Imitate to innovate: Vitoria-Gasteiz shows how cities can address 21st century challenges

A few weeks ago I had the chance to travel down to Vitoria-Gasteiz with the European Commission, and in collaboration with the German NGO for sustainability, Verkehrsclub Deutschland (VCD). Basically, the idea was to get a bunch of urban-related journalists to learn about the city and spread the news about some of it's sustainable innovations. It was for the right reason. The city and the governance model which had been set up to bring about change was seriously impressive.

All I could think was, why aren't other cities using this approach? An article and short film were published to both This Big City and the Sustainable Cities Collective. For your ease, I've also provided below. Enjoy.

"Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery – it’s the sincerest form of learning."

– Bernard Shaw

The Spanish city of Vitoria-Gasteiz has recently transformed itself from a congested and car-dominated city into one of the most pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places in Europe. It didn’t achieve this by going at it alone. Its key to success was learning from others.

Cities today are faced with challenges like never before. Rapid population growth, increasing inequality, pollution and congestion are not isolated issues. Rather, they are problems faced by cities across the globe.

While some places are quickly learning to change their old ways and adapt to new circumstances, others are finding it a little more difficult. Perhaps it’s time that those struggling cities to stop simply looking inward, and instead learned from others. After all, if people and businesses copy one-another to succeed, why can’t cities?

We now know that our addiction to the car was one of the greatest urban mistakes of last century. Weaning ourselves off this addiction is now one of our greatest challenges. While some cities reconfigure to prioritise people over cars, others are still stuck in the 70s. Sadly, it’s not only the environment that pays the price. Each year thousands of innocent people are killed because urban authorities can’t seem to re-adapt cities for people, rather than for cars.

Over the past few weeks in London we’ve seen outrage over the death of yet another cyclist. In all six of the deaths this year, the incidents involved a collision with a lorry. The problem is obvious: trucks and cars should not use the same lane of traffic as bicycles. The solution to this problem is also simple: separate the modes of transport.

Although people across London are fuming, there seems to be constant resistance to making logical junction and thoroughfare improvements. Surely the hundreds of innocent commuters dying in urban areas each year is enough for a city to make some drastic changes? Well, apparently not.

Although the city’s Mayor is an avid bike rider, plans to develop new bicycle infrastructure remain futile, and anything that has been achieved is ad-hoc and messy. While many progressive cities are quickly figuring it out, London (and many others), remain a dangerous place for people on bikes and on foot.

A couple of years ago, I did some research into why London was finding it so difficult to implemented Danish-style infrastructure. After speaking with experts in London, I took off to Copenhagen to experience riding in the city and speak with urban designers and government officials. It was obvious to see how a combination of traffic calming measures and separated bike paths create a city that is vibrant, safe and beautiful.

The research findings were simple: despite copying overseas lingo like ‘Cycle Superhighways’, London doesn’t really try to copy anyone. It tries to do things its own way. New designs try to please everybody, but in doing so, the results don’t please anybody. What we’re left with is a surface-transport mess. It simply doesn’t work for pedestrians, drivers or those on bikes.

This year, I wanted to find a city that is doing things properly. I wanted to find a place that knows how it wants to improve and is quickly making the right changes to get there. The city I found was Vitoria-Gasteiz – the 2012 European Green City winner.

In just ten years Vitoria has completely transformed itself from a car-dominated, polluted city to one of the most pedestrian and bicycle-friendly in Europe (and probably the world). Today over 50% of people walk to get around and 12% of people ride bikes. The number of people driving cars quickly continues to fall. Compare this with 21% people walking and 3% riding bikes in London, and 10% and 1% respectively in New York City.

I took off down to Vitoria to see the city first-hand and meet some of the people making this transformation happen.

Speaking with the Director of the Environmental Studies Centre (CEA), Juan Carlos, I learned why the city embarked upon this rapid transformation. “Just ten years ago, this city had a lot of problems with the car,” Juan told me, “but people knew it shouldn’t be like that, so we begun to think about how we could change it”.

The CEA receives funding from the city government but really only has one task at hand: improve the way the city functions. It independently advises the government on how it can improve, without getting bogged-down with day-to-day administration. This is very different to most other large cities, which leave important research and plan-making to oversized government bodies. With a relatively small team of a few dozen people, its no wonder the CEA quickly and effectively gets work done.

Juan told me that just ten years ago, the city decided to get off its backside and develop a progressive Sustainable Mobility and Public Space Plan. Instead of just looking inward, the team decided to see what other cities were doing to overcome similar problems. In collaboration with the German NGO for sustainability, Verkehrsclub Deutschland (VCD), Vitoria joined the European Biking Cities project. This enabled the city to learn from other urban areas with ambitious cycling policies.

