The concept of urban metabolism has been in urban research for already 4 decades, since its introduction by Wolman. There are different approaches, including MFA, MEFA, SFA, LCA and others, some more related to economic approaches, but most of them lacking spatial representation, and furthermore direct linkages with urban planning. I would like to ask for your opinion, what do you think about urban metabolism? it is a useful framework for urban planning? just a vague metaphor? or what kind of further methodological and/or theoretical elaborations needs for to be used in urban planning?
Hello Luis,
I am in the Architectural Design Department and when I teach about Metabolism I always emphasize the concepts of growth, change and flexibility. These are possible thanks to the designing methodology that is chosen when creating (a building or a whole city, the size is not so relevant). In my opnion, architects adscribed to Metabolism used to understand the design as a system, an open process that could give them the image of freedom they were looking for. Thus, in their works, there were always fixed components (related to installations services) and transient pieces (that could be moved or change along the time).
This way of understanding the design (so characteristic of the 60s and 70s) could be still valid and useful nowadays in urban planning...
Can I ask you about the meaning of MFA, MEFA, SFA and LCA approaches? (I was lost with these terms...)
Hi Debora,
Thanks for your reply. My question is looking at urban systems as emergent phenomenon, and different from architecture & buildings. I think that it is not a matter of size, as you pointed out, but a matter of complexity. The complexity of a given urban tissue cannot be compared with the complexity of a single building (or a collection of). I firmly believe that this is a big trap for current urban planning... to treat urban system as equivalent to a collection of buildings.... They are not equivalent, not even similar. Main proof is that up to date there is no urban theory capable to anticipate urban development... please have a look at plans, and then to reality. They don't fit. Urban complexity permanently overcomes planning... thats why I am interested in understanding urban systems using a metabolic point of view, because I think that can provide powerful frame to understand urban complexity... :) Having said that, MFA means Material Flow Analysis, MEFA, Materials and Energy Flow Analysis, SFA, System Flow Analysis and LCA Life Cycle Assessment. Those concepts come from industrial ecology and are largely being applied in ecological economics. Naredo, Frias and Carpintero are doing such analysis in Spain. Salvador Rueda in Barcelona. Please have a look here (sources in Spanish):
http://web.usal.es/~ansa/sosa/articulos/jose_manuel_naredo_perez_articulos/Articulo_JM_Naredo_Jose_Frias.pdf
http://habitat.aq.upm.es/cs/p2/a008.html
Sorry Luis... I think I misunderstood the thematic scope of your question. Thank you very much for your explanations and references. I know the Spanish researchers you are pointing out, and I will consult with interest the articles.
Good luck with your research!
Hello Luis,
this answer is out of your initial question, it is more a consideration linked to your second post.
Why cannot you look at the urban development also taking in account traditional macroeconomic factors, such as property market and real estate cycles, in particular the technology cycles? Can you relate somehow them to the analysis mentioned?
I agree with Frank Popper. cities sustainable living organisms
I consider Urban Metabolisim as a model to provide planners with a metaphorical framework to study the integrations of natural and human systems. It studies the material and energy flows arising from urban socioeconomic activities and regional and global biogeochemical processes. It requires a multi-disciplinary research domain focused on providing important insights into the behavior of cities for the purpose of advancing effective proposals for a more human and ecologically responsible future.It establishes useful linkages among environmental, economic, social, and technical infrastructure issues. All in all, I prefer to treat the city as a living organism.
Hi everybody. Thanks for interesting replies which allow further discussion. @frank, I would say that in your example it is not necessary any analogy with bloodstream, I mean you can make a powerful transport analysis using a frame of flows which could be, or could not, be metabolic. Trying now to link this point with what @Shaher has said, why city has to be considered as a "living organism" to be analyzed with metabolic understanding. I think that here, in this direct analogy, the point is being missing many times. To me metabolism is a thermodynamic process. If so, can take place at "n" scales, from unicellular organism, to ecosystems. In fact, systems' ecology applies a certain metabolic approach while looking at fundamental processes and patterns in natural ecosystems, but fundamentally in the rationale of the indicators it use (respiration and biomass ratios, exergy, etc.). On the other hand, now having in mind the original conception of metabolism in Marx terms (not forgetting Georgescu-Roentgen), I totally agree with what @Luca is pointing out, how can we move this "thermodinamic-ecological process" i.e. metabolism, to the economic arena, taking account real state markets and even macroeconomic factors. At the end, urban systems are an economic phenomenon, which takes place through the permanent exchange of matter and energy between the environment and urban areas.
Hi Luis,
I followed a similar discussion here in Researchgate. I think it might be of a help for you
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anybody_suggest_different_approaches_to_estimate_urban_metabolism?ch=reg&cp=re221_a1m_p42&pli=1&loginT=xCguhHlxn4X9jefTWqKuart1QRegwR06lTv14Ypic3o,
Good luck.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing