See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325019188

"The measure of intelligence is the ability to change"

Article · May 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 1,611

4 authors, including:

Anuradha Sabherwal Blake Jackson

Stantec London Stantec
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

bioclimatic facades View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anuradha Sabherwal on 08 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change”

Gail Borthwick, Rod Schebesch, Anu Sabherwal, Blake Jackson

This paper advocates a smart-city approach where cities are intelligent to respond to the
constant change of demands in urban cores and continuously reinvest in pioneering
technology and resources.

The growing knowledge and technology economy is shifting cities toward an ‘urban boom’.
While people prefer to live in walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods, where amenities,
convenience and a sense of community are right on their doorstep, the balance and
connections of digital, physical and social interaction are also changing the way we live,
work and play. This culture is redefining the design of our cities today and the demand for
multi-dimensional physical environments are on the rise, with modern architecture
adapting to being flexible, inclusive and transitional.

Cities are greater when the sum of their parts are working in unison. Dense urban centres
are engines for growth, wealth and the wellbeing of citizens. When the disparate parts and
pieces of these engines are not well connected, the urban condition cannot meet its full
potential. Destinations or nodes in the urban fabric are important, but the urban connective
tissue and the accompanying journey along the path are what drive the emotional and
social element. For society to shift towards a healthy cities culture, we must capitalise on
environmentally friendly practices, data collection and policy creation, social and physical
wellness for humans, and increased safety through self-driving cars. Architecture that
encourages and supports human interaction is on the rise. The profession is evolving to not
only be aesthetic but also pragmatic, through constantly evolving design that adapts to the
needs and lifestyles of a changing society.
Adapting design to improve the human experience
Urban reset
Demographic shifts in millennial and baby boomer populations, together with the growing
knowledge and technology economy, are fueling an urban boom. Changes in demography
and economy are igniting an ‘urban reset’, shifting real estate and infrastructure
investment in urban cores. New ways of digital, physical and intellectual connections are
changing the way we live, work and play in urban environments. While the digital
infrastructure is important, there will be a stronger emphasis on physical infrastructure
and convenience, including access to retail, educational and cultural institutions. Urban
citizens feel a sense of home when they live in areas that are convenient, community-based
and socially responsible.
High on the list of priorities for cities and employers is attracting and retaining a young and
creative generation. As millennials begin their careers, the design of workplaces and
communities are being re-imagined. The lines between life, work, and play become fuzzy.
Residential and workplace options must be part of a community that is walkable, bike-able
and accessible to work and play. But accessible also means easy access to the latest
technologies – for example, convenient transportation networks, smart communities, and
even smarter buildings. We are also noticing a trend in baby boomers seeing the benefit of
these communities; having ‘downsized’ once their kids have moved out, they begin to
appreciate the benefits of living in a community where all amenities are within proximity.
The growing senior population also tend to want to drive less, so being close to transit
allows them greater and safer access to travel.
Data and policies
Our approach to city adaptation includes the use of big data analytics, innovative
infrastructure technologies and policies, and the design of intelligent cities and buildings.
By collecting and analysing demographic and psychographic data, architecture
incorporates a mix of urban uses that contribute to the overall wellbeing of humans, the
environment and economy.