When learning from others, Juan and his team didn’t simply implement three-metre wide bike paths like Danish cities, or turn one-way streets to two-ways, like in American cities. Instead Vitoria copied and pasted intelligently. Successful elements from elsewhere were carefully integrated into the city’s own context and adjusted where necessary.

Vitoria implemented Copenhagen-style bike paths on wide thoroughfares (when it could afford to); it used the ‘superblock’ idea from Barcelona to divert traffic and free up space for pedestrians; and it took greenways design characteristics from the Netherlands to create beautiful and attractive pedestrian environments, where people would actually want to spend time.

The Sustainable Mobility and Public Space Plan was then fully integrated with a new public transport plan. The aim was not to get as many people onto public transport as possible, but rather to get as many people out of cars as possible. Just like the caution surrounding Copenhagen’s new tram network, the city was careful to ensure public transport did not detract from people walking and cycling, but rather only detracted from the number of those driving. This was achieved through careful network design.

Interviewing Juan Carlos, Director of the Environmental Studies Centre

Even as its population soars, Vitoria today is probably more beautiful and vibrant than ever. As I stood with my bike on wide, green boulevards, outside bustling cafes I was shown photographs of the same city streets just a few years earlier – they were almost beyond recognition.

Where cars were parked up on sidewalks, gardens beds now thrive. Where trucks and buses queued for hours in peak hour traffic, people walk and chat in a green corridor, which takes trams into and out of the city centre.

With so many people moving through, and spending time in public spaces, the city has a healthy, social vibe, which simply doesn’t exist where the urban grain has been dissected by busy car thoroughfares. I couldn’t help to imagine what larger cities like London, New York, Sydney and Singapore could become.

In just the past five years, the length of bikeways has increased to 135 kilometres. Unlike London’s lycra-covered, middle-aged men racing each other to the office, bicycle infrastructure means that riding a bike is safe for everyone – of all ages. Segregated bike paths have made Vitoria more inclusive for everyone.

The changes however, have not just been about updating the city’s infrastructure. Creative ways of communicating and educating have been crucial to Vitoria’s success.

Heiko Balsmeyer from VCD told me how the city worked to get local politicians on board so that consensus on important decisions could be reached. It was a process of open communication about the widespread benefits of new ideas. With this knowledge instilled, it would have been simply ignorant for councillors to object to projects that would have obvious, citywide benefits.

Inspired by the UK’s Bikeability Programme, programmes are now being implemented into school curriculums where children are taught to ride safely to school. The hope is that kids will no longer need their parent’s assistance to get about the city.

The range of progressive measures in place to support positive change goes on: the city has overhauled parking policies, updated its branding strategy, and helps support progressive local community groups. Many of these measures have been taken from overseas and adapted into the local context.

Vitoria’s clear success has been in clever imitation. As we embark on a new urban era, it’s about time that cities transfer knowledge, communicate, and work with one-another to overcome what are both local, and global, challenges.

Are England's seaside arcades a thing of the past?

Southsea. Photo courtesy Flickr/BMiz/CreativeCommons

Neon lights, sticky carpets and non-stop beeping sounds are engrained into the character and charm of English seaside towns. For decades, locals and tourists alike have flocked to the arcade to spend their spare change on games that would now be no match for even the most simple of iphone apps. Are amusement arcades a timeless piece of English culture, or are they nothing nothing more than outdated and tacky relics of the past?

Amusement arcades boomed throughout the 70s and early 80s when private computer games were non-existent and Space Invaders, Pac-Man and Frogger seemed to be ever-growing in popularity. As private computers and consoles launched onto the scene in the 90s, it's no wonder traditional arcades experienced a decline. Technology wasn't the only change to impact the arcade, anti-smoking and gambling laws were large scale societal changes which altered the way we utilise and perceive indoor entertainment space.

But despite all of this, the arcade has survived.

As I rode my bike through Norfolk at the weekend, the local towns were filled with arcades packed to brim of families holding ice-creams, reaching into their pockets for another round of Nascar. If arcades aren't the innovative places of entertainment they used to be, how do they exist?

Going to the seaside is something of a spectacle in the UK. But in one of the world's drizzliest countries, it's not always possible to sit on the beach all day. The arcade's iconic architecture, wide doorways and expansive internal layouts, depict the arcade's ability to offer leisure in what seems and feels to be a very public space.

While entertainment may come at an expense, much like a good cafe or pub, arcades offer an internal public setting to what is often a cold and drizzly outdoor world.

I wandered around Singapore. Here are my thoughts on the city.

At my past job at a sustainability charity in London some of my friends who had lived in Singapore explained that it was highly ambitious environmentally, giving numerous examples of green business parks and ambitious building standards. But chatting to a cab driver over the weekend in the city, he had a slightly different perspective.

