped by developing technology, for example, the push for self drive cars - I mean the technology is already here - it may take a generation for cars to be completely self driving, but this could make traffic management much more efficient. I mean, a lot of people tend to make the mistake of trying to predict the future by extrapolating from the present, when the future is qualitatively different, because you have all these different technologies converging. So, given the future embedding of sensors in everything, in terms of the so-called "Internet of Things", the way in which cars will be largely autonomous, in terms of driving themselves, do you think this will also help with traffic congestion?
GH It's an interesting one, that - it will certainly help in traffic congestion, because the headway required between vehicles will be less because the machine does a better job than humans in driving. The potential downside, of course, is that will just mean you can have more cars on the road. So if we allow technology to allow us to continue to have low density urban development, in other words, keep building low density suburbs because you can now get more cars on the road, so traffic congestion appears to be less, and your drive time is more efficient, and so on and so forth, it doesn't actually solve some of the other problems - the other problems as relate to efficient use of infrastructure, the economic cost of that, the environmental cost, the social cost of that, and so on and so forth. I'm a great believer in the technology that as you point out is here now - and actually the only thing - well there are two things I suppose, there's the logistical issue of rolling it out, but there's also the cultural issue of accepting it, which I think is more significant than we're giving credit to just now. I'm a great believer in it, but we've got to be careful not to use it just as a way of getting more cars on the road. That would be the wrong thing to do, even if we go down the electric car route with current technology, because you've got to ask yourself - where's the power coming from in the electric cars. And if it's coal fired power stations - game over - forget it. So more is needed in that respect. If we get into hydrogen fuel cell technology and other technologies that are out there, then maybe, but thinking the self driving car thing is the panacea - it may well be very helpful, but it has some potential downsides, and we've just got to go into that with our eyes open.
HR Getting back to the question of Green Infrastructure, one of the most noticeable changes in Sydney over the last twenty years is the way the city has become much greener - it has a much more widespread canopy of trees. Now, that makes it a much pleasanter place in many respects, it gives shade from the intense sun that you have in Australia - does that fit in with your concept of Green Infrastructure - at least in terms of being one facet of it?
GH Well no, it absolutely does - in fact, one of my colleagues has recently published a monograph on that aspect of greening cities. You know, greening cities does a number of good things, a couple that you've pointed out, and a couple of others as well - very few of us wouldn't like the idea that our cities should be greener - it's something that human beings respond to. We think that's an incredibly important part, its impact on climate change, or ameliorating some of the impacts of climate change, and the reasons you point out. Frankly, it's not sufficient for cities just to be workable, not sufficient even for cities just to be resilient, which is the buzzword currently. It's also essential - cities are for people, aren't they - it's essential that cities be liveable. Cities that are not green are not liveable - the greener the city, basically, the more people like them. It's an incredibly important part of cities, and urban development.
HR Do you think there's been a bit of a cultural shift, do you think the general public are moving towards accepting this idea? For example, the current Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, has been seen by some elements in the media as being some sort of dangerous radical, and yet she's working extremely well with Gladys Berejiklian, the Transport Minister, and Pru Goward, the Planning Minister, and there seems to be quite a strong consensus about adopting the approaches you've been describing.
GH Yes - and we're seeing that all over the world - it's not just a Sydney thing. I'm from Sydney - I haven't lived there for many years, much to my misfortune - I'm from Sydney and know it from times past, but this idea of green cities is absolutely taking off, and not just with Clover Moore - and I hear she's doing a very good job in this respect - but with mayors all over the world, and mayors who are not from the left and not from the right, but mayors across the entire political spectrum. One of the reasons to be optimistic about urban development is the extent to which democracy is making itself felt in the town halls. And the elected officials in those cities that are fortunate enough to have mayors, and not all of them do, or a mayoral equivalent, are these days - particularly in the day of information technology, where they're being tweeted at as well as tweeting back - they're feeling what people want, and feeling it directly. And people do want green cities.
For further information on Arup's work on Green Infrastructure click here
GH It's an interesting one, that - it will certainly help in traffic congestion, because the headway required between vehicles will be less because the machine does a better job than humans in driving. The potential downside, of course, is that will just mean you can have more cars on the road. So if we allow technology to allow us to continue to have low density urban development, in other words, keep building low density suburbs because you can now get more cars on the road, so traffic congestion appears to be less, and your drive time is more efficient, and so on and so forth, it doesn't actually solve some of the other problems - the other problems as relate to efficient use of infrastructure, the economic cost of that, the environmental cost, the social cost of that, and so on and so forth. I'm a great believer in the technology that as you point out is here now - and actually the only thing - well there are two things I suppose, there's the logistical issue of rolling it out, but there's also the cultural issue of accepting it, which I think is more significant than we're giving credit to just now. I'm a great believer in it, but we've got to be careful not to use it just as a way of getting more cars on the road. That would be the wrong thing to do, even if we go down the electric car route with current technology, because you've got to ask yourself - where's the power coming from in the electric cars. And if it's coal fired power stations - game over - forget it. So more is needed in that respect. If we get into hydrogen fuel cell technology and other technologies that are out there, then maybe, but thinking the self driving car thing is the panacea - it may well be very helpful, but it has some potential downsides, and we've just got to go into that with our eyes open.
HR Getting back to the question of Green Infrastructure, one of the most noticeable changes in Sydney over the last twenty years is the way the city has become much greener - it has a much more widespread canopy of trees. Now, that makes it a much pleasanter place in many respects, it gives shade from the intense sun that you have in Australia - does that fit in with your concept of Green Infrastructure - at least in terms of being one facet of it?
GH Well no, it absolutely does - in fact, one of my colleagues has recently published a monograph on that aspect of greening cities. You know, greening cities does a number of good things, a couple that you've pointed out, and a couple of others as well - very few of us wouldn't like the idea that our cities should be greener - it's something that human beings respond to. We think that's an incredibly important part, its impact on climate change, or ameliorating some of the impacts of climate change, and the reasons you point out. Frankly, it's not sufficient for cities just to be workable, not sufficient even for cities just to be resilient, which is the buzzword currently. It's also essential - cities are for people, aren't they - it's essential that cities be liveable. Cities that are not green are not liveable - the greener the city, basically, the more people like them. It's an incredibly important part of cities, and urban development.
HR Do you think there's been a bit of a cultural shift, do you think the general public are moving towards accepting this idea? For example, the current Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, has been seen by some elements in the media as being some sort of dangerous radical, and yet she's working extremely well with Gladys Berejiklian, the Transport Minister, and Pru Goward, the Planning Minister, and there seems to be quite a strong consensus about adopting the approaches you've been describing.
GH Yes - and we're seeing that all over the world - it's not just a Sydney thing. I'm from Sydney - I haven't lived there for many years, much to my misfortune - I'm from Sydney and know it from times past, but this idea of green cities is absolutely taking off, and not just with Clover Moore - and I hear she's doing a very good job in this respect - but with mayors all over the world, and mayors who are not from the left and not from the right, but mayors across the entire political spectrum. One of the reasons to be optimistic about urban development is the extent to which democracy is making itself felt in the town halls. And the elected officials in those cities that are fortunate enough to have mayors, and not all of them do, or a mayoral equivalent, are these days - particularly in the day of information technology, where they're being tweeted at as well as tweeting back - they're feeling what people want, and feeling it directly. And people do want green cities.
For further information on Arup's work on Green Infrastructure click here