Sankey 1

ECOLOGICAL URBANISM A response to the Emergence of the Global City

By William Sankey [www.williamsankey.com] Spring 2011 This document is a working draft produced as part of an independent study at the Harvard Graduate School of Design with Lecturer Gareth Doherty.

Sankey 2

THE PROBLEM OF DISCERNING “GOOD”URBANISM

The first decade of this millennium has crystallized many of the emergent

problems confronting humans and their environments. These issues ranging from socio-

economic (inequality within nations between the affluent and the working masses,

resource-driven warfare), environmental (climate change and hastening urbanization),

and cultural (the proliferation of global culture in business, music, architecture and

other aspects at the expense of local culture and histories) are ostensibly discrete1.

However, the convergence of these problems is manifest in the constructed and utilized

human settlements and environments. This paper hopes to demonstrate that Ecological

Urbanism offers a cogent strategy for linking the physical environment to the underlying

processes which it embodies.

Given these issues, the question of what constitutes good urbanism—

particularly against this backdrop—is unclear. Thought on the topic among leading

thinkers and builders of the urban realm has maintained a physical bias. There exists an

awareness of the other factors which shape and influence the development of our

urban environments; nonetheless, these factors are subordinated to the physical aspect.

Landscape urbanism proponents profess the virtues of design around the horizontal

ground plane without a firm position on sprawl. City Beautiful and neotraditional

urbanism proponents (most recently represented by their New Urbanism descendents)

evangelize about the merits of higher densities and walkability. In effect, both these

competing ideologies begin with a highly physical diagnosis. One emphasizes the

landscape and the other focuses on building. The underlying processes become

secondary motivators of urban prescriptions.

1 The essay “Three Ecologies” by Felix Guattari serves as a preamble for the Ecological

Urbanism paradigm by exposing the rising disequilibrium between humans and nature

Sankey 3

A quick glance at the global financial centers like New York City and London

reveal strikingly divergent urban typological patterns. Even so, they have

accommodated underlying economic, migration and cultural processes that are

comparable. If these processes and latent factors were adaptable to distinct urban

constructed contexts, then should the physical realm be preeminent when considering

the question of what comprises exemplary urbanism? This essay argues that Ecological

Urbanism does not present itself as a series of design guidelines and modes of

approach; rather it demands a nuanced interpretation of the visible and invisible forces,

flows, and processes which underlie cities of widely divergent physical forms.

and between groups of humans distinguished along social, economic, and religious lines in the modern period of globalization. (Guattari 1989 (2000))

Sankey 4

COLUMBIA, MARYLAND: An

experiment by James Rouse for

a new city. Columbia was

founded in 1967 in response to

the civil strife and social

discord that had inflamed

urban centers in the 1960s, the

increasing anonymity posed by

suburban life and the

degradation of the urban

experience by the ubiquity of

the automobile. Today, the

problems of post-war urbanity

have been further exposed and

complicated by the advance of

globalization. The stakes are

higher; the answers still

elusive.

(Photo by William Sankey)

JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUSIANA:

A once-placid street in a

suburb of New Orleans in the

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The destruction epitomized the

potential consequences of

development below sea level

and reliance on rigid man-

made systems (like levees) in

the face of indomitable natural

forces.

(Photo by William Sankey)

Sankey 5

GLOBALIZATION AND GENERICISM

Today the meaning of place has been supplanted by a realization that the

immediacy of a space no longer exists disparate from the every other place2. Essentially,

the definition of a place—particularly a city—has been subsumed by the near-constant

intersection of that place with information, externalities and self-consciousness of itself

in relationship to other places. Cities and the places within them (neighborhoods, parks,

shopping centers, pockets of nature left by sprawl, etc.), therefore have grown

increasingly generic as the notion of urbanism has simultaneously become globalized.

Metropolises that only a century ago were shaped by their relationship to the networks,

flows, and geographies of their hinterland now link into the networks, flows, and

geographies of territory that stretches across oceans and around the world. As the

range and diversity of their purview has extended, the reconciliation these forces at the

formerly localized level of place has become more nonspecific or one-size fits all.