While cities are hubs of economic growth and wellbeing, poor planning can result in
inequality traps. By implementing policies and guidelines, we can work to ensure that cities
grow inclusively and that the design will work to benefit all. In Toronto, for example, there
is a growing trend of using design guidelines to address the healthy cities concept. The
latest request for proposals, released by Waterfront Toronto, outlines plans for a 12-acre
community that mimics a micro healthy city, incorporating a smart grid, equitable and
affordable housing, alternative methods of transportation, smart buildings, urban
agriculture, innovative green building technology, and employment opportunities. This
mixed-use concept encourages mixed-income areas, which reduce barriers to
transportation and provide easier access to amenities and public services, such as
healthcare. The sharing of space not only contributes to the quality of life by increasing
convenience for residents, but it also provides an economic spill-over effects, such as
shared public areas (e.g., parks and courtyards), proximity to transportation systems,
energy networks and city infrastructure.
Smart, sustainable, and socially responsible solutions for buildings
Using systems and tools to increase building performance
Vital to healthy cities are systems and tools that create cleaner and healthier environments.
Major cities are made up of the sum of innumerous individual decisions: what to buy,
where and what to develop, operational goals, etc. A city, however, is more than the
physical construct of its decisions. It’s made up of both intended and unintended outcomes
relative to physical construct, climate, and culture.
In Los Angeles, the intended consequence was a massive conurbation enabled by cheap
fossil fuels and low-density growth blanketing the space between the mountains and the
Pacific. When viewed as a sunny paradise of single-family oasis, it’s a success; yet, the
unintended consequence of what was built was a trap for smog. A series of legacy decisions
will likely forever impact the health and wellness of Los Angeles citizens, while intense
heat, drought and other impacts of climate change will only exacerbate public health
problems.
Doing more to promote the health of citizens
All forms of urban development take more than it gives back to the natural environment,
but doesn’t this beg the question: can cities could do more to promote the health of their
citizens? One exemplar is Melbourne, Australia. Melbourne is lauded for being a green, 15-
minute walking city. It’s polycentric, mono-nucleic urban environment co-exists with the
natural environment, an extension of parks and the ocean. It’s renowned for its social
equity metrics, low crime, culture, and reputation as Australia’s fastest growing city – a
healthy city is a place where people want to be.
The same can be said for individual buildings and neighbourhoods, and there exists now a
spectrum of standards, based on evidence-based research, which translate research into
actionable steps that designers can use to make positive decisions regarding the physical
construct of the built environment. These standards, WELL and Fitwel, are pairing with
established ‘green’ standards (LEED and BREEAM) to promote a more efficient and healthy
built environment. The CBRE headquarters in Los Angeles, the world’s first Well Platinum-
certified building, exemplifies this with active seating, exposed stairs, indoor plants, and
workplaces with ample views and natural light. At the urban scale, the first Well
Community is currently being planned in Tampa, Florida to scale these strategies up for
multiple buildings and shared public spaces. This marks a shift in our thinking about
buildings and cities as interchangeably responsible for impacting health in all aspects of
life, including work, play and living.
The natural carbon cycle
Another unintended consequence of our urbanisation is the phenomena of creating high
concentrations of carbon where they previously didn’t exist. Rapid urbanisation has
resulted in extracting carbon from the crust to generate carbon-based structures whose
creation and operation result in higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon (and other
greenhouse gases) being stored at rates which nature cannot reintegrate as quickly as they
are introduced. When the American Institute of Architects (AIA) began researching the
place of buildings within the matrix of global energy use in the late 1990s and early 2000s,
it was shocked to discover that buildings were the number-one global emitter of
greenhouse gases (40 per cent), ahead of both industry and transportation. It wasn’t until
then that we realised our buildings and lifestyle decisions were negatively impacting our
health. The materials in buildings contribute further to this decline, in addition to poor
indoor air quality and high energy consumption.
What can be done?
Existing buildings represent an opportunity to store embodied carbon. If we view them as
“carbon banks”, the materials suddenly shift psychologically from “future waste product” to
“current and/or future value”. A study by Adrian Smith and Gordon Gill Architecture in
Chicago looked at making all the buildings in the famous Chicago Loop carbon-neutral
through a repositioning programme, planning for future ultra-efficient development, and
through large-scale renewable energy technologies incorporated at the building scale and
on a new floating PV island on Lake Michigan. The most intriguing aspect of the idea is that
emissions could be drastically reduced, even eliminated, through a nexus of greater
density, creative adaptive re-use, new buildings and new infrastructure – all with current
technology.
While only a study, elements of this approach are being implemented at the city scale
across North America, in cities such as Seattle, Toronto and Dallas. These “2030 districts”
accomplish goals through public/private partnerships aimed at reducing overall energy
use, emissions, and shared resources and incentives. What is truly innovative is moving
from individual properties acting in isolation towards behaving as ‘linked’ properties.
Instead of buildings depending solely on large, expensive, inefficient, and often antiquated
municipal systems, individual and/or groups of buildings can share district-based systems
to achieve greater efficiency and resiliency, where allowed by building codes.
Creative partnerships save costs and the environment
Perhaps city governments, supposedly acting in the interest of their populace, are the
greatest barrier to sharing. There exists a movement towards establishing “microgrids”,
which are trailblazing ‘sharing’ systems across buildings and are appropriate for large-
scale developments owned by a single entity.
Other examples include community-based approaches. Gundersen Health System in La
Crosse, Wisconsin is a healthcare facility in a cold climate with inherently high process and
heating needs. It partnered with six regional wood mills to purchase waste wood chips to
power a new biomass boiler, producing enough heat, hot water and steam to make it the
first energy-independent healthcare facility in the US. This symbiotic relationship delivered
$500,000 in annual savings for the hospital in natural gas from neighbouring states, and
$800,000 revenue for the mills instead of landfilling the waste.
Living buildings as a catalyst for the future
Cities offer a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of local proximity and urban
clustering. In Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Stantec’s project Evolv1 involves the design of a
building so innovative that it disrupted the entire green building industry: a net-positive
energy building that generates more than enough energy for heating and cooling, and
power the lights, computers and everything else in the building. The excess energy
generated can either be sold back to the grid or used for electric vehicle-charging stations.
Living buildings are yet another tool for cities to use to promote sustainability and health.
They act as standalone utilities in the same way as a living plant; powered by sunlight and
water, they emit no waste and are made of healthy, renewable materials.
Technology to build healthy cities exists today, but if we’re to improve the health and
wellness of citizens, we need municipalities to meet innovation in the middle, help forge
relationships and remove red tape.
Healthy buildings are an extension of our own physical health
Creating healthy and sustainable buildings in our cities is not only crucial for reducing
energy consumption and alleviating our global ecological footprint but also for our health
and quality of life. On an average day, we spend nearly 90% of our time inhabiting
buildings, and the environmental quality of these spaces directly influences our physiology
and feeling of wellness.
See image “determinantsofhealth.png”
Source: UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Report 2017; Barton et al. (2010).

