Its not all that long since large chunks of Europe were destroyed in the second world war ; the generation is just passing of architects and town planners who worked to rebuild and to create a new world of progress in the decades that followed. It didn’t all work out of course, but maybe it worked enough that there is still a belief that the way the built environment is designed can make people happy?

Alistair’s views were interesting and reminded me of the book “Bottomless Well” by Peter W Huber & Mark P Mills (subtitled “The twilight of fuel, the virtue of waste, and why we will never run out of energy”). They postulated that we would never run out of energy because mankind is just so darn clever. It all sounds very reasonable that somehow the human spirit is constrained unreasonabley by a bunch of environmentalists. But it is an elegant fantasy. The finite limits of this solitary planet are well documented. Environmentalists have little to do with it. Nature offers its own constraints. Of course with sufficient technology we could replace every natural service that nature offers us. But we do not yet live in such a sci fi world. I suspect we are both after the same thing – the world of Star Trek. A universe where mankind has learnt from its mistakes and transitioned to clean and renewable energy sources. The TV and Movie interpretations of Gene Roddenberry’s vision shows a much wiser human race with access to untold amounts of energy. The cities have great skyscrapers and some live apparently divorced from the natural world. However, whenever this vision zooms into the way people and communities behave you see something different. You see active and thriving communities. You see people tending plants, you see markets, you see trees… Maybe this sci fi utopian vision is fantasy too but there may come a day when Alistair’s vision and OUR’s become true simultaneously. Where we disagree is on the roadmap to that destination.

Guy, I agree with you that planners have to work within a context that might not be of their choosing. I didn’t intend to slur the people themselves, rather the mindset one encounters among architects and some planners, that we are planning/designing for a world of unlimited resources. It was especially evident at the TED talks I attended, the idea that there are no limits to what architecture can achieve. I feel that needs to be challenged, the idea that is, not the inidividuals, who, as you say, in planning, work within a framework that is very much oriented in the other direction. Some brave and visionary souls though are pointing in a different direction, (such as the Buenaventura POst Oil Plan, http://www.cityofventura.net/files/public_works/maintenance_services/environmental_services/resources/post-peakoil.pdf) and they need all the encouragement they can get…

Perhaps Rob you could invite Alistair Brown to a challenge. He could be supported to take over the architectural design and planning of an appropriate seaside village (where the occupants were inspired by his manifesto and vision) and to grow this into the future city that he envisages. You’d have to give his project city a funky title like ‘Atlantis’.
Simultaneously you would continue to work on the Transition process and using some commonly agreed measures of resilience we could assess the differences over time.

Admittedly this would be a long process, but in effect we already have one city in the world that is a manifestation of his vision, Dubai. I believe Dubai really resonates with one of the core summary statements in the OilManCity manifesto and the philosophy of their work ‘For: An architecture that imposes its will on the planet’.

Incidentally there is an entire school of thought originating from the US that believes the ‘laws of thermodynamics’ don’t exist, they’re simply an intellectual creation that hold us back from realising our full human potential. I could see us wasting a whole lot of time that we don’t have in trying to understand such thinking.

Let’s keep working on the inspiring visions that are being generated by the Transition movement.
Yours for the future,
Nick T

at least a portion of those energies came from natural foods, and also from the oxygen from the abundant foliage cover in most parts of the world.

With the O2 of those vast forests now diminishing
for a century, the increased CO2 is seen more significantly to be increasing.
Einstien may have offered answers for everything.
Reflection will allow us to see what may have been, might not have been so bad after all..
and amalgamation of the ergonomic and the sustainable, while considering and including the fullest range of diversity – might help future generations..

In the Masters that I under took a compulsory course was on Sustainable Places. Within this course the different approaches of Sustainable Development were discussed, from those advocating an ecological modernist approach to a decentralist, low impact approach.

However planning as a profession, operates with the parameters of national governmental Planning Policy Statements.

Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development states that, “Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning.”

One of the four aims of SD as set out by the government is,

“the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.’

Planning policies at the regional and local level have to fit within the criteria as laid out within governmental national criteria. Accordingly whilst planning schools will teach different viewpoints they are training students to work within a profession, which is restricted to working within governmental policy. Accordingly whilst being encouraged to think independently, we are restricted in our working lives, to operating within parameters as set by national government for example, promoting,

“the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.’

Many planners will question personally this definition however they are not in a position within their working lives to operate outside of this definition. They will however take any opportunity to promote alternative ideas within the profession. Recently the RTPI has launched 7 commitments relating to climate change,

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/2700&ap=1

and has provided discussion forums on its website on peak oil.

Yes I will admit that the planning profession and planning schools are not at the forefront of change when it comes to climate change and resource depletion. However they are starting to address these issues and smearing planning schools with the statement that they possess a cornucopian technofix school of thinking is in my view a deeply flawed view.

Personally I feel that the Transition Movement has been a very successful vehicle in promoting a transition towards a more resilient society, however it is not without criticism on its own part. Far too often I feel that it possesses an elitist attitude, failing to work with the wider green movement, criticising those that use other methods of change such as attending demonstrations, direct action etc.

Whilst I accept that the advocates of the Transition Movement may not see these methods as being right for themselves, the attitude that others should renounce them are in my view limiting. To each their own. Personally I feel that there are many different approaches to create change, which can be complementary and whilst one approach may be inappropriate to one person it does not mean that it is necessarily wrong for someone else.

Whilst I accept that this response is to a degree rambling, I feel that it is important at least to me, to question views that I do not agree with.

My Buffalo boots give me impressively large footprints, as I had occasion to observe in the snow today while checking to see how the garden looks as winter recedes.

; )

Err, where exactly are we going to expand this footprint to? We’ve pretty much trampled all over this planet. Is he suggesting we need to start colonising space?

I’m not convinced he actually understands the concept of a footprint.