On the one hand, the twin pairing of genericism and globalization, especially

the end stage in which it is reflected physically in the constructed environment, can be

traced to the proliferation and adoption of best—some might say worst—practices as

well as the cultural hegemony of a globe-trotting coterie of city builders (architects,

planners, landscape architects, and developers) along with multinational corporations

and the government policy elites that have recommend subsidies for them (Fainstein

2 Karsten Harries draws a similar conclusion in the chapter “Space and Place” of his text

The Ethical Function of Architecture. Here, Harries’ assertion is similar to the “loss of identity” and liberation critique of place in modernity discussed by Koolhaas (see later in this essay). (Harries 2000)

Sankey 6

2001). The rise of global capitalism and trade has facilitated this transaction of

knowledge and installed its own degree of standardization3 (Ricouer 1965 (1955)).

Yet what is significant here is not the lost of identity as it relates to a sense of

place. This is another architecture discussion altogether. In his 1995 essay “Generic City”

Rem Koolhaas demonstrated that the modern detachment of identity could in fact be

liberating 4 (Koolhaas 1998). Instead, the pervasion of a global homogenized response to

site-specific problems with the goal of responding to global issues at the expense of

local factors has precipitated socio-economic dysfunction and inequality, environmental

degradation and other problems. What occurs is a negative feedback loop in which

global-level genericized actions foster deleterious impacts on the local level which

because of the political and multi-national corporate governance of the world system

require global-level responses5. And these global level responses risk becoming generic

and ill-tailored answers that induce other problems.

At the outset of his introductory essay “Why Ecological Urbanism? Why Now?”

Mohsen Mostafavi references a series of articles on sustainability printed in the

Guardian in 2007. The three narratives encounter a variety of themes like the

connection between the Iraq War, the escalating price of oil and the environmental

devastation caused by open-cast mining for tar sands oil in Alberta, Calgary (Mostafavi

2010). What Mostafavi alludes to—but does not mention specifically—is that each of

3 French phenomenologist Paul Racouer used the term “universalization” to have a

similar meaning. He cited the paradox between the struggle to attain modernization versus the lost of a cultural past that accompanies this quest. The position of this essay, however, is that the cultural past continues to exert an influence on the present through a constructed environment (architecture) that spans generations. 4 In his essay “Generic City”, Koolhaas hails the lost of identity for cities in the

contemporary period as an escape from the influences of history and spatial position in relationship to the center city and other spaces. His reading of the “generic” with positive connotations is at odds with a more critical realization of the importance of identity and place in the constructed environment.

Sankey 7

these narratives expose the globalized nature of the formation of place as not only a

localized physical environment but also an underlying convergence of visible and

invisible dynamic flows and processes with reaches that extend worldwide.

5 This is a hallmark of the Integrated World Capitalism system which Guattari suggests

emerged after the industrial capitalism period and wrought a number of social, environmental, and cultural problems. (47)

Sankey 8

FINDING THE SINGULARITY OF PLACE IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION

As a contrast to the genercizing tendencies of globalization, the treatment of

each place as unique presents an opportunity to construct an environment and world

order in which the resolution of places on the local level might in fact be a more

sustainable framework that reinforces the strength of the global system through the

strengths of its component parts. We can derive this singularity of a place by careful

analysis and interpretation of its natural environment, culture and society, and

economic basis6. The natural environment might be understood as the climate and

microclimate of a site as well as the biodiversity and its interaction with geological and

hydrological systems. Culture and society might be defined as representing the

collective consciousness, social networks, migratory movements and traditions of a

community inhabiting a place7 (Frampton 1983). Lastly, the economic basis describes

the form of economic system, the actual mix of industries, and the relationship between

production, the people, and the landscape8 (Doherty 2010). While all of these facets of

place might be adulterated by globalization to some extent, a degree of variation and

uniqueness almost always remains.