Explaining the ongoing peripheral urban development and housing crisis, it seemed that the island/nation/city continues to grow rapidly to its own detriment. "What's that word?" he said, "Urban jungle! This nation is turning into one big urban jungle!".

While land intensification has been an ongoing policy for development in the city for many decades, it does continue to slowly sprawl into the periphery to accommodate the rapidly growing population. Comprising only 270 sq km in total, land development issues in Singapore can be seen to epitomise land use issues across the globe (just on the small scale). We want urban 'growth' but how do we stop expanding?

I'd definitely need to spend some more time in the city to have a better perspective on sustainable development in Singapore. It's such an incredibly interesting city that seems to be developing very sensibly, but could it be doing even better? And what lessons can other cities learn from Singapore as an example?

Apart from all of the big picture strategy stuff, I made the following brief observations from my quick day of walking about the city: high density, manicured gardens, not pedestrian friendly, ambitious, colourful, beautiful, amazing food and smells and of course, hot and humid! If the city had a little less cars, a few more bikes and made a bit more effort in place making and public space creation, it'd make all the difference.

I'd love to know other people's thoughts!

All photos Tom Oliver Payne.

Without Urban Strategy, is Australia Planning to Fail?

National governments across the globe are showing a growing appreciation for the economic importance of cities. In taking an increasingly strategic approach to the development and management of powerful economic and cultural urban nodes, they’re attempting to diversify economies and invest money where it matters most. In the wake of the recession, this policy shift has been particularly strong in the UK.

Australia on the other hand, seems to be moving in the opposite direction. With the end of the resources boom in sight, perhaps it’s time ‘the lucky country’ took a long, hard look at its urban agenda. For hundreds of years, we’ve been obsessed with the nation-state paradigm. But the idea of inter-national coordination has largely failed. The United Nations has no teeth, every climate talk since Rio (1992) has failed to bring practical solutions, and the global recession has presented us with panicking national governments with little control over globalised economic systems.

With over half of the world’s population now living in urban areas, we’re seeing the emergence of a network that is more about action than stubborn nationalism. Operating across international borders, our global network of cities forms the economic and environmental collaboration that national governments cannot.

As Benjamin Barber has put it, national governments are based on “ideology”, while cities are all about “getting things done”. Cities are bound together by trade and economics, innovation and entrepreneurship, common attributes and common values. Cities are where things happen; national governments are where politicians talk.

The growing realisation of the importance of cities has sparked policy shifts worldwide: Korea is scaling-up regional city growth to diversify economic activity, Poland has recently developed a national urban strategy to become economically competitive with greater Europe, and Brazil has created a City Statute to give municipalities increased power and finance.

The UK has seen the development of a Cities Policy Unit and a host of new strategies that attempt to create a fundamental movement away from federal power to that of mayors and cities. The newly appointed Minister for Cities has called for a new era to create city systems and systems of cities. The former is concerned with equipping local leaders to strengthen productivity, liveability and sustainability outcomes, and the latter is about actively supporting urban networks as a whole, including connectivity and city specialisation. This includes investing into infrastructure such as broadband, high-speed rail and airports. The Technology Strategy Board has already made substantial investments into the Future Cities Demonstrator and Future Cities Catapult, which aim to enhance urban innovation.

With growing importance on the city scale, urban political leadership is now a hot topic. Charismatic mayors like Boris Johnson and George Ferguson are winning support by implementing real solutions to environmental and economic issues. Less focused on ideology and more focused on answers, its no wonder Johnson has been titled the most popular politician in Britain over his central government counterparts.

Tucked down on the other side of the world however, we’re seeing powers taken from Australian cities and mayors, rather than given to them. After almost a decade of developing a vibrant nighttime economy, Sydney Mayor Clover Moore’s work has been badly bruised by conservative state premier’s controversial new drinking laws. O’Farrell’s arbitrarily located restrictions are not supported by any research to indicate that they will reduce violence. Instead, they look to create late night transit chaos and hamper Sydney’s buzzing nightlife economy.

Rather than developing a strategy based on citywide coordination, it seems the new legislation was an opportunity for the state premier to simply flex his political might. While Mayor Clover Moore is about “getting things done”, O’Farrell’s policies are based on political gain.

Issues such as these are all too common in Australia. As underfunded local councils struggle to coordinate important planning processes with the powerful state governments above, planning and economic development remains an under-resourced, ad hoc process. Australia is in serious need of city systems and systems of cities strategies.

Just two years ago there was progress in making this happen. Australia’s previous government created the Major Cities Unitwhich outlined key long-term priorities for urban productivity and sustainability. Highly regarded by academia, as well as infrastructure, planning and property councils, the Unit showed promise for strategic city alignment, including investment into high-speed rail.