Building energy use currently accounts for over 40 per cent of total primary energy
consumption in the US and EU, and as much as one-third of global greenhouse gas
emissions. The US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) ‘International Energy
Outlook 2017’ observes that energy use in buildings is projected to increase by 32 per cent
between 2015 and 2040 with current trends in population growth, more time spent
indoors, increased demand for building functions and indoor environmental quality, as well
as global climate change. Furthermore, the UN predicts that 60 per cent of the world’s
population will live in urban environments.

See image “humanandbuildinghealth.png”

Our contemporary view of human health is derived from the WHO’s definition of health
being a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence
of disease or infirmity. In contrast, traditional medicinal practices look at health as an
“equilibrium of the senses” or “balanced vital energy”. This perspective embodies an
inherent understanding of human wellbeing as a constituent of our dynamic physical
environment rather than separate from it. With the inextricable link between climate and
ecology, the natural and built environment, as well as our human economy, health and
wellbeing, this perspective is relevant in our modern urban lifestyle more than ever.

The design of a healthy building must be seen as an extension of our own physical health in
our environment. For the built environment to be in harmony with nature, it must achieve
a natural balance with its environment through adaptation and self-regulation. It should be
part of a self-sustaining circular economy and ecosystem. Our approach to sustainable
design takes a holistic view that combines green building practices with promoting healthy
living, and comprises three main aspects for designing a healthy building:
1. Do Less Harm – through green building practices to meet global environmental
sustainability targets;
2. Focus on Holistic Health – promote healthy living, mental and physiological
wellbeing, and comfort; and
3. Nurture by Nature – promoting benefits of nature in our built environment
(biophilia) and learning from nature (biomimicry).
Measuring the health of our buildings
This brings us to the question of how we can meaningfully measure the health of our
buildings. Our current approach to measuring sustainability in architecture and
construction is to focus on energy efficiency, reducing environmental impact of materials
and building systems design, as well as minimising waste and maintaining local ecological
balance. It’s now a prerequisite for green buildings to achieve certifications for various
international sustainability standards, such as LEED in North America/internationally,
BREEAM in the UK, and lesser known systems such as 3 Star in Australia, and Estadima in
the Middle East. They all aim to achieve similar goals: to make buildings energy and waste-
efficient, and carefully measure our energy and carbon footprint to reduce our impact on
the environment. Aspects of health and wellbeing in these standards are usually measured
in the physical comfort parameters of designing space, such as temperature, ventilation
and daylighting. Other initiatives, such as One Living by Bioregional and the Living Building
Challenge, aim to set benchmarks for going beyond measuring building performance
efficiency to promoting health and happiness in design by creating self-sufficient
regenerative spaces; others such as the 2030 Challenge focus on our buildings and cities
becoming carbon neutral.

We’re now seeing a gradual shift in the focus of building design practice towards
promoting the physical, emotional and mental health of occupants with the emergence of
the Well Building Standard, which focuses on human health and wellness. It marries best
practices in design and construction with evidence-based medical and scientific research,
harnessing the built environment as a vehicle to support human health and wellbeing. With
this, the architectural design community now recognises the need to take a more integrated
approach, where sustainability and health are seen as synonymous and where our impact
on both is evaluated in equal measure.

Learning from natural systems to promote wellness

To truly design for health and wellness, we must learn lessons from nature itself on how
living beings thrive in their natural habitats. Living organisms have evolved over billions of
years adapting to specific environmental and climatic contexts, maintaining equilibrium,
optimising energy consumption, and minimising waste. Nature inherently embodies a
cyclical ecology for ensuring evolution and survival. From tropism in plants to adaptation
in animals, the evolution of species embodies a natural feedback regulation to achieve a
natural balance.