6 These factors represent a distillation of ideas presented in the wide-ranging essays in

the Ecological Urbanism reader as well as a consideration of Guattari’s “three ecologies” (social ecosophy, environmental ecosophy, and mental ecosophy). 7 Kenneth Frampton in his essay “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an

Architecture of Resistance” traces an interesting connection between culture and nature as key elements that have been missing from the formation of place in modern architecture. Frampton points to the tabula rasa tendencies of a machine age, in which the subtlety of local topography or sunlight entering a building or temperature in a room can be forced to conform to the will of a universal architecture and culture. 8 The intersection of these three factors which participate in the formulation of

singularity of place are exemplified in the essay by Gareth Doherty on Bahrain in which he examines the historical, cultural, social and economic legacy of date palms and the reappropriation of their meaning during the rapid urbanization period after 1970. In the desert kingdom of Bahrain, these orchards epitomize the power of nature to engage with constructed human settlements and offer new interpretations of place.

Sankey 9

A fourth dimension of place is time; particularly as it is encapsulated in the

“time lag of architecture” which Alan Colquohoun described (Colquohoun 2002). History

which informs the present is often fluid—it stands to be ignored, exaggerated,

misunderstood or misappropriated. However, architecture as a vestigial reminder of

history is not; it is congenital and inherited, a tangible fact of a place that cannot be

merely erased except through enormous effort. And thus, even though architecture is

the lagging resultant of underlying processes that drive urbanism, it is also perhaps the

clearest influencer of the future constructed environment. Therefore, it is the

confluence of these four agendas and facets—natural environment, culture and society,

economic basis and architecture—that form the skeleton around which urbanism

develops.

With that said, this basis allows us to approach urbanism as a creation which

we are responsible for such that it accounts for the specificity of place but also

understands its position within the context of globalization. Critical regionalism9

(Shannon 2006)—the forerunner to Ecological Urbanism—foresaw the problems which

now plague our cities but in the end it underestimated the unyielding advance of

globalization and its concomitant forces.

9 Kelly Shannon views Critical Regionalism introduced by Alexander Tzonis and Lfance

Lefaivre in 1981 as a “preamble” to landscape urbanism. In a sense, however, critical regionalism might be viewed a predecessor to most of the post post-modernist theories regarding urbanism in that it recognizes the disregard for place as in the contemporary city. New Urbanism (neotraditional town design), landscape urbanism and ecological urbanism all seek to respond to the loss of the capability of architecture to deal with the place-defeating influences of modern society.

Sankey 10

LONDON AND NEW YORK

The modernist mantra that form follows function has rational credence. By

contrast, to believe that function follows form with respect to the urban environment

defies the material evidence of the constructed environment all around us in the age of

globalization. Take global cities New York and London as a case study. They are

emblematic of a trend in which financial and human capital has pooled in key global

cities around the world which anchor global capital markets while yielding tremendous

political, cultural and media influence (Foreign Policy [magazine]; A.T. Kearney; Chicago

Council on Global Affairs 2010). As early as 2000, a report “London-New York Study: The

Economies of Two Great Cities at the Millennium”, pointed out the convergence of

these cities in many respects. “London and New York, despite striking differences in

their historic past and with very contrasting forms of local governance, have developed

economies that, at the century’s turn, are at an extraordinary point of symmetry.” The

report highlighted numerous parallels. The most important was the positioning of the

two cities as global hubs for finance, advanced business services, media,

communications, creative arts, entertainment and design. It also noted the near-

simultaneous attrition of older manufacturing and distribution facilities, the similar

demographic trajectories with influxes of immigrants, and a comparable labor pool

(Corporation of London June 2000).

