The Folly of the New Towns

By LDV Urban Studio 
French original here.

In recent years, ambitious visions of “new cities” have proliferated across the globe—futuristic urban experiments promising to reconcile innovation, sustainability, and human flourishing. From the high deserts of the American Southwest to the arid plateaus of the Arabian Peninsula, these projects are marketed as the bold blueprints of tomorrow’s world: climate-responsive, technologically sophisticated, and socially equitable.

Despite their rhetorical appeal and visionary aesthetics, such projects often raise more questions than answers. What lies beneath the allure of these so-called “smart cities”? Who funds them, and to what end? Do they represent genuine models for future urbanism—or are they monuments to excess, destined to fade into obsolescence like so many failed utopias before them?

The biophilia hypothesis revisited

The term 'biophilia' has become something of a buzzword in the fields of sustainability, design, architecture, real estate and elsewhere over recent years. Its manifestations in some of these conversations often have a strong whiff of faddishness about them, but the concept itself is crucial in developing a holistic understanding of the importance of nature for human wellbeing.

 

Derived from the Greek words bios (life) and philia (love or affinity), biophilia describes an innate, subconscious human inclination to seek connections with the rest of nature. First introduced by psychoanalyst Erich Fromm in the mid-twentieth century, the concept gained traction within the scientific community in the 1980s through the work of biologist Edward O. Wilson, whose 1984 book Biophilia framed this affinity as a product of evolutionary development.

Wilson argued that the human species evolved in close contact with natural environments, and this prolonged coevolution has produced an innate emotional and cognitive bond with the living world. In other words, our brains and bodies are biologically predisposed to respond positively to natural stimuli. This hypothesis has since been supported by empirical research in a range of disciplines, from psychology and neuroscience to urban planning and environmental health, demonstrating the measurable benefits of nature exposure for human wellbeing.

Green infrastructure for pollinators

Pollinators – bees, butterflies, moths, wasps, flies, beetles, ants, bats, hummingbirds and others – are a vital component of the planet’s ecosystems. Almost 90% of all flowering plants and more than a third of the world’s crop species depend on them. Countless species of birds and mammals feed on fruits and seeds that couldn’t exist without them. With pollinator populations in steep decline, it is becoming ever more crucial to ensure that these imperiled creatures have safe havens in which to thrive.

Through the smart use of so-called “green infrastructure,” the same urban landscapes that are eating up wildlife habitats also present opportunities to create those havens. From street trees to green stormwater infrastructure like the bioswales and rain gardens now used in many cities to manage stormwater runoff and mitigate flooding, much of this infrastructure can double as wildlife habitat, and some can be particularly beneficial to pollinators.

Rewilding the ocean

As the global push to create Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) gathers pace, driven by the 30x30 campaign to protect 30% of the planet’s wild lands and waters by 2030, so too have the misgivings being voiced in various parts of the conservation community about just how effective MPAs really are. Vox senior environmental reporter Benji Jones recently summarized some of these concerns in a dispiritingly titled article “America’s best idea to protect its oceans has one big problem: It’s not working.” 

 

Jones’s article shines a light on some important issues surrounding the current state of MPAs – the main one being that a lot of them aren’t actually protected at all. While on paper, almost half of America’s ocean is covered by some form of protection, in reality, only around 3% of the total U.S. MPA area is completely off limits to human interference, leaving the vast majority vulnerable to exploitation – including hugely destructive fishing practices that have in some cases led to immense damage to ecosystems within their borders. 

The specific criticisms Jones raises in his article are not wrong. But the headline is, at best, misleading. As real-world experience of MPAs grows, it’s becoming abundantly clear that fully protected “no-take” MPAs – those in which all extractive and destructive activities are banned – are actually highly effective in preserving biodiversity, strengthening the resilience of marine ecosystems and helping to restore wildlife habitats and populations.