Advertisement

What if London were a national park?

MarcoPicardo-HeadIf space in the city is shaped by our interpretation, then changing our approach to space should fundamentally change the city. Theoretically, at least, this may be true.

And it’s this theory that has in part informed the geographer Daniel Raven-Ellison’s reasoning in his recently launched campaign to reposition London, not as a city, but as a national park.

Given the prominence of air pollution in the news of late this may be a timely suggestion. In spite of the differing reactions to recent smog episodes in London and Paris, neither city has subsequently introduced any measure to address the underlying problem of high air pollution over the long-term. Perhaps a radical rethinking of what urban space is, and what it means to us, is a crucial part of the process that will help reduce the toxicity of our cities.

Why should we accept that our cities are inevitably polluting? The only logical answer to this question is, of course, that we shouldn’t. And we don’t. A cursory examination of the growing levels of recycling, cycling and green businesses in the UK indicates that throughout our cities people are pursuing more sustainable ways of life. So what’s the problem then?

Well, despite this progress towards greener lifestyles at an individual level, cities still present us with significant environmental challenges, which will intensify as the planet continues urbanising. The World Health Organisation recently found that air pollution might be responsible for up to one in every eight deaths worldwide, something directly relevant to UK given that the health costs of associated air pollution are estimated as double those of obesity.

This is compounded by the loss of green space in our cities. In London, despite residents’ love for the many physical aspects of city life that connect us to nature – trees, parks, gardens, allotments –, between 2009-2012 the city lost the equivalent of one and a half Hyde Parks in terms of open space land, a whopping 215 hectares, according to the London Assembly’s environment committee.

Although we use the body as a metaphor for the city, in that we interchangeably use arteries and roads, and refer to our city centres as hearts, it would appear that we don’t care for our built areas in the same way. But perhaps this metaphor is not misplaced. Research by Geoffrey West suggests that urban areas follow the same metabolic laws as other organisms: they are essentially living entities. So if cities are living creatures in their own right should we change our approach to them?

The context of recent air pollution spikes that have highlighted the environmental and health challenges faced by contemporary cities is an opportune moment to re-examine our perception of the city. If the city is understood as a natural phenomenon then maybe we will approach it as such. This could mean that ideas such as urban motorways becoming green arteries, proposed by Bell Phillips Architects, and re-purposing London’s disused postal railway network as a new eco-distribution network to displace lorry-dependent development, as suggested by Sam Jones from FAT, wouldn’t seem so radical and could become closer to reality.

To change the course of our current polluting city trajectory, we should re-examine our relationship with our built environment. Understanding London as a national park could enable this transformation while helping us to celebrate the complexities of the city as an ecosystem.

Imagine if London’s ongoing development boom was unfolding in the setting of a national park? In this context the city’s ability to meet its polluting challenges while establishing public places that promote biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions, and improve city flood defences, may not be so inconceivable.

Marco Picardi
Marco Picardi campagins for a green Westway - @greenwestway
Help us break the news – share your information, opinion or analysis
Back to top