What is familiar here is the convergence of these attributes of singularity of

place. Is it surprising then that the two most global cities also compete for the position

as the two most generic? In terms of economic basis, an elite class of financiers chases

worldwide capital flows while a permanent underclass remains confined to earn a

meager subsistence through employment in low-wage service industries. As for the

natural environment, any semblance of native ecological and hydrological systems has

Sankey 11

been banished to the metropolitan peripheries, masked by concrete and mechanical

infrastructural systems. The singularity afforded place by nature is hardly discernible.

Both cities are concrete jungles. Both cities are generic.

However, one element of singularity of place that remains is time (and history)

manifest through architecture and the constructed environment. Two views of both

cities—cross-sectional and plan—reveal very different urban morphologies. In New

York, spire-pointed buildings leap skyward into a vertical dimension rarely replicated at

such a scale in anywhere else. From the ground plane, these skyscrapers cluster into a

tightly composed grid system that shifts and transforms across its five boroughs like

running lines on a sheet draped over a varied terrain. In London, the extreme densities

and stark verticality of its cross-Atlantic counterpart are moderated. Streets and blocks

contort irregularly as they zig-zag across the cityscape. A phenotypical reading of

London and New York presents two cities that may have little in common with one

another. Their architecture and constructed environments express unique outcomes. Is

it not a wonder, then, that genotypically-speaking (concerning the economic basis, the

demographic profiles of the population and other non-physically realized traits in the

constructed ground) these cities almost seem the same?10

The adaptability of the processes and flows which underpin the urbanism of

London and New York across a range of urban typologies suggests that defining what

constitutes good urbanism for the 21st

century should consider the processes and

dynamic flows first—the urban genotype, not necessarily the landscape or architecture.

It is the interpretation of these processes through the physical environment that will

produce the most environmentally and socially sustainable future for our cities.

10

A project begun by the Fundación Metrópoli researches the implications of physical form and structure on their economic competiveness and socio-cultural cohesion. (Vegara, Dwyer and and Kelley 2010)

Sankey 12

MIDTOWN MANHATTAN

(Photo by William Sankey)

Sankey 13

A VISION FOR ECOLOGICAL URBANISM

What we need is an ecological urbanism, a truly “new” urbanism, a forward-

looking prescription for the global city. In the past, the environment could be

understood as an immediate juxtaposition between the city and nature. The countryside

and hinterlands functioned to support and sustain cities. Today this is not necessarily

the case. Cities sustain each other; the sustenance and consumption which city dwellers

require derive from harvests thousands of miles and climates away. Ecological

urbanism, however, has several fundamental traits which distinguish it:

(1) It encourages the overlap and intermingling of natural/biotic systems

alongside constructed typologies and patterns (Bava, et al. 2010) (Kwinter

2010)

(2) It has inherent global implications and relationships that transcend its

immediacy (e.g. trans-cultural readings of a space, influence of global

capital flows, or the impact on global climate and environments (Hodson

and Marvin 2010),`

(3) Ecological urbanism mitigates the cold calculative economics of capitalism

and other socio-economic regimes. It is independent of these socio-

economic regimes with meaning and impact that function across socio-

political barriers (Cohen 2010) (Wacquant 2010).

(4) Ecological urbanism is neither a vertical nor horizontal approach. Its

variegated expressions respond in a pragmatic fashion that is flexible to

programmatic, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the economic and

social context,

Sankey 14

(5) At the local level, ecological urbanism creates or reinforces a mental

coherence of a place not predicated solely on false memories expropriated

from foreign places and times for commercial purposes11

.

Together, these principles constitute a set of criteria for ascertaining which

types of projects might best be described as Ecological Urbanism. To be clear, ecological

urbanism is not simply the oft-repeated and increasingly vague framework described by

the moniker “sustainable” design. Sustainable design has become the design equivalent

of a gimme much like the mechanical climate control building systems of the early 20th

century, which eventually became standard building technologies and not design drivers

(Banham). Instead, the five principles outlined capitalize on opportunities presented by

the confluence of natural systems, human socio-cultural traditions, economic factors,

and history as memorialized in architecture and infrastructure. Out of these factors and

given the context of an interconnected world, ecological urbanism offers a novel mode

of approaching the challenges of urbanism and has the potential to offer a new

aesthetic for the constructed environment.