Today, all investment into the Unit has been withdrawn and momentum towards a national urban strategy has come to a halt. Not only does Prime Minister Tony Abbott have blatant disregard for the natural environment but he also struggles to see the importance of investing into research and long-term strategy, even when concerned with economic growth.

Australia remains plagued by a three-tiered governance structure that stifles coordination: citywide governance is fragmented (dozens of local councils with no metropolitan authority), local to state government relationships are a political battle, and federal intra-city investment is non-existent.

Countries affected by recession have worked to develop national policies to diversify industry and build economic resilience. In the meantime, Australia has stood back with its eyes closed. With the resource boom beginning to slow, perhaps now’s the time for Australia to rethink how its cities can develop and integrate into the growing global urban network.

This article was originally written for This Big City and is also available in Spanish.

Feature image courtesy This Big City.

Australia’s political Dark Age: the spark for action

The outcome of Australia’s recent federal election isn’t just disappointing. As an Australian, I think it’s shameful. Newly elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a well-known climate change sceptic with seemingly no regard for science. Under his guidance, it seems that Australia is headed straight back to the Dark Ages.

As Jonathon Porritt explained in his recent piece for the Guardian, the election will have dire environmental consequences – undoing years of hard work on environmental and climate change policy. But Tony Abbott’s plans to abolish the carbon tax and dismantle crucial bodies like the Climate Commission are just the beginning.

Important environmental policies are at risk of being undone in all areas of governance. In particular, the election of the man who has an absolute disregard for science and research will have a direct and significant impact on Australia’s cities.

Australia’s urban areas have some of the largest per capita ecological footprints in the world. Over the past few years, however, progressive transit, water and energy policies have been recognising that cities must harness renewable energy sources, more effectively manage water supplies and reduce reliance on private vehicle use.

Resistance to the construction of urban roads at all tiers of government has seen an increased demand for alternative modes of transport. This makes sense: the more roads you build, the more cars you have, the more rail lines you build, the more rail commuters you have.

With an on-going pipeline of urban rail projects across the country, public transport usage has seen an increase of 65% over the last decade. All major cities have also substantially increased their spending on cycling infrastructure. In contrast, growth in car usage has slowed dramatically.

But all of this progress is suddenly looking to back-flip. Not only will the new Prime Minister dismantle the Major Cities Unit, which carefully advises on Australia’s 18 largest urban areas, but he has also embarked upon an aggressive road-building scheme. To achieve this vision, Abbott will cease funding to crucial public transit projects and reform environmental planning legislation to speed up the development process.

Abbott’s policies do not only ignore climate scientists, but seemingly ignore environmental priorities wherever possible.

But none of this is any surprise. Explaining that climate change was “absolute crap” in 2010, Tony Abbott’s inability to understand science has been evident for a long time. Sadly, a combination of agenda-driven media, a fragmented Australian Labour Party and ignorance amongst many voters, has produced a less than desirable election outcome for progressive Australians.

What does this mean for the future of Australia?

The election of Abbott is shameful. But I believe it also acts as an opportunity for aggressive grassroots political action. As Jonathon Porritt explains in his new book, The World We Made(Alex McKay’s Story from 2050), creating a sustainable future is not just about technology, but also about political protest.

For the most part, I think Australians are well-informed, proactive and forward thinking. Many do not believe they are immune to global issues. And many have not become complacent with oversized bank accounts from the resource boom. For most Australians, now is the time to stand up to the ignorance and dogma that run deep in Australian politics and media.

We can take comfort in the knowledge that this has happened before. In retaliation to the increasingly neoliberal policies of the 1970s, the Green Bans social movement saved neighbourhoods, parks, waterways and forests across the country. The campaigns also sparked government reform and new environmental legislation. Reaction to the Abbott-era is likely to have a similar outcome.

Retaliation has already begun.

Just hours after the new government announced that it would dismantle the government’s Climate Commission - led by renowned scientist Tim Flannery - there was widespread public outcry. With a “groundswell of support”, as Flannery has called it, the group was rejuvenated with private sector funding and public donations. Having already raised $1 million through crowd-funding, the renamed independent “Climate Council” is now looking to expand its research base.

The inability for scientific logic to infiltrate political reasoning has left Australia pursuing disgraceful policies. In doing so, the country has opened itself up to scrutiny from the global community.

I have no doubt that this scrutiny will spark Australians to have intelligent conversations about the future of the country. It will also force Australians to stand up to the immoral policies being pursued by the new government.

Just like the ‘shocks to the system’ that pepper The World We Made, Tony Abbott may be just the political wakeup call that the country needs.

This article was initially written as an opinion piece for Forum for the Future, here.