Eero Paloheimo

.赫尔辛基技术大学教授

生态城的主要指导原则 Key Guiding Principles of the Eco-City

三和
The 3 Harmonies

人与环境和谐
People and the Environment

人与经济和谐
People and the Economy

人与人和谐
People and People

三能
The 3 Abilities

能实施
Practical

能复制
Replicable

能推广
Scalable

范：为什么我们需要生态城？
Eero:这个世界正在经历一场环境危机，这在许多方面都有体现。自然资源正在被消耗殆尽，过量的二氧化碳和甲烷气体被排放到大气中，气候正变得越来越暖，海洋也在被污染，可开发的处女地越来越少。 当然这并不新鲜每个人都知道，许多年来我们都很清楚这些事实，这危机影响到所有的国家和大洲，但首先是那些工业化的地区，
当然不同的地方有不同的做法，其中一个对于我们较为可信的解释：这问题的核心是由于工业化的产业被短期利益和现有体制的僵化所逼迫--包括技术架构和管理架构。可持续发展的长期的解决办法和便捷但极具污染的短期办法之间确实存在着激烈的冲突。
让我们看一个大家都熟悉的例子：小轿车，这是两百年前发明的。今天作为一种交通模式完全不合时宜。它既污染大气，消耗自然能源，而且象癌症一样每年引起许多死亡事故。它完全过时了，这是一种无可奈何的接受多过一种指责，我自己也是每天开车，并且我家里有两辆车。通过新技术的帮助我们可以容易地开发出一种没有上述问题的交通系统。新系统还没有被开发因为整个汽车产业对此不感兴趣，当然其它产业如石油产业和道路建设产业也有同样的问题，他们也同样不感兴趣。汽车为设计师，科学家，讲员，汽车制造部分中的产业工人带来大量的工作机会，汽车的存在也是他们的利益所在，所有这些人都会反对改变，尽管他们也清楚小轿车对今天这一代人所产生的破坏性影响，更不要提未来的那一代了。
几十年来，我们的村镇城市的体系以及城市规划的自然形态都是根据小轿车来制定的，要让城市规划师们不考虑到这些现实条件是很难做到的，因此大多数新的村镇和城市不再像过去或者没有这种小轿车典型负担的城市那样令人愉悦。我们也知道在任何欧洲的城市，交通问题在许多方面完全是一场灾难。
这里汽车只是一个例子，类似坚固的堡垒在工业化社会的其它方面也同样存在，将这些堡垒拆毁并用新的来取代似乎是一件超越我们能力的事情。不管怎样，为了将地球从环境危机中拯救出来，这些堡垒必须被拆毁，这危机的深层原因是不正确的体系。
这一问题已被讨论了无数次也有很多文字的论述以至于听众们大都感觉疲惫了，事实上，文字和讲论都已经不够了，我们需要的是实际的行动。我们需要一个样板案例说明环境问题可以通过现代的技术来解决。生态城就是这样一个例子，这也是我们为什么一定要建设生态城的原因。第一个生态城并不会改变世界，它只是提供一粒改变的种子，种子会长成一棵树，然后才会有森林在这棵树的周围形成。但是没有第一粒种子，森林也永远不会形成。 没有第一粒种子，沙漠永远是沙漠
这就是我们为什么需要一个与现有城市明显不同的生态城。芬兰科学家们预言世界上第一个鲜明的生态城将建在中国。

范：为什么想要在中国建造而不是在欧洲？
Eero:这问题很正当，早先我提到了技术体系的僵硬并举了一个例子，比如在小轿车周围形成的僵硬的堡垒，当然环境的破坏问题在中国没有在那些早已经历过工业化阶段的国家那么严重，这包括大多数欧洲国家。通过采取实际的行动，中国还是可以避免已经影响所有欧洲国家的最严重的环境问题，中国可以---至少部分地---超越工业化阶段（目前已被自己证明是一个错误）
僵硬的技术体系和僵硬的行政管理体系永远是平行的前行。这也正是我第二关注的方面：行政管理和政治。西方的政治家和公务员对媒体有一种不可理喻的恐惧。媒体对于他们是否要继续留在他们的办公室里有极为准确的影响力。所以他们的主要目的就是要避免失误，这使得西方的决策者们显得胆小怕事。他们极为小心不要做任何冒险的决定，大胆的决定必须通过多极行政管理审批，并在此过程中变得越来越保守。这同样是一种接受多过一种指责。我是芬兰议会的成员已经8年了，作为一位公务员，赫尔辛基技术大学的一位教授已经5年了。
根据我的理解，中国的决策者们并没有同样的约束并不那么容易被媒体所驾驭。当你相信其正确性更容易做出重要的、实际的决定，而不用担心会受到那些不相关的批评所伤害。像做出建造一个生态城这样的决定在中国是可能的。但是在芬兰或者欧洲其它国家却不可能。

范：中国从生态城中能够得到什么？
Eero:一个前卫的生态城，我会在后面举例说明，将成为一个重要的影响力中心，任何其它地方都没有建过类似的城市，既然这是所有西方国家所需要的城市，它将会吸引大量的建筑师，城市规划师，政治家和其它旅客到中国来。我预计这将会产生出不可思议的旅游收入。除非生态城是真正前卫的，它将不会吸引什么人也没有人会来参观。为了这个原因，生态城必须是前卫的，一个不是前卫的生态城就不是生态城，而不过是一个普通的城市，它也不可能成为一个旅游目的地。
当然还有更重要的考虑。一个前卫的生态城如同手机电话、电视和汽车一样是一个产品，只不过更大些。 这一产品的设计和制造过程和一般的产品设计过程没有什么不同。首先你要先建立一个模型，然后对其进行测试，以及评议和改良，模型通常会比后来成为的工业化产品要贵，并且通过经验进行改良。在我们面前的建议是中国将要建造这个生态城的模型。
我冒险预计这个生态城模型的建立尽管这要比一个普通城市要昂贵。模型的生产者将会有很多令人意想不到的优势，它会知道这个模型需要哪些改良，他会走在其它人的前面，尽管他并不能够为这一产品整体申请专利，但是他能够通过部分专利和世界范围内的独家代理保护其中某些部分。如果中国建设世界上第一个前卫的生态城，这城市就具有了一个商标，而这将成为一个产品销往世界的每一个角落。
中国制造生态城设计和生态城本身将如同委内瑞拉生产的石油或者瑞士生产的手表一样。中国将成为第一个也是最重要的生态城制造商。在接下来几十年里前卫的生态城在世界各地开始兴建。它们彼此不会一模一样，而是由于气候、地形和当地文化的不同会有意想不到的差异，有些会很大，有些会很小，但是他们会有一些特定的属性。

范：什么是一个生态城？ 或者说一个生态城是什么样子？
Eero:我们很容易把第一眼看到的有些夸张的地方被称为生态城但实际上却不是。 在欧洲有这样一些小型社区年轻人选择了一种生态的生活方式，他们自己种植食物，也经常自己制作衣服，并采用木柴作为燃料取暖。当然不可否认这种社区是生态的，但是它们却并不是城市。作为符合标准的城市它们需要更大，而想要更大它们就要采用更现代更环保的技术。而这些小型社区并不能被称为生态城，它们只是生态社区而已。
关于一种生态的生活方式的另一种尝试包括一些更大的城市单位，他们看起来好像是生态的但实际上并不比其它城市更生态。建筑也许和传统的设计有所不同，也许比其它城市有更多的公园显得更美丽。他们还仅仅是普通城市或者城市的一部分，但绝不是生态城，尽管它们看起来很像。他们仅仅代表了一种关于生态城的美学观。
第三个例子是那些看起来不象生态城的城市却有一些真实的生态城的品质。在这些城市中更多的注意放在了建筑节能的方面，或者他们有比其它一般城市更加密集的公共交通运输网。他们在正确的方向上进行了谦虚地尝试，它们尽管具有生态城的一些元素却还不是生态城，他们在正确的方向上有好的尝试。
作为绝对的生态完整性要考虑到两个方面，第一与生产过程的第一步有关，另外一个与生产过程的最后一步有关。第一，一个生态城在各个方面都是经济的，第二，一个生态城不会污染其周围环境。这两方面可以被认为是一个生态城并作为生态完整性的表率的基本特征，还有一些其它不那么绝对的需要。一个城市必须要有吸引力，所以必须要美丽，不过我们要记住任何城市都能做到表面的美丽，那并不是生态完整性的特点。一个有吸引力的生态城是美丽的环境与绝对的生态完整性的综合。
下面我尝试提供一个生态城有关技术特性的事物的简要定义并解释这些结论背后的原因。或许有不同种类的生态城，请让我展示一个案例
在一个生态城中，大多数居民消费的食物是他们在自己的城市中生产的，因为这样可以减少运输的费用和交通中的废气排放。这就比一个通常的城市建筑密度小。生态城包括根据田地而调整的建筑区域、商务森林和公园式的自然保护区。有机废物可以通过组合和生化制造进行再循环 。
一个拥有2万居民的中国生态城将要覆盖大约20平方公里的土地，意味着每平方公里400人的人口密度。让我们和那些著名城市比较一下，每平方公里的居民密度巴黎是2.5万人,伦敦是5千而天津是1千，这些都是大都市，在赫尔辛基的市区-大约是3000平方公里的区域内-居民密度是每平方公里400人，这比一个高建筑密度的城市的居民密度小，但是介于中等建筑密度的城市和郊区之间。而且居民密度从来没有超过中国平均人口密度的三分之一。
一个生态城能够在不污染大气、水和土壤的情况下制造它所需要的能量。为了这个目的，城区的一大部分保留用于太阳能、风能发电、岩土热泵、生物发电。这些区域与居住区还有一段距离。生物发电会向大气中散发二氧化碳，但是植物又从大气中吸收了碳，所以保持了某种程度的平衡大气中碳的负担也不会再继续增长。在接下来的几十年里我们将会看到太阳能发电和风能发电将从现有的水平上有一个飞跃性的增长。
当环境温度较低不能达到养殖标准时，一个生态城还应包括人工鱼池和绿色蔬菜大棚，正如城市的其它部分一样人工池还可以与生物水处理系统和绿色大棚的能源供应结合起来。
除了食物和能源之外，每日所需第三必要的是水。一个生态城将拥有一个封闭的水循环系统。这意味着水并不是从城市外部引进来的，污水也不会输往城外。就这点来说，目前一般的自然的水循环也是封闭的，各种未经处理的水在在一起循环。但是在一个生态城里水循环系统是受到控制的，特别是建立在生物和自然净化的基础之上，当然也有利用物理的和化学的净化方法。
在能源、食物和水自给自足并不比依靠外界生产的解决办法更加有益环境或者无污染。不管怎样，一个生态城可以保证这些过程中没有污染并且避免使用原始的自然资源 ，作为一个自给自足的生态城可以保证真正的无污染和保护自然。而一个不那么认真地生态尝试意味着你只关注你自己区域内的生态情况却把所有的问题转嫁到了邻居那里。
废物的管理和材料的循环使用与生态城的其它行动无缝地融合在一起，利用有机废物进行发电和施肥是整个行动的一方面。通过这个办法废物的管理、发电和食物的生产被连在一起并形成了一个整体系统。所有的这些方面必须在规划时同时进行考虑以保证来自不同方面的技术知识能够被搜集在一起，并最后形成一个封闭的功能系统，材料可以进行循环使用也就不再有废物。
这里有一个与上述所有都有联系的基础的事实需要陈明。尽管一个生态城市架构被设计为封闭的系统，还有另外一个与此并行的原则：经济和节约。设计原则是为了要节能减排，特别是在交通运输和建设领域。
关于无机废物和物品的生产，一个生态城不能够做到自给自足，而且这样的目的也是不现实的。除了汽车以外生态城的居民与其它地方的居民使用同样的产品：冰箱、电视机、手机和自行车。这些大多是在其他地方生产的并被引进生态城，任何废物都可以被生产厂家回收。生态城不负责这些物品的循环利用，那应由国家进行考虑的一个广泛的问题。一个生态友好型的社会有为这些材料进行封闭的循环的系统。
不过有两个大项反映在土地使用计划和整个城市的分区上是最基本的：就是交通和建设
在生态城里没有小轿车，而是被其他交通工具替代了，这些交通工具因为是电力的并且通过城区导航系统进行控制不会污染空气。好像升降梯一样，只不过它们是水平移动。这些交通工具将在稍晚的展示中进行更加详细的讨论。这种交通系统使得城市规划在很多方面都变得容易了。街道可以窄一些，美丽而且有曲线的回转。路边或者其他地方不需要那麽多停车场。当那交通工具不工作时，可以在专门设计的电站进行充电。在交通中没有噪音，而且是安全的并且没有污染。小轿车不能被使用时自行车可以被允许替代使用。
数据交通进入非常高品质阶段，城市的不同地方有可租赁的信息发布设施，有整墙的电视屏幕用于和全世界的专家进行在线会议，查找因特网上的信息，联系医院或者大学，进行商务活动和照顾日常事务。这些设施对所有的居民开放，如同网吧，各样的技术都是很先进的。 至于有一个新的产品运输系统所提供的机会，我不会建议在第一个生态城中采用。在这方面我们可以允许一些根据生态城的前卫属性需要而进行的折中，不过我这里所提到的系统是作为未来生态运输系统。将来，产品将采用中空的管道使用磁悬浮的方法来运输。这样可以降低运输过程中的能耗，不过现在我们只需记住这种方式，这种城际间的产品运输解决办法会比同一个城市的内部运输系统还要便捷
建设和土地使用规划与交通的联系不是那么明显。既然生态城是没有小轿车的，在建设中就可以不必考量这一因素，生态城将拥有一个现代的综合的数据交换系统，使不同部分间可以进行有效地沟通并减小在土地使用方面发展密度的压力，居住在独栋别墅中的居民们可以不用见面就容易地交换信息。
建筑区域也可以点缀以那些不会引起后期维护问题的商业设施，变电站和野生公园，建筑根据大量的生态原则进行建造和维护。这意味着尽量采用本地的材料并且在各个阶段的过程中要节能，建筑物被设计得节能并能尽量延长其寿命，在进行土地使用规划时也要考虑这些方面，比如建筑物要放在能够获得最多阳光的位置。
最后，关于居民我还要说些话，居民们是自愿搬迁到这城里非常重要。居民的满意度可以通过很多其它的方法进行保证，而且不会与基本的生态需求相冲突，这两种途径共同具有支持性。 必须记住第一个生态城将成为一粒种子并为未来的发展开拓出一条出路，因着这个原因很明显这个城市将从那些将要设计下一个生态城和参与建设的人们中间吸引大量的居民。为了支持这种发展第一个生态城也许会设立一个与多所大学进行合作的关于生态建筑和社区的国际研究学院，否则代表许多职业的居民将会向其他城市一样：有医生，农民、木匠和老师等。不过很明显的是：设计第一个生态城将不仅仅是技术工作 。
工程师自己不能设计一个生态城，这需要无数的专家的合作，当进行第一个生态城的设计时，首要的是要定义目的和最低需要，下一步，必须要选择代表足够广泛经验的一组设计师 。
一个生态城适合开展大量的活动，这并不排除特别目的生产，让我举个例子 ：
一个生态城可以容纳一个小型工厂组装和维护那些城中所采用的特别的交通工具，也可以制造销往其它城市的类似的交通工具。一个生态城需要有一个发电设施的维修中心，这一制造元素才可以支持最基本的生态城的构想以及下一代生态城中同类设施的设计与施工。 一个生态城可以容纳一些小型的研究所。例如结合最基础的中国哲学和西方医学的研究所，尽管这与生态整体性并没有多大关系，它并不与城市基本目标相对立而与城市灵魂相协调。 我讲述这些例子的目的是为这一基础性和正当性的问题提供一个框架性的答案：一个生态城中的生活方式是怎样的以及什么样的人会居住在那里。

一个生态商务城的建议

国际生态设计年刊



Teresa:Why do we need an eco-city?
Eero:The world is undergoing an environmental crisis, which manifests itself in various ways. Natural resources are being exhausted, excessive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane are being released into the atmosphere, the climate is warming, oceans are being polluted and there is less and less virgin land available. This is not new. Everyone here knows these things. We have been aware of these facts for several decades. This crisis affects all countries and continents, but primarily those that are industrialized.While different parties have proposed several solutions, one that is credible has eluded us. The core of the problem is that the industrialised world is constrained by too short-sighted interests and the rigidity of the existing infrastructure. This includes both technical and administrative structures. Sustainable long-term solutions and short-term solutions that are convenient yet wasteful and polluting are in mutual conflict. Let us look at an example familiar to us all: the passenger car. This invention dates back more than two hundred years. It is a completely unsuitable mode of transport today. It pollutes the air, uses natural resources and causes as many deaths annually as the worst diseases. It is totally outdated. This is a confession rather than an accusation. I myself drive daily and my family has two cars. With the help of new technology we can easily develop a transport system that is free of the problems I just listed. New systems have not been developed as this is not in the interests of the automobile industry. There are also several other industrial sectors at stake: the oil industry and road construction, for instance. A radical shift in the direction outlined is not in their interests, either. Cars bring work to a large number of designers, scientists, instructors and countless industrial sectors that manufacture car parts. The existence of cars is also in their interest. All these parties oppose the change, even while they are aware of the destructive impact of the passenger car on the present-day generation, not to mention future ones.

For decades now, the structure of our towns and cities and the nature of city plans have been shaped by the passenger car. It is extremely difficult for urban planners to think without this condition. For this reason most new towns and cities are not as pleasant as older ones, nor as pleasant as they could be without the burdens typical for passenger cars. We also know that in any European metropolis, traffic is a complete disaster in many respects. The car is just one example. Such strong fortresses have been built around many other aspects of the industrialised society that tearing them down and replacing them with new ones seems an overwhelming effort. Nevertheless, those fortresses must be torn down, in order to save the earth from an environmental catastrophe. The underlying cause of this catastrophe is these incorrect structures. This issue has been discussed and written about so much that this audience is very likely to feel bored. The fact is, writing and talking is not enough. We need concrete actions. We need examples demonstrating that environmental problems can be solved with the help of modern technology. The eco-city is such an example. That is why it must be built. The first eco-city will not change the world. It will only provide a seed of change. A seed will grow into a tree; a forest will grow to surround that tree. But without that first seed, the forest will never grow. Without that first seed, the desert will remain a desert. This is why we need one eco-city that is radically different from existing ones. The Finnish scientists propose that the first ever radical eco-city in the world be constructed in China. You may ask why we want to build it in China and not in Europe. This question is justified, but there is an answer.

Teresa: Why in China, not in Europe?
Eero:Earlier, I mentioned the rigidity of technical structures and gave an example, the formidable fortress built around the passenger car. Surely environmental destruction is less advanced in China than in countries which have earlier passed the industrialisation stage. This means the majority of European countries. By taking radical action, China could still avoid the worst environmental problems that already affect all countries in Europe. China could – at least partly – jump over the industrial stage, which has proven itself to be a mistake.