Two projects at different scales provide insight into the nuances of ecological

urbanism and how it might be achieved. These projects include the High Line in New

York and the plan for the London Estuary Region. These projects and plans do not

11

The insertion of ersatz culture or history on a site has become common. One only needs to look at the proliferation of “main street” shopping center types which feign to represent the authentic public realm and layering of histories found in town centers (with “civic” sculptures purchased from a catalog embellishing the spaces and faux façade more impressive than those at DisneyWorld), but in reality only seek to enhance profit margins and foot-traffic by providing the context of genuine place and belonging for shoppers. Likewise, the New Urbanism movement has been undermined by scenographic proclivities which hearken back to traditional architecture as a way of relating to the culture and history of a place—even though this architecture and its components are misplaced in history, geographically and climatically quite often. The selling of the false image of place by developers drives value and sales. This is nothing more than an extension of the “mass media serialism”—which pretends to represent egalitarianism—addressed by Felix Guattari in his essay “Three Ecologies”.

Sankey 15

necessarily exemplify ecological urbanism, but they each offer key components that

help us to frame paradigm better.

Sankey 16

THE HIGH LINE

Sheathed in rust and chipping paint—a forlorn above-ground railway of a now-

dead industrial past—the New York High Line winds its way nearly 1.5 miles between

warehouses and other buildings. Historically, the economic deterioration of the Chelsea

neighborhood and Meatpacking District during the post-industrial period and its more

recent rebirth as a hub for loft apartments, art galleries, and night clubs epitomized the

flexibility of the urban fabric to absorb and function among a variety of economic

conditions and underlying processes, in essence the type of urban refunctionalization

which Andrea Branzi proposed in his New Athens Charter (Branzi 2010). The full

restoration of the streetscape and neighborhood, however, were precluded by an

infrastructural remnant, the historical residual of an industrial conveyance structure

stuck in a city in which it no longer belonged. Urbanism orthodoxy would suggest that

the removal of the rail line—the erasure of a landmark in the cultural landscape and

disposal of tons of ironwork—would increase property values of shadow-covered

storefronts. But an alternative ecological urbanism vision, transformed this site into a

novel extension of the urban realm accessible to all. Thus the value created flowed not

only into the pockets of developers and adjacent building owners, but also into the

social and recreational experiences of New Yorkers.

Perhaps equally importantly, the redesign of the High Line by landscape

architecture firm James Corner Field Operations and architecture firm Diller+Scofidio,

incorporated a rustic medley of wildflowers and foliage atop the rail line where many of

these species had already retaken the forgotten plane above the street. Architecture did

not necessarily lead; in this case, the return of nature had already demonstrated the

ecological potential of the site to exist within the dense cityscape of steel, glass and

concrete. Blooming witch hazel and aster emerged. Song sparrows, catbirds and even

Sankey 17

warblers flocked in. Rain waters irrigated the flora and were absorbed into the soil

reducing runoff (Ask a Gardener 2009-2011). Alongside human park-goers, the High Line

had become a model for the integration of biodiversity and human habitat12

.

Traditionally the duality of city and nature has described the relationship

between these two landscapes. The lushness of Central Park abutting the cold, grayness

of Midtown exemplifies this separation. It has been at the center of thought on

urbanism since the widespread adoption of public parks during era of industrialization.

But in the age of the global hinterland in which the divorce of natural processes from

urban processes has exacerbated environmental and social problems, it might be better

to suggest that city with nature, a dynamic union, has greater potential to create the

conditions of good urbanism (Czerniak 2006). That is, urbanism that is good for city

dwellers but also salubrious for the greater biosphere.

