The nine European Monarchs who attended the funeral, photographed at Windsor Castle on 20 May 1910. Standing, from left to right: King Haakon VII of Norway, King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, King Manuel II of Portugal, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King George I of Greece and King Albert I of Belgium. Seated, from left to right: King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King George V of Britain and King Frederick VIII of Denmark.
Barcelona is widely recognized as one of the most successful cities in the world, with it’s urban planning considered one of the best model in the world. The man behind Barcelona’s city plan is Ildefonso Cerdá y Suñer. He was the progressive Catalan Spanish urban planner who designed the 19th-century “extension” of Barcelona called the Eixample.
The Eixample is characterized by long straight streets, a strict grid pattern crossed by wide avenues, and square blocks with chamfered corners (named illes in Catalan, manzanas in Spanish). This was a visionary, pioneering design by Ildefons Cerdà, who considered traffic and transport along with sunlight and ventilation in coming up with his characteristic octagonal blocks, where the streets broaden at every intersection making for greater visibility, better ventilation and (today) some short-stay parking space. The grid pattern remains as a hallmark of Barcelona, but many of his other provisions were unfortunately ignored: the four sides of the blocks and the inner space were built instead of the planned two or three sides around a garden; the streets were narrower; only one of the two diagonal avenues was carried out; the inhabitants were of a higher class than the mixed composition dreamed of by Cerdà. The important needs of the inhabitants were incorporated into his plan, which called for markets, schools, hospitals every so many blocks. Today, most of the markets remain open in the spots they have been from the beginning.
Renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking is set to do his first AMA (Ask Me Anything) forum on Reddit today, from Monday July 27 at 8AM Eastern Time through Tuesday, August 4. He plans to discuss his concerns that artificial intelligence could one day outsmart mankind if we are not careful.
You can find the details about it in the article linked below.
With driverless car possibly becoming a reality within our lifetime, the exponential rate of innovation have made us rethink what we can and can’t achieve. The topic of sentient AI is ever pervasive in the media with numerous illustrations across all mediums. The question that is on everyone’s mind is, can we seriously hope to create a “friendly AI”?
Elon Musk, founder of Tesla Motors and SpaceX has likened the development of AI to “summoning of the devil.” I suppose it is the sign of the times indicative of how far we have come and how close we actually are to Artificial Intelligence having an impact on our daily lives.
The notion of artificial intelligence in relation to human civilization is not a new phenomenon. It has existed as early as 1920s when Czech science fiction writer Karel Čapek coined the term “robot” in his play R.U.R. Few decades later, the three laws of robotics was developed by famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in his 1942 short story “Runaround”.
The 3 laws being:
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Although these laws have its roots in science fiction, they have gained some traction in genuine AI research. The popular culture is abundant with depictions of artificial intelligence both benevolent and malevolent coexisting with humans. And as we near this monumental paradigm shift, the hard question we must ask ourselves is, can we trust artificial being that may well evolve and deem us obsolete?
In any case, the best thing we can do is educate ourselves so we can ask better questions. Below is an infographic that will hopefully will shed some light on what is at stake.
Called Maidar, it’s intended to be home to 300,000 people and new high-tech industries, as well as being Mongolia’s new administrative nerve centre.
Designed almost entirely by German firms, and with investors reportedly champing at the bit to get involved – particularly from China – the new city will have to tackle a number of challenges including a severe scarcity of water.
But if it goes ahead, Mongolians could finally get some relief from the deadly pollution that plagues their existing capital, and the country could have its first blueprint for sustainable urban development.
The architect who landed this project of a lifetime was Stefan Schmitz, a 60-year-old partner in Cologne-based practice RSAA.
GCR caught up with him on his return from Maidar to find out how the idea for the project came about, how you build an eco-city in one of the coldest and driest countries on Earth – and why there are so many German firms involved in doing it.
Why a new capital?
Mongolia has the lowest population density in the world: 2.7 million people inhabit 1.6 million square kilometres, giving a density of 1.7 – about half that of Australia.
But four out of every 10 of those people live in the capital, Ulaanbaatar, so a city that was built to accommodate 600,000 people now contains twice that number.
This means that, paradoxically, near-empty Mongolia suffers from all the evils of urban overcrowding, including slums, housing shortages, traffic jams and deadly pollution.
In winter, when the temperature averages 40°C below freezing and there is never a cloud in the sky.
That sounds picturesque but constant high-pressure seals in pollution and, because Ulaanbaatar has no shortage of old cars, and because Mongolia relies on its abundant coal reserves for power, this creates smog so severe that is reckoned to be responsible for 10% of all deaths in the country.
One solution to the intolerable living conditions in the capital is to build a series of satellite towns designed from the ground up to avoid its problems.
At the moment, the country’s economy is suffering as a result of rows between the government and the mining multinationals that are responsible for 30% of the country’s GDP, but the growth trend over the past 10 years has been in double digits, reaching a peak of 17.5% in 2011.
The result is that, just as the need for such a spectacular project is becoming greater, so is the money available to investors and home buyers to achieve it.
Schmitz says that the demand for homes and the desire of industries such as tourism and media to relocate means that conditions for investment are perfect.
“So it’s not a question of money, it’s a question of how to organise it,” he said.
In fact, one problem is that there is too much money coming into the scheme from one source.
“Chinese investors want to take it all,” Schmitz said. “I think the Mongolian company, Maidar City, which is in charge of the project, must consider that they need different investors. If they give it all to one then they will lose their power to manage the project.”
How it came about
When the Maidar project was conceived in 2012, it was intended to be a modest eco-town of 20,000 people built from scratch on the Mongolian steppes, about 20km south of the existing capital of Ulaanbaatar.
Schmitz told GCR that the idea for a settlement began when the Grand Maitreya Foundation decided to build a 54m-high statue of the Buddha in an area of outstanding natural beauty on the southern side of the Bogd Khan mountains, about 20km from Ulaanbaatar.
A private consortium of Mongolian companies backed by wealthy investors then decided to surround the statue with cultural and religious buildings, and a town for 20,000, built to strict ecological standards.
RSAA was asked to handle the urban design without going through the inconvenience of entering a design competition. The practice already had a profile in east Asia thanks to its winning three other eco-cities projects, including the Tianjin scheme in 2004, however Schmitz says the firm won its Maidar commission on the basis of its personal connections with the investors and the Mongolian government.
The decision to expand the town into a 110,000 hectares city was taken because the developers realized that the combination of the natural setting and the available infrastructure made it an ideal location. Schmitz says: “It was near to the highway, the airport and the railway, so the connections were perfect, so everybody wanted to have a bigger city.”
As the plans grew more ambitious, the Mongolian state stepped in and, although it didn’t provide any money, it did take over the regulation and administration of the project.
Not a drop to drink
The developers want Maidar to be an eco-city, but with Mongolian characteristics.
“We cannot meet the real Passivhaus (ultra-low energy buildings that require little energy for space heating or cooling) as in Europe – it’s too much for Mongolia – but we can do a kind of Mongolian Passivhaus,” said Schmitz. “We have to adapt the standards to Mongolian conditions of course, which is also what the experts will handle.”
The biggest single problem is water: Mongolia is about 1.3km above sea level, it’s too cold to rain or snow for about eight months of the year and Maidar is pretty much on the northern edge of the Gobi Desert.
The design must make the most of what moisture there is. Fortunately, the Bogd Khan acts like a giant collector of the summer rains, so that water can be channeled into a reservoir.
With supplementary ground water extraction and strict water use standards in homes, RSAA calculates that there will be enough left over to irrigate part of the northern Gobi and bring it into agricultural production.
Another challenge is air pollution. Cutting that means reducing private car use through planning approaches that are now familiar from other eco-cities around the world.
The city is designed to be “polycentric”, which means that its inhabitants do not have to travel far to get to get to work, do their shopping or enjoy their leisure time. Each section is a separate town with its own core, grouped around the central hub of the Buddha statue. Distances are designed to be short enough to walk or cycle.
Public transport will take care of medium-length journeys, restricting the use of cars to intercity travel using a new highway that is planned between Maidar, Ulaanbaatar and a new international airport.
It is also a short distance from Mongolia’s main railway line, which runs from Russia to China; Maidar will have its own station on that route.
The finishing touch to the transport plans will be a cable car all the way to Ulaanbaatar. This is intended to cross the Bogd Khan, passing a newly built ski resort on its way.
The constant sunshine of winter means that solar energy can be used to supply the city with hot water. But to begin with, some energy will also be supplied from fossil fuel sources.
“Coal is a big issue,” said Schmitz. “There is a lot of it in Mongolia and it’s very cheap, so to begin with we cannot compete with that. We have to have a mixed strategy.”
The plan is for a decentralised smart grid that can support the increase in renewable energy over the years. An existing wind park beside the city produces 50MW, and they want to boost that to 75MW. In the beginning power will be up to 50% renewable, and 100% within 30 years.
Friends from the Cold War
As well as RSAA, a number of other German firms are working on the city. Stuttgart-based TransSolar is the energy consultant, Berlin’s Ingenierbüro Kraft is handling the water, while eco-certification is being done by the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) and property consultant Drees & Sommer.
Why so many Germans? (The exception is the Finnish subsidiary of Ramboll, which is acting as traffic consultant.)
Schmitz explains that Germany and Mongolia have a special relationship that stretches back to the Cold War, when many promising Mongolian students were educated in East Germany. “There was a lot of exchange and the Mongolians got quite a good education in the DDR (East Germany), so they can speak German and now they’re well established people in Mongolia.”