The rigidity of technical structures runs parallel with administrative rigidity. This is the very issue my second argument concerns: administration and politics. Western politicians and civil servants have an unreasonable fear of the press. The media have a decisive influence on whether they may continue in their office. Thus their main goal is to avoid mistakes. This makes Western decision-makers timid. They are particularly careful not to make any radical decisions. Bold solutions must undergo review at several administrative levels, becoming more and more conservative during the process. This too is a confession rather than an accusation. I have been a member of the Finnish Parliament for eight years and an official, a professor at the Helsinki University of Technology, for five years.

As far as I understand, Chinese decision-makes do not have the same constraints and are not as easily steered by the media. Major, radical decisions may be easier to take when you believe they are correct and need not suffer from irrelevant criticism. Making such a radical decision as to build an eco-city is possible in China. It would not be possible in Finland or other European countries.

Teresa:what China will gain from the eco-city.
Eero:This question is also justified and I will try and provide an answer. A radical eco-city, such as I will describe later, would be an important attraction. No such city has yet been built anywhere. Since it is just the kind of city all Western countries need, it would attract large numbers of architects, urban planners, politicians and other travellers to China. I presume it would generate significant income from tourism. Unless the eco-city is radical, it will not attract anyone specially and no-one will be come to see it. For this reason, as I will repeat later, the eco-city must be radical. An eco-city that is not radical is not an eco-city. It is a normal city. It is not a tourist attraction. However, there is an even more important consideration. A radical eco-city is a product in the same way as the mobile phone, television and car are products. It is just bigger. It has certain features based on which its value can be considered. These features can also be used to define it. I will come back to these later.?
However: the design and manufacturing process for this product is similar to that of product design in general. First, you make a prototype. Once made, you test the prototype and make critical improvements. A prototype is always more expensive than the later, industrially manufactured products, which have been improved through experience. The suggestion in front of us is that China would build a prototype of an eco-city.I venture to propose the construction of a prototype eco-city even though it will be more expensive than an ordinary city. The manufacturer of a prototype has significant advantages. He will know what improvements the prototype needs. He will be ahead of others. Even though he will not be able to take out a patent for the product as a whole, he will be able to protect certain components by patent and obtain exclusive rights worldwide. If China constructs the first radical eco-city in the world, that city will have a trademark. It will become a product that can be sold to all corners of the world. China could produce eco-city design and eco-cities in the same way as Venezuela produces oil or Switzerland produces watches. China could become the first and most important producer of eco-cities. The next few decades would see the construction of radical eco-cities all over the world. Instead of being clones of each other, they would have significant differences due to the climate, terrain and local culture. Some would be large, some small. But they would all share certain characteristics. I will come back to these shared characteristics later.

Teresa: What is an eco-city? Or, what is an eco-city like?
Eero:However, it is easier to first review sites that have somewhat exaggeratingly been called eco-cities but which in reality are not such. In Europe there are several small communities where young people lead an ecologic lifestyle. They grow their own food, often make their own clothes and heat their homes using wood as fuel. While undeniably ecological, such communities are not cities. To qualify as cities, they would need to be bigger. And being bigger, they should use modern, environment-saving technology. These small communities cannot be called eco-cities. They are eco-communities. Another attempt at an ecological lifestyle involves larger urban units, which seem ecological but in reality are no more ecological than other cities. The buildings may differ from traditional designs, they may have more parks than other cities and they may be more pleasant than other cities. They are cities or city sectors but not eco-cities, even if they seem that way. They represent an aesthetic idea of an eco-city.

A third example is cities that do not seem ecological but may have some of the qualities of a genuine eco-city. In these cities more attention may have been paid to the energy consumption of buildings, or they may have a denser public transport network, than other cities in general. They are modest attempts in the right direction. They are not eco-cities, even though they have some elements of an eco-city. They are good attempts in the right direction.

There are two aspects which may be considered as absolute indicators of ecological integrity. The first one has to do with the first steps of the production process and the other with its last steps. First, an eco-city is economical in all respects. Secondly, an eco-city does not pollute its surroundings. These two aspects can be considered the basic features of an eco-city and as indicators of ecological integrity. There are several other less absolute requirements. A city must also be attractive. That is why it must be pleasant. But we should remember that any city can be pleasant. That is not an indicator of ecological integrity. An attractive eco-city is a mixture of pleasant ambience and absolute ecological integrity.