Homeostasis – ie, the maintenance of natural balance within the body’s internal
environment with feedback regulation – is key to the ability to adapt and survive. For
human civilization, a key function of architecture is to facilitate this natural equilibrium as
an adjunct to our physiology, providing energy-efficient comfortable environments for
different activities.

Biomimicry – learning from natural systems – and biomorphic design – learning from
natural forms and biophilia – are emerging fields in design and architecture that offer
exciting opportunities to think laterally when creating architectural adaptations that
promote health and wellbeing.

Putting people first: Shared autonomous vehicles in the urban realm

With just over 100 years of automobile manufacturing and deployment under our belts, we
find ourselves on the verge of another transportation revolution. During this time, the
personally owned, mass-produced automobile has shaped and dominated the built
environment. Its advent is the reason for much prosperity, growth and innovation, as well
as poor land management, resource depletion, and access inequality. Luckily, this
revolution will create more sustainable mobility for all. Enter: the autonomous vehicle
(AV).
The need for a democratising technology in the transportation space is long overdue. The
internet and cellular phones did it for education and communication and now autonomous
vehicles can be applied by the same principles. Self-driving vehicles – specifically, shared
autonomous vehicles (SAVs) – may be a key tool in continuing the positive trend of growth
and innovation by providing more equitable access to amenities and services, reducing
congestion and pollution, making efficient use of land and resources, and finally putting
people first.
In current versions, these low-to medium-speed, purpose-built shuttles are capable of
hauling up to 15 passengers around a variety of environments. Equipped with an array of
sensors and computers, these vehicles use a highly detailed map of their operational
environment while cross-referencing with data collected from their perception sensors to
make decisions in real time. Innovative human-machine interfaces will put passengers and
passers-by at ease. Primarily intended for first/last mile use, the implementation of SAVs
holds myriad benefits for users, cities and operators alike.

Enabling a healthy community lifestyle

SAVs will lead to decreased demand for multi-lane thoroughfares and on-street parking.
This will allow cities to give pedestrians and cyclists some much deserved attention.
Creating inviting public spaces and walkable corridors have long been associated with
healthy lifestyles and vibrant communities. The National Complete Streets Coalition cites a
number of benefits from implementing ‘complete’ streets, with topics ranging from climate
change mitigation to equity enhancements.1
By creating adaptable streetscapes, cities will be inviting new opportunities for economic
development while fostering a sense of community and safety. This can be done through
short-term or long-term efforts. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is a
shining example of policy implementation on complete streets.2
By incorporating adoption of SAVs, cities are well-positioned to further their mobility
infrastructure planning initiatives.

