Debate 2 - Paper 2

An Engineer’s View:

Sir Jack Zunz FEng FICE

former Chairman, Ove Arup Partnership

The obvious pitfall which we should try and avoid in this evening’s debate is superficiality. Vacuous tabloid news and television sound bites without much substance have introduced an inanity into public life, which not only wields unwarranted influence but is also in danger of being accepted as the norm. The recent television debate on the monarchy was a case in point. It may be good entertainment but should not be confused with serious discussion on matters of great public importance. The word “Sustainability”, particularly when associated with development, has attracted some meaningless vocabulary. We should try and introduce more rigour into tonight’s proceedings.

Questions of sustainability are arguably league leaders when it comes to the real and most crucial issues of the day. It is encouraging that sustainability now features more and more on the public agenda and surely it is only a matter of time before it appears at the top. But there is often what appears to be a convenient blanket of obscurity about its real meaning and possible implications.

Let us remind ourselves of the now much quoted definition:

” …. development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In the Department of Environment’s publication “Sustainable development: The UK Strategy (1994), this definition is preceded by three statements:

1. Most societies want to achieve development to secure higher standards of living, now and for future generations

2. They also seek to protect and enhance their environment, now and for their children

“Sustainable” development tries to reconcile these two objectives.

There is here more than an implication that sustainability is primarily concerned with the continuing, and in most cases the improved well-being of humanity if not the very survival of the human race.

The question posed in tonight’s debate as to whether an additional 4.4 million homes in the UK is a sustainable proposition is at best open and more probably silly! It will remain so until such time as we have a proper understanding of what “sustainable development” really entails and we have some credible policies to attain it. Sustainability is a global issue and local and regional policies should be formulated in that context. It could therefore be argued that a proposition which adds four and a half million homes with their attendant energy needs and use of non renewable resources in a society which consumes more than its fair share of available scarce commodity reserves, shouldn’t even be considered. But “realpolitik” is such that the momentum to do something is probably irresistible, even if we don’t fully understand the problem to which we are trying to find a solution.

In 1996 the Institution of Civil Engineers published a document called “Sustainability and Acceptability in Infrastructure Development”. This was a response to a challenge laid down by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Institution to take the lead in setting up a dialogue with the construction industry to make infrastructure development “sustainable and acceptable”. In the event the response by the Institution is thoughtful and responsible. It uses phrases such as “towards sustainability” and is also sensitive to political and economic matters which are inherent in considerations of acceptability. For it is the public’s acceptance of the consequences and imperatives in striving for sustainability which will ultimately determine whether the inevitable constraints on individuals and collective demands are achievable. Regrettably at this time there is not yet in existence a credible design, based on valid research and theory, for fulfilling the definition of sustainable development, be it for an additional 4.4 million homes or for the attendant and necessary infrastructure.

In our society a financial basis for most decisions and judgements is generally accepted as necessary by the population at large with differing degrees of grace. But this acceptance has to be seen in the context that money is one of the few things which we think we can measure. Hence matters or public policy which have real of perceived financial connotations assume a commanding presence in the public domain. “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” is the tenet of the management cult of our day, and “measure” usually means counting money. We have a national budget, we have budgets in our regional and local governments and in our businesses and some of us even have household budgets (when we don’t, most households try and follow Mr Micawber’s advice and spend less than they earn).

What we have not yet achieved is “budgeting” our vital communal assets - our atmosphere, our ecology and more particularly land, water, and particularly our non renewable resources. While we are beginning to try and curb our spendthrift tendencies, we have yet to establish realistic budgeting procedures, so that “future generations are not compromised”. Our social, economic and their overarching political structures are probably not yet designed to cater for the potentially radical consequences of achieving stable conditions for sustainable development.

Consider just two issues - population growth and energy. While the increase in the population of the UK is modest by international standards, it is still increasing. The world’s population reached one billion in 1830, the second billion took only 100 years, the third 30 years and it is now at an eleven year cycle and shortening although the rate is predicted to decrease in the next century. Currently there are in excess of 5 billion people and while predictions are imprecise, it is suggested that the numbers could stabilise at somewhere between 8 and 14 billion some time in the 21st century. To give this statistic some dimension, Pakistan is a typical example. In 1947, at the time of independence, it population was 31 million. By 1990 it had increased to 123 million. It is projected to reach 162 million by the year 2000 and 248 million by 2020, which is a similar timescale to the predictions we are dealing with this evening. Inevitably, population pressures of this nature will impinge on the developed world. How and in what form is conjectural, but the impact on scarce and non renewable resources is inevitable.

Authoritative population carrying capacity studies are urgently needed - but more of that later. There is an argument with which I basically agree, which is that population numbers overarch all other factors associated with sustainable development. But the question of energy is so immediately important that I want to single it out for special mention. We have yet to harness a renewable energy source, a source which is environmentally safe, economically viable and one which will provide humanity’s needs for the foreseeable future and we are still increasing our consumption of global energy reserves.

There is increased awareness, particularly and not surprisingly in the developed world, that we must become less profligate in our consumption of an increasingly scarce resource. There are many examples of more efficient use of energy in many walks of life. Overall we are nevertheless still heading for a precipice, however far the distance is measured from time to time.

To illustrate the magnitude of the problem, the energy consumption of the 4.4 million homes we are discussing this evening will be between 20 and 40,000 megawatts, or equivalent in oil or gas, which equates to 10 to 20 “Didcot” size power stations, and this may seem a modest quantity of energy compared with that needed to satisfy the needs of 80% of the world’s population which still aspire to achieve our living standards.

When placed into this global context our housing problems assume quite a different dimension. Yet those who are, or are perceived to be, in need of housing don’t quite see it that way.