I will next attempt to provide a brief definition of issues related to the technical features of an eco-city and explain the reasoning behind these solutions. We will come back to these matters tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in detailed presentations. There may be different types of eco-cities. Let me present one example. In an eco-city, most of the food the residents consume will be produced in the city itself, since this minimises transport costs and traffic emissions. Thus it is much less densely built-up than an ordinary city. The eco-city includes built-up areas alternating with fields, commercial forests and park-like natural reserves. Organic waste is recycled by means of composting and in bioenergy production. A Chinese eco-city with 20,000 inhabitants would cover a land area of approximately 50 km2, which means a population density of 400 people per km2. Let us compare that with a few well-known cities. In Paris there are 25,000, in London 5,000 and in Tianjin 1,000 inhabitants per km2. These are all metropolises. In the Helsinki metropolitan area – which covers approximately 3,000 km2 - the population density is approximately 400 people per km2. This is less than the population density of a densely built-up city, but between that of an ordinary, densely built-up city and rural areas. The population density is nevertheless approximately three-fold compared with the average population density in China. An eco-city generates the energy it needs without polluting the air, water or soil. For this purpose, a large part of the city area will be reserved for solar panels, wind generators, geothermal heat pumps and bioenergy production. These areas are at some distance from the residential areas. Bioenergy production releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but plants re-absorb the carbon from the air. Thus a balance is maintained and the carbon burden of the atmosphere does not increase. The next few decades will see that the production of solar panels and wind generators increase in leaps from current levels. An eco-city also includes artificial pools for fish farming and vegetables will be grown in greenhouses where ambient temperatures are too low for normal field cultivation. Artificial pools can be integrated with the biological water purification system and energy supplied to the greenhouses the same way as other parts of the city. In addition to food and energy, the third commodity needed daily is water. An eco-city will have a closed water circulation system. This means that water is not imported from outside the city, nor is wastewater transported outside the city. At this point it should be noted that naturally, the current water circulation system is also closed; however, water is circulated through untreated water. In an eco-city the water circulation system is controlled. It is partially based on biological and natural purification, but also utilises physical and chemical purification methods.

Being self-sufficient in energy, food and water is not necessarily a more nature-saving or non-polluting solution than being dependent on outside production. However, an eco-city ensures these processes are non-polluting and avoids using virgin natural resources. By being self-sufficient, the eco-city ensures that it is genuinely non-polluting and nature-conserving. An insincere ecological approach means that you only address ecological concerns in your own area and pass all problems on to your neighbours.
Waste management and materials recycling are seamlessly integrated with all other operations of an eco-city. Utilising organic waste in energy production and the fertilisation of fields is one aspect of these operations. In this way waste management, energy production and food production are mutually connected and form an integrated system. All of these aspects must be simultaneously taken into account in planning to ensure that technical knowledge from different fields is collected together, resulting in a functional closed system. Materials are recycled and utilised and there is no waste. There is one fundamental fact that should be stated in connection with all of this. Although the structures of an eco-city are designed as closed systems, there is another principle running parallel to this approach: economy and thrift. The design principle is to avoid wasting energy and minimising waste generation. This is particularly true for transport and construction, which will be discussed later. As concerns inorganic waste and goods production, an eco-city is not self-sufficient. Such a goal would be unrealistic. With the exception of cars, the residents of an eco-city use the same products as other people: refrigerators, televisions, mobile phones and bicycles. The majority of these will be produced elsewhere and imported into the city, and any waste will be returned to the producers. The eco-city cannot take responsibility for recycling these objects. That is a wider issue for national consideration. An ecologically-oriented society will have closed recycling systems in place for even such material. But I will not discuss that here.