In terms of placeness, the High Line reinserts a localized identity that is

associated with the climate and ecology of the region. The seasonal transitioning of

varying colors of blossoms and tree canopies and the avian songs which mark mating

and migration season reintroduce the transitory element of nature to place that is often

expunged from urban areas. The uniqueness of place reemerges; fostering not only the

resistance of place against the genericizing forces of globalization but also is palliative

and recuperative to the hardscape environment and its inhabitants (Citation needed).

12

In the essay “Return to Nature” by Sandi Hilal, Alessandro Petti, and Eyal Weizman, they examine an abandoned Israeli military fortress near Bethlehem which became a migratory waypoint for over 500 million birds annual. What we can learn from this project and the High Line is that flourishing biodiversity can co-exist with “hard” human settlement. As designers, we must find ways to facilitate this sharing of landscapes.

Sankey 18

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Views of the Highline Park in

the Chelsea neighborhood..

(Photo by William Sankey)

Sankey 19

THE THAMES GATEWAY PARKLANDS PLAN AND THE RISE OF AUTARKY

Across the sea, the plan for the Thames River Gateway Parklands offers a view

of ecological urbanism principles on a regional scale. On the Thames estuary region

linking London to the English Channel, British architect Terry Farrell has proposed a

strategic intervention that would create a linked chain of urban, parkland and

agricultural landscapes that would not only serve recreational and productive purposes

for London metropolitan residents and farmers, but also function to minimize the

potential threat of projected rising sea-levels due to climate change. In essence it is the

United Kingdom’s “first purpose-planned and built national park, unique in that it would

be an urban and rural park combined with its primary raison détre, anticipation of

future global warming” (S. T. Farrell 2010). Beyond this aspect of the plan, the vision

also calls for the attainment of self-sufficiency in terms of energy production and water

neutrality (T. Farrell November 2009).

The effort to achieve the limited self-sufficiency is a critical characteristic of the

Thames proposal as well as any proposal which strives towards ecological urbanism

solutions. At the architectural scale, distributed power systems in the form of

photovoltaic panels and fuels cells represent the concurrent and linked shift towards

breaking away from the volatility and potential political, environmental or economic

consequences of non-local sources of basic units of civilization (such as energy, water

and even food production). At a larger scale like the London estuary region, the pursuit

of autarky includes wind farms, agricultural farms and a host of other utilizations and

extractions from the regional landscape. On the one hand, the desire for autarky seems

ironic given the intractable advance of globalization. It is the return of the walled city of

the medieval age, except this time the barriers seek not to protect from roving bands of

vandals but to secure economic stability and self-reliance, to minimize the negative

Sankey 20

environmental consequences of transporting fuel and other goods from locations

thousands of kilometers from their production, and to provide a degree of security from

other nation-states in a resource scare global context (Hodson and Marvin 2010).

In effect, this autarkical outlook is ecological. It is a belief in a system in which

the component parts and systems function together for the greater health of the overall

system. Given the splintering of the global governance as a resultant of the nation-state

world order and the inability of governments to agree upon global frameworks that

might protect the environment and climate or secure the fair distribution of natural

resources for economic growth, autarky—however ironic it may seem—is the logical

means by which metropolises and nations will compete in the interdependent system of

worldwide trade and commercial transaction. The result is an ecological urbanism as

observed in the London estuary proposal that focuses inward and relies on site specific

solutions even as a city grows ever-dependent upon its connections the global processes

and flows.

Sankey 21

CONCLUSION

For all dystopian and apocalyptic pronouncements, it is clear that the

progression of globalization will result not in generic metropolises fraught with

environmental and social catastrophes but instead it should rationally lead to a new

theory of urbanism. This new approach to urbanism which is already underway (even if

it has not yet been codified and categorized) is predicated on the assumption that either

through good governance and social justice or through autarkical-driven motivations, an

ecological urbanism will arise. In an ecological system, the whole is greater than the sum

of the parts. That is to say, the dynamic functionally of interacting parts and systems

combine to produce an overarching structure that is always evolving yet stable, resilient

yet always vulnerable. Urbanism should function ecologically. The end will not be global

cities of utopia but a constant course correction (Guattari 1989 (2000)) and striving for

healthy, relevant architecture and cities.

Sankey 22

WORKS CITED Ask a Gardener. 2009-2011. http://www.thehighline.org/about/ask-a-gardener

(accessed May 4, 2011).

Bava, Henri, Erik Behrens, Steven Craig, and Alex Wall. "Greenmetropolis." In Ecological

Urbanism, by Moshen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 374-377. Baden, Switzerland: Lars

Muller Publishers, 2010.

Branzi, Andrea. "For a Post-Environmentalism: Seven Suggestions for a New Athens

Charter and the Weak Metropolis." In Ecological Urbanism, by Mohsen Mostafavi and

Gareth Doherty, 110-113. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Mueller Publishers, 2010.

Cohen, Lizabeth. "Black and White in Green Cities." In Ecological Urbanism, by Mohsen

Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 134-135. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Mueller Publishers,

2010.

Colquohoun, Alan. Modern Architecture (Oxford History of Art). Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2002.

Corporation of London. London-New York Study: The Economies of Two Great Cities at

the Millennium. London: Corporation of London, June 2000.

Czerniak, Julia. "Looking Back at Landscape Urbanism: Speculations on Site." In The

Landscape Urbanism Reader, by Charles (editor) Waldheim, 112-113. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.

Doherty, Gareth. "There's More to Green than Meets the Eye: Green Urbanism in

Bahrain." In Ecological Urbanism, by Moshen Mostafavi, 174-183. Baden, Switzerland:

Lars Mueller Publishers, 2010.

Fainstein, Susan. The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London,

1980-2000. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2001.

Sankey 23

Farrell, Sir Terry. "London's Estuary Region." In Ecological Urbanism, by Mohsen

Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 482-487. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Mueller Publishers,

2010.

Farrell, Terry. Thames Gateway Core Vision. Farells, November 2009.

Foreign Policy [magazine]; A.T. Kearney; Chicago Council on Global Affairs. "Global Cities

Index 2010." Foreign Policy, September/October 2010.

Frampton, Kenneth. "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of

Resistance." In The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Post-Modern Culture, by Hal Foster.

Seattle: Bay Press, 1983.

Guattari, Felix. The Three Ecologies. Translated by Ian Pindar and Paul Sutton. New York

and London: Continuum, 1989 (2000).

Harries, Karsten. The Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge, Massachsetts: MIT

Press, 2000.

Hodson, Mike, and Simon Marvin. "Transcendent Eco-cities or Urban Ecological

Security?" In Ecological Urbanism, by Mohsen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 208-217.

Baden, Switzerland: Lars Mueller Publishers, 2010.

Koolhaas, Rem. "Generic City." In S, Ml, L, XL, by Rem Koolhaas and Mau Bruce.

Monacelli Press, 1998.

Kwinter, Sanford. "Notes on the Third Ecology." In Ecological Urbanism, by Mohsen

Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 94-105. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Mueller Publishers,

2010.

Mostafavi, Mohsen. "Why Ecological Urbanism? Why Now?" In Ecological Urbanism, by

Moshen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 12-53. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Muller

Publishers, 2010.

Sankey 24

Ricouer, Paul. History and Truth. Translated by Charles. Kelbley. Evanston: Northwestern

University Press, 1965 (1955).

Shannon, Kelly. "From Theory to Resistance: Landscape Urbanism in Europe." In The

Landscape Urbanism Reader, by Charles (editor) Waldheim, 142-162. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.

Vegara, Alfonso, Mark Dwyer, and Aaron and Kelley. "A Methodology for Urban

Innovation." In Ecological Urbanism, by Mostafavi and Mohsen, 372-373. Baden,

Switzerland: Lars Mueller Publishers, 2010.

Wacquant, Loic. "Sustaining the City in the Face of Advanced Marginality." In Ecological

Urbanism, by Mohsen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, 402-405. Baden, Switzerland: Lars

Mueller Publishers, 2010.