Ecological Urbanism

On Thursday, March 20, 2011, AIA Baltimore held the first of four lectures to be a part of this year’s Spring Lecture Series. Martin Felsen, of UrbanLab, presented Civic Spaces through Ecological Urbanism. In his speech, Felsen emphasized that a large part of ecological urbanism needs to be building our cities around green infrastructure. The bulk of his presentation conveyed ways in which our city water systems could be better managed.

UrbanLab is a Chicago based firm largely involved in rethinking the city’s design. The main point of Felsen’s lecture, and the topic he was most thrilled to discuss, was issues involving water usage and how green infrastructure offer a solution. In the city of Chicago, water is sourced from Lake Michigan, part of the Great Lakes, which make up 20% of the world’s freshwater supply. Rather than return what water the city takes from the lake, the water instead ends up in the Gulf of Mexico. This amount of water taken, if not replenished, could result in the shrinking of Lake Michigan. Just such a misfortune happened with the Aral Sea. In 20 years, the Aral Sea shrunk to 10% its original size. To avoid similar destruction in Lake Michigan, Felsen suggests the right measure is to design our city infrastructures so that rain water is absorbed into the ground, rather than directed into our sewers and thus out of our ecosystems. My thesis project addressed this is on a small scale through the design and incorporation of rainwater catchment systems and green infrastructures that kept rainwater out of the sewers.

An image from my thesis, Sustaining Cockeysville

The technology I used, and some of the technology Felsen suggested, is based off of systems currently being used in cities like Portland and Seattle.

An image of Portland's Green Streets Program

In the Baltimore area, there are parts of the county currently utilizing green storm water management technologies. The Eastern Boulevard (MD 150) Median Design features a bioswale to collect rain water. What was different about Felsen’s proposal for Chicago, however, was that it was to be implemented on a much more extensive scale. With his eco-boulevards, rainwater follows green pathways back to the lake. The eco-boulevards follow Chicago streets that lead to Lake Michigan. Entirely greenscaped or spotted with parks, trees, and green infrastructure, the eco-boulevards are funded by the money already set aside to upgrade existing streets. The eco-boulevard was an inventive concept I’ve never seen before. And not only does it address the issue of poor water management, but it provides necessary public space. Most cities are 40% infrastructure, as Felsen explained, which means the population collectively owns it. With that control, we ought to return the space used for automobiles to pedestrian zones. As for blackwater, Felsen’s Living Machines would treat sewage prior to sending it back to the lake. The Living Machine is an existing technology that uses the bacteria of ecosystems to naturally clean sewage. These two technologies together, the eco-boulevard and the living machine, are part of Felsen’s project Growing Water.

The water crisis is a concerning issue. The proposals presented by Felsen and UrbanLab are brilliant solutions that can be reasonably implemented. The façade, behind which the ideas were presented, however, took some of the charm. Before hearing Felsen speak, I was a little turned off by the exceedingly modern designs created by Felsen and UrbanLab. There are times when I feel discouraged by what I am seeing in the majority of ecological architecture and design projects. Nearly every “green” project or concept I come across is set within an abrasively modern design. Their designs are overly simplified to the point where nothing stands out, not even the concepts they present. It almost seems as though designers who are hoping to gather support for ecologically valuable projects create their work in a way they assume appeals to the less environmentally inclined public, as if those people would only accept the most sterile looking, modern designs- as if that style of architecture symbolized something elite and trendy. I might, however, argue the opposite. I have known very few people to actually appreciate modern architecture, because the primary purpose of modern architecture seems to serve only the ego of the architect. The modern versus traditional battle always reminds me of criticism I received for my thesis. As I planned my design, I drew inspiration from the traditional architects before me. My professors continually urged me to “think outside of the box,” claiming I needed to be more original with my design. But my design wasn’t what was important, what my project addressed was important. The designs of traditional architecture best attended to the issue at hand. The classic elements I returned to were naturally more energy efficient. Meanwhile, the designs of all of my classmates were literally within the box: overly simplified structures with flat facades that served no purpose. My only criticism of Felsen’s presentation- and the same goes for all forward-looking designers- is the same as what my professors once told me. Think outside the box. if you present a cutting edge concept that has the potential to better our world, step outside of the glass box design. After all, how can we get others excited about good design if our designs have nothing exciting about them? Still, I am excited about the concepts and theories behind the designs and, although I’m not a fan of the style, I wholly support the projects.

Martin Felsen and the work being done at UrbanLab are certainly worth taking a look into. Like many other resources we depend on, water is being used up faster than we can replace it. Without solutions like the ones proposed by Felsen, we could face a serious impasse that would leave many in crisis. Though it would have been refreshing to see more complex designs, it does not overshadow the solutions Felsen presented to a complicated problem.