However, there are two larger issues that are fundamentally reflected in land use planning and zoning throughout the entire city. These are transport and construction. There are no passenger cars in an eco-city. They will have been replaced with vehicles resembling the passenger car. These vehicles do not pollute the air since they are electrically operated and controlled via a city-wide navigation system. They work like lifts, but move horizontally. These vehicles will be discussed in more detail in later presentations. This transport system makes urban planning easier in many ways. Streets may be narrow, pleasant and winding. Parking areas are not needed by the roadside or elsewhere. When the vehicles are not in use, their power units will be charged at stations designed for this purpose. There is no noise from traffic, which is safe and non-polluting. Bicycles are also allowed, while passenger cars are not. Data communications are of very high, state-of-the-art quality. There are rentable facilities for information distribution here and there in the city, with large panels covering the walls. The panels can be used for virtual meetings with experts around the world, finding information on the Internet, contacting hospitals or universities, trading and taking care of any number of daily matters. The facilities will be available for all inhabitants. While they resemble Internet cafés, they are technologically much more advanced. These opportunities will also be discussed in detail later. As for the opportunities offered by a new goods traffic system, I would not recommend these for the first eco-city. In this respect, we can allow for some compromise over the requirements concerning the radical nature of the eco-city. However, I mention the system here as a future ecological transport system. In the future, goods will be transported in vacuum tubes using magnetic levitation. This will minimise the energy required for transporting goods. But for now, let us only bear this in mind. This solution applies to goods traffic between cities and other urban locations rather than the internal infrastructure of an individual city. Construction and land use planning are seamlessly linked with transport. Since the eco-city is car-free, construction can be steered and planned without this burden. The eco-city will have a modern, sophisticated data communications system, which enables efficient communications between different sectors and allows for less compact development in land use. The residents can easily exchange information without meeting each other in person and live in single-family houses. Built-up areas can be interspersed with commercial forests, energy plantations and uncultivated parkland without causing logistical problems. Buildings are constructed and maintained with an eye on various ecological principles. This means that local materials are used wherever possible and energy is conserved at the various stages of the process. Buildings are designed to be energy-saving and long-lasting. These aspects are also taken into account in land use planning. For example, buildings are positioned to catch maximum sunlight. Finally, I should say a few words about the residents. This matter will also be discussed in more detail in later presentations. It is surely important that people move into the city voluntarily, since a city cannot be functional unless its residents feel at home in their environment. Resident satisfaction can be ensured by various ways, which are not in conflict with the basic ecological requirements. These two approaches are mutually supportive. It should be remembered that the first eco-city will be a seed and pave the way for further development. For this reason it is evident that the city will attract a large number of residents from among those who will design the next eco-cities and later participate in their construction. To support this development, the first eco-city could even house an international research institute concerned with the development of ecological housing and communities in cooperation with various universities. Otherwise, the residents will represent a variety of occupations like the residents of any other city: there would be doctors, farmers, carpenters, teachers, etc. However, it is clear that designing the first eco-city is much more than a purely technical task. Engineers alone cannot design an eco-city. This requires co-operation involving countless professions. When the first eco-city is being designed, the priority is to define the goals and minimum requirements correctly. Next, a team of designers representing sufficiently varied expertise must be chosen. An eco-city is suited for various kinds of activities, not excluding production with a special goal. Let me mention a few examples. An eco-city could house a small factory for the assembly and maintenance of the special vehicles used in the city. Production could later be expanded to supply similar vehicles to other cities. An eco-city must also have a maintenance centre for the energy production equipment. Thus the production sector could support the basic idea of the eco-city and thus facilitate the design and construction of the next generation of eco-cities.An eco-city could house several small research institutes. For example, there could be a research institute combining the basic philosophies of Chinese and Western medicine. While this does not have much to do with ecological integrity, it is not contradictory to the basic goals and would be consistent with the spirit of the city.My purpose in describing these examples was to provide a brief answer to a fundamental and justified question: the question of what it would be like to live in an eco-city and what kind of people would live there.

A Proposal of An Ecological Business City

International Ecological Year Book