By Marina Christodoulides, M.Arch, and M.C.P. Student
It all began on January 7, 2007, in the haze of the San Francisco night lights, when UC Berkeley students checked in at SFO airport for a flight to Delhi, India.
“Who is working for Nano City? Is he? Is she?” I thought to myself as I filed into the aircraft — the suspense and excitement building as we funneled into the tight space. I could not begin to fathom what was in store for me and my fellow classmates. I can now say that the excitement and enthusiasm never curbed, that the surprises and curve balls never ceased and the characters involved were rich with idiosyncrasies, making the journey a tumultuous, boisterous affair that culminated into one of my most enriching academic experiences.
The majority of our weeklong stay in India was spent in transit inside a big red Volvo bus, fusing camaraderie between our client, Sabeer Bhatia, and his group, the faculty leading and accompanying the studio, and other UC Berkeley students. As this was my first trip to India, I became mesmerized by the world outside the window. The streets were a continuous spectacle of the hustle and bustle of Indian life. Motor rickshaws, cows, monkeys, bicycles, squatters, villagers, men playing cards, shaving, defecating, cooking, carrying cargo — a bazaar of private life paraded across the stage of the public sphere. The images blasted in front of me like a blaring television screen, consuming my attention and senses even though my physical self remained protected by the now familiar interior of the red Volvo bus. This panorama of sights and sounds was occasionally interrupted with breaks for the restroom and meals, meetings with the Governor of Haryana and its ministers, an intense conversation with the villagers living on the site, and nights spent in the comfort of five-star hotels.
On one hand, the trip to India was a complete whirlwind; on the other, the perspective we gained was a mere Cliff’s notes introduction to our site and its larger context. However, it whetted our appetite for future work and upon our return to Berkeley, we immediately began design work for Nano City while simultaneously taking Professor Nezar AlSayyad’s course on housing and urbanization in the Third World.
So began the challenge of the semester. As we became increasingly educated about issues of housing in different parts of the world, our design required further development. The contradiction of designing a private city with growing awareness toward issues of informality and housing could not slow us down from every impending deadline. And while theory could not be espoused without a design implication, design could not occur in a vacuum of ignorance. There was a constant tug-of-war between our conceptual knowledge and our practical design solutions.
The complexity of the project did not end there. The studio was composed of two eight-person groups that were each commissioned to design a master plan. And while working in groups and for a real client is quite foreign to the traditional architectural studio, it put us in a scenario that was much closer to professional practice. In the end, the product was much richer than anything we could have done as individuals. By continuously learning from each other, and building on each other’s strengths, the final studio product reached an admirable level of resolution.The Nano City Super Studio pushed and pulled at the boundaries of academic theory and practice, of individuals and teamwork, of disciplinary boundaries such as architecture, city planning, landscape and urban design. Through continuous struggle, friction and contradicting demands, we found our home in the complex beauty of the Nano City project.
Innovative projects often have unusual beginnings.
In Fall 2006, I received an e-mail from an individual who informed me that he was planning a new city in India. He wanted to meet me to discuss what ideas I may have for such a project. A new city that would be privately built — indeed, the idea made me wonder! Fortunately, my initial instinct to delete the e-mail and to dismiss the idea altogether did not prevail and I agreed to a short meeting with its sender in my office the following week. On the day of the meeting and after a brief Google search, I discovered that I was about to meet Sabeer Bhatia — the co-founder of Hotmail, and one of India’s if not the world’s, most recognized young entrepreneurs.
Bhatia, a graduate of Stanford University, had come to us in Berkeley seeking our expertise to realize his vision for Nano City — a new, sustainable, eco-friendly, and high-tech city in north India. The 11,000 acre site earmarked for the project is nestled in the foothills of the Himalayas and within close proximity of the city of Chandigarh in the state of Haryana. By all measure, Bhatia is a dream client: a young visionary whose education and ambition are matched with a social conscience. Having co-founded Hotmail in the 1990s and subsequently selling the corporation for $400 million to Microsoft, he went on to establish other IT companies and develop social ventures beyond technology. Although he came to us mainly for advice about how to pursue his new project, it quickly became clear that his engagement with us was not going to be a passing one.
Stemming from my conviction that successful projects are a product of a close collaboration between an educated client, a competent designer, and an informed public, I convinced Bhatia that we should pursue the project as a college-wide graduate urban design studio, involving a group of faculty from different specialties. Having now become our client, Bhatia also generously funded the studio which included a site visit by 16 students and 6 faculty members for a 9-day trip to India. While in India, the design team also met with government officials in the state of Haryana and other developers collaborating on the project.
The CED has had a long tradition of conducting Super Studios, which are intense design collaborations for a semester-long project and involving several faculty as supervisors. The tradition harks back to studios conducted by Lars Lerup and Stanley Saitowitz in the 1980s as well as those by Mark Mack, Richard Fernau, and myself in the 1990s. It was indeed time to revive this tradition with the Nano City Super Studio. My enthusiasm for the project as well as that of the students was shared by committed CED faculty such as my colleague Professor Susan Ubbelhode — an expert on the architecture of Chandigarh and frequent visitor to India — who agreed to co-teach this studio. Richard Fernau cut his sabbatical short and participated as a studio critic. Robert Cervero, Chair of the DCRP; Chris Benton, former Chair of Architecture; and Ananya Roy, Professor of City Planning and Associate Dean of International and Area Studies, all agreed to serve as studio consultants by delivering lectures on design and planning policy and by participating in all studio presentations.
When we advertised the studio in late Fall as a joint Architecture, City Planning, and Urban Design course we were inundated with applications from students. Since this was a truly interdisciplinary studio, open to students from the whole college, we selected 16 applicants from the M. Arch, M.C.P., M.L.A., M.U.D., and the PhD programs in Architecture, City Planning, and Landscape Architecture.
Our visit to India was an intense experience yet memorable too. We traveled between Chandigarh, the foothills of the Himalayas, and the urban outskirts of Delhi. On a visit to the proposed project site, Berkeley students demonstrated what it means to immerse oneself in the context that they design for. Refusing to simply travel in the confines of an air-conditioned bus or meet government officials, the group visited a few of the villages on the site and spent a session meeting with and interviewing villagers whose fate would be impacted by the project.
From its onset, the studio emphasized both collaborative effort as well as teamwork in the design process. On our return to Berkeley, students were assigned to teams who then delegated individual tasks to each member. Interdisciplinary methodologies were pursued by addressing the multiple scales of design involved in a project of this nature. The studio started with a week-long intense charette where each student produced a master plan. Following the charette the students were broken down into 8 teams and continued to work in pairs for 3 weeks to produce land-use and master plan solutions. This was followed by an intense 5 week session where 4 teams — each made up of 4 students — focused solely on urban design. Finally, the students were divided into 2 teams, each pursuing alternative master plans and also articulating an architectural strategy of which one was selected as a final master
The final design solution for Nano City proposes a three-phase development model which will ultimately include a small educational sector with campuses of major U.S. universities; a business development sector with headquarters of several technology firms (providing biotechnology, informational technology, and nano services); a major housing development of up to 50,000 small, medium, and large size units; and appropriate commercial and recreational services in order to generate a vibrant mixed-use
The end of the semester may have been an ending to the Nano City Super Studio but today the project continues. Nano City Inc. has accepted the general master plan generated by the studio and has officially hired 10 other Berkeley students to further develop it into a more detailed urban design, under the supervision of a few faculty members. The final master plan of Nano City designed by what is now called B-GAP — the Berkeley Group for Architecture and Planning — will be formally unveiled early in the Fall. It stands as a testament not only to the possibilities of collaboration between the different disciplines within the CED but also to the successful collaboration between clients and designers. Indeed, the Nano City Super Studio attests to