Will it really go ahead?
So far, only the lower half of the statue has been built, but work is under way on laying out the sites, and Mongolia’s parliament is about to make a decision on whether to go ahead with the scheme. Schmitz is confident that it will get the green light.
If it does, single parcels of land may be made available to investors around the world. Before they can take possession, however, they will have to sign binding agreements as to what they can and cannot do with their land.
“The reason for this is that Mongolia has no network of environmental legislation, so we have to fix the preconditions in the property contracts,” says Schmitz. For example, one stipulation could be that every building must have two water systems, one for drinking and the other for everything else.
“The key is to find a balance that allows us to both meet the ecological requirements of the city and keep investors happy,” he added.
There is still time to strike that balance. Schmitz said the real beginning of construction will be 2017, once developers have prepared the site and settled on how the project will be managed.
The first phase of residential and commercial development is scheduled to last for about 15 years, and will create homes for 90,000 people.
Before then, a number of key industries are planning to relocate, such as financial services and the media, which has already negotiated its own 100 hectare complex.
A German television documentary about Maidar can be accessed here.
Citation: Rogers, D. (2015, April 21). Why Mongolia is considering a German plan for new “eco-capital”. Retrieved April 24, 2015, from http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/trends/why-mongolia-considering-0ge8r0m4a8n-p2l0a6n-n8e0w/
Since before the first Earth Day in 1970, environmentalists have argued that solving environmental problems required humans to get closer to nature. The “back to the land” movement urged people to leave cities, which were viewed as crowded and polluted. Renewable energy was recommended because it integrates human civilization into natural energy flows, such as water, biofuels and the sun. Similarly, organic agriculture was better because it integrated farmers and consumers into the natural rhythms of nature.
In recent years, though, a growing number of environmental scientists and activists are saying that the best way to protect nature is not by returning to it, but rather by leaving it alone.
Today, most environmentalists embrace cities and reject suburban sprawl. Where cities take up just 1%-3% of the Earth’s ice-free surface, farms take up about 40%. Cities simply allow people to use energy and other resources more efficiently. By concentrating people in a denser land area, cities free up more of the Earth for nature and wildlife.
Cities also turn out to be the key to reducing the overall size of the human population. Around the world, as people move to cities, women choose to have fewer children. That’s largely because children are no longer required to work on the farm. Parents are busy working in factories or some other urban job.
As a result, the global human population will likely peak at 9 billion to 11 billion, from today’s 7 billion, and then decline. How much further the human population increases depends in large measure on how quickly people can find jobs in cities in places such as sub-Saharan Africa.
For more people to live in cities, farmers who stay in the countryside will need to produce more food. While many of us have a romantic attachment to family farms, the truth is that growing more food on less land — and leaving more of the countryside to nature and wildlife — requires big farms that use fertilizer and tractors and have access to roads and electricity.
This process of agricultural modernization has already been a huge success in the USA. In the 1800s, just 30% of New England was covered with forest. Today, 80% is forested.
The reason for reforestation in the U.S. and other rich countries is not only because of agricultural intensification, but also because we stopped using wood for fuel as frequently. We built hydroelectric dams and fossil power plants, and piped natural gas into homes. We did not use wood, a “renewable resource,” more sustainably, but rather drastically reduced our consumption by creating better substitutes.
The same cannot be said for the more than 2 billion people around the world who still rely on wood and dung as their primary source of energy and depend on low yield, subsistence agriculture and wildlife harvesting to feed themselves. Deep agrarian poverty is bad for both people and the environment. An estimated 4 million people die every year from inhaling smoke from wood and dung alone. And when people depend on wild animals (“bushmeat”) for protein, and on wood and charcoal for fuel, they hunt local wildlife to extinction, and degrade their forests for energy.
In the United States and Europe, by contrast, we depend far less on nature anymore for our material well-being. Modern energy, mostly fossil fuels, has liberated people from the environment and the environment from us. The same improvements to agriculture that have allowed our forests to come back have also freed nearly all of us from back-breaking labor.
But protecting the environment and saving more nature in the 21st century will not require that we get closer to nature. Rather, it requires that we get farther from it, through better technologies. Getting off of fossil fuels will require that we shift to better energy technologies, such as nuclear and solar energy which are clean, power-dense and abundant. Growing more food on less land with fewer environmental impacts will require better seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and things such as vertical greenhouses and laboratory meat that make us less dependent on land and water to grow food.
Ultimately, nature made useless is nature spared. On this 45th anniversary of Earth Day, let us resolve to leave nostalgic dreams of re-coupling with nature behind and embrace instead an ecologically vibrant future in which all of humanity thrives by increasingly leaving nature alone.
Citation: Shellenberger, M., & Norhaus, T. (2015, April 22). Want to save the planet? Say bye-bye to nature. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/22/earth-day-climate-change-column/26073883/