So what to do. It would be something of a cop-out to take a dismal apocalyptic view that some event, such as extra-terrestrial, nuclear, famine or such like will sort it all out for us. Indeed, the “Independent on Sunday” recently featured in its Review a doom directory called “What’s going to get you first?”, with William Hill giving odds on the likelihood of the various events occurring. (I was puzzled by the potential problems between better and bet-taker in settling their wager.) I am assuming that humanity is sane and clever enough to avoid such a catastrophe, an assumption which is based on a mixture of faith and hope, faith in our good sense and ingenuity and hope in our being able to do better than we have in the past!

Coming then to this evening’s housing issue, we must consider short term measures, in that the problem is with us now and won’t go away while we research, evaluate, design and implement measures which will deal with sustainability in the future. These immediate solutions will, at best, buy time and no more, but we must also consider the medium and long term.

Surely, the only sensible way forward in the short term is to respond to housing demand in a controlled, planned and pragmatic manner and to amend policies in the light of developing knowledge and research. Here are some points which need to be registered now:

Whatever the outcome of in depth cross disciplinary research attaining that holy grail, sustainable development, we should try and do the least possible damage
This means a less than dogmatic attitude towards centrism or decentrism in planning - it means compromise, which never satisfies the purists or the dogmatists. This means using urban fabric as efficiently as possible, densifying it, rehabilitating brown field sites, revisiting high rise housing, converting commercial properties, while at the same time, and only where necessary, sensitively developing greenfield sites.

It means an acceptance of more stringent planning controls. There is now increasing acceptance that sensible and creative planning can have beneficial consequences. The disrepute into which so much planning has fallen is happily lifting. It means the imposition of much more stringent energy targets than are now in place. This may mean greater government interference in devising fiscal incentives in the use and conservation of energy.

Investment in relevant public transport is generally deemed to be beneficial, but nobody wants to pay. We must try and devise new models which go beyond current cost benefit studies and which somehow place sustainability and the welfare of future generations into the equation. Through top down patronage as well as bottom up education and increasing awareness, we must stimulate the quality of design of housing and its environment. Good design in its holistic sense is the key to the entire housing problem. But even in the more narrow context of the quality of the spaces both in and outside the homes, we must do much better than we have in the past. Sustainability will be the consequence of good and holistic design.

The extent to which demand can be managed needs constant review. The DOE paper suggests that there is some scope, but does not go far enough. It is based on satisfying perceived demand, rather than evaluating whether or not this demand matches existing sustainability criteria, even where these are inevitably tentative.
A huge education programme is needed to achieve public acceptance for measures which are deemed to be desirable or necessary and which would not normally rate highly in the popularity stakes. The ICE paper highlights “acceptance” as being central to sustainability issues and increasing acceptance and involvement can only come about as a result of an informed and caring population.

In adopting these measures, a year in year out audit should determine progress in the knowledge that we are doing the minimum damage commensurate with the public’s commitment and consent on the one hand, and the emergence of deeper understanding of new data and possibly technology on the other.

The medium to long term solution to our housing needs lies in a better understanding of the implications of sustainable development in a more general sense. There are some very fundamental questions which need to be answered. For instance, how do we know when we have reached ecological sustainability? How far do we have to go to reduce environmental impact? Do we require new social patterns and institutions? There are indications that sustainability will require more community action. Will this change the pattern of family fragmentation and point to more “community” type living with its obvious consequences on housing needs and patterns? There are strong indications that to work towards real and workable solutions to sustainability requires a new and unconventional holistic approach.

Much research has been and is being carried out. The DOE has published and sponsored numerous studies on urban capacity, on the use of derelict land, on planning for sustainable development, to mention just a few. Innumerable studies have been carried out and are continuing to be published on most aspects of sustainability and the built environment. The ICE document is a typical outcome. But something is missing. The issue is so big, so all embracing, like a giant jigsaw where each small element has a place and where it is not always possible to find its immediate location. The problem of sustainable development is so complex and chaotic that there are real fears that solutions may challenge too many of our institutions, our behaviour patterns and our beliefs.

The challenge of integrating the scientific, the plethora of technical, urban planning, social, economic and political factors into a comprehensive totality is also very difficult. But it must be addressed. Possible solutions can only be found by bringing together the political, social, economic and environmental sciences and technologies. Credible policies for sustainability in general and sustainable housing in particular will only emerge from such cross disciplinary studies.

At present we have some policies based on soft notions rather than hard theories. We have to make do with these for the time being, but they should be coupled with the element of pragmatism which I have described for there is no place for complacency. The issues are here, they are big and they are urgent. Fortunately, there is an increasing appreciation for the need of cross-disciplinary research and education. Sustainability with all its ramifications could arguably be described as the most challenging cross disciplinary problem of all.

The Institution of Civil Engineers has made a start with its report on infrastructure development. Is this not an opportunity to break down our often artificial professional barriers and join forces? Architects and Civil Engineers with the commitment of their respective Institutions, could form a catalytic start to bring together the other disciplines, particularly the behavioural sciences, and initiate comprehensive interdisciplinary research and task forces. The objective would be to establish some possible models for sustainable development in general and for specific issues, like housing in particular. Only when we have a holistic grasp of the problems with all their social, economic, environmental and political and ethical implications, can we realistically start thinking in terms of sustainable development. The proposal to build more than 4 million new homes in this country should be seen in that light if we honestly wish to adhere to the spirit of “Sustainable Development”. We have here a golden opportunity to take collective initiatives.

My answer to the question posed in tonight’s debate is another question. Why don’t we, engineers and architects and urban designers, join forces to act as catalysts and promote the necessary research and studies for us to be able to advise our policy makers not only on building houses, but also on other infrastructures which are really sustainable so that we can genuinely say to the next generations that we have left the place in as reasonable working order as we found it?