Getting more from existing infrastructure

If most citizens can zip around via SAV fleets, city centres can finally stop spending time
and money on building and maintaining their surplus of car parks and garages. In the
United States, there is anywhere from three to eight parking spaces per car.3 Yet, despite all
these parking spaces, drivers still spend an average 17 hours a year searching for a spot.4
As we enter a transitional phase to SAV adoption, cities can determine how best to wean
themselves from this inefficient land-use practice while deciding the best way to get people
in, out and around the city.
Another innovative option might be to plan for the adaptive re-use of parking structures.
One project in Seattle, Washington plans to construct a 1000-foot, multi-use tower, where
the first four levels of parking are designed to convert into living and office space in the
future.5
Many urban centres already face opportunities for infill development and urban renewal
projects, but with a decreased demand for parking and an increased demand for
multimodal development and amenities, infill opportunities will skyrocket. Cities should
start to incentivise this type of development early and often while dis-incentivising
suburban development. Like many things, suburban development has been subsidised for
years, giving people a false sense of the actual cost of living in the “affordable” outskirts.
The subsidies, of course, reflected our values under current conditions but it can be argued
the time has come to support the trend towards urbanisation, where we can use existing
infrastructure more wisely.
Reducing pollution
Areas where SAVs are implemented could see a reduction in direct emissions pollution, as
long as local policy supports the transition from personally owned internal-combustion
vehicles. Another type of pollution, known as lifecycle, includes sources such as
manufacturing, operation and decommissioning. The Department of Energy reports that
electric vehicles as less polluting overall compared with other light-duty passenger
transportation but recognises it’s a complex process to calculate all variables for all
regions.6 The real impact will come from coupling SAVs, as well as people opting to leave
their vehicle at home in favour of alternative forms of mobility.
Eliminating human error
Saving human lives by accident reduction is the most heavily touted reason for the
introduction of autonomous vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has published accident and fatality rates for years. They attribute roughly 94 per
cent of all motor vehicles accidents to human error.7 This translates to more than 30,000
deaths each year in the United States since 1930 (FARS data going back to 1994)8.
Creating universal access
in 2014, the US Department of Transportation (DoT) launched the TIGER (Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery) programme, which distributed nearly $600
million to 46 states for transportation projects that enhanced access and economic
opportunities to underserved communities.9 It’s consistent with the DoT’s Ladders of
Opportunity initiative, which was designed to provide equitable access to work and other
vital services with the goal of lifting Americans out of poverty. The US DoT wanted to shed
light on bifurcated communities and start a discussion about how to solve the issue of
access that has plagued so many communities for decades.
Providing access to ubiquitous, affordable and equitable automated transportation for
ageing, disabled and low-income citizens will have many positive economic and health
effects in and around deployment areas. The benefits for disabled individuals are extolled
in a white paper by the Ruderman Family Foundation, which states that the
implementation of automated transportation could lead to employment opportunities for 2
million people with disabilities while reducing medical costs associated with missed
appointments.10
For many years, paratransit services have been an elderly or disabled person’s best on-
demand transit option for doctors’ appointments or grocery shopping. These services,
although helpful, are very expensive to operate. SAVs will help reduce the amount of
subsidy currently needed for their service. Once fully deployed, a network of paratransit
SAVs will improve the efficiency of the service by reducing dwell time and the overall cost.
This will permit redistribution of funds to increase service and accommodate demand
created by the ageing baby boomer population over the next 20 years.
Conclusion
Urban centres are changing to adapt to demographic shifts and demands. Digital, physical
and intellectual connections are priorities for urban areas and are helping change how we
live, work and play in cities. Not only is digital infrastructure important for the future but
there also needs be an emphasis on physical infrastructure, socially responsible habits
contributing to the health of buildings and environment, and convenience, including the
proximity to amenities and access to transportation.
Smart grid solutions have spillover effects that create healthier cities through the reduction
of energy use, CO2 emissions and pollutants. Incorporating systems, tools and analyses not
only help with cleaning the air but also with understanding our social footprint on the
environment. As we combine our knowledge and systems with energy networks, it will
change the way in which we use electricity, creating longevity through smart networks that
allows cost-efficient use and distribution of energy.
The design of smart cities requires the integration of holistic and sustainable design
strategies as a foundation. Smart grids, autonomous vehicles, and design guidelines, such as
Envision and the Well Building Standard, are playing a large part in changing our cities.
Creating healthy and sustainable buildings in cities is not only crucial in reducing costs or
our impact on the climate but it also has a significant impact on our health and quality of
life.

Shared autonomous vehicles provide mobility access for those who would otherwise be
prevented from using city transit systems, affording them clear health benefits. The links
between the environment and the urban worker are obvious. If cities work to reduce
pollution and traffic congestion, they become more attractive for firms and skilled workers.
Moreover, increased access to transportation networks reduces greenhouse gases, mental
and physical stress relating to driving in traffic, and better use of dense space.
Cities are greater when the sum of their parts are working in unison, moving us towards
achieving social equity and improving the human experience.
Authors
Gail Borthwick is Principal, Buildings, at Stantec in Canada, where Rod Schebesch is Regional
Business Leader – transportation. Anu Sabherwal is Senior Associate, Project Leader at
Stantec, based in the UK, and Blake Jackson is Sustainability Design Leader, Associate at
Stantec in the US.

References
1 Smart Growth America, https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources?resource_type=fact-
sheet&authors=&category_name=complete-streets&s=
2 North Carolina Department of Transportation, Complete Streets,
http://www.completestreetsnc.org/project-examples/

3 Chester, M et al. Parking infrastructure: energy, emissions, and automobile life-cycle

environmental accounting. Environment Research Letters. 5 034001. IOP Publishing; 2010.

4 McCoy, K. Drivers spend an average of 17 hours a year searching for parking spots. 12
July 2017. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/12/parking-
pain-causes-financial-and-personal-strain/467637001/

5 Marshall, A. It’s time to think about living in parking garages. 2 November 2016. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/time-think-living-old-parking-garages/

6 US Department of Energy, https://energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-

electric-vehicles

7 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles#benefits

8 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Fatality Analysis Reporting

System (FARS) Encyclopedia, https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
 9 US Department of Transportation, https://www.transportation.gov/policy-
initiatives/tiger/ladders-opportunity-through-tiger
10 Claypool, H, Bin-Nun, A, and Gerlach, J. Self-driving cars: the impact on people with
disabilities. The Ruderman Family Foundation; 2017.
http://rudermanfoundation.org/white_papers/self-driving-cars-the-impact-on-people-
with-disabilities/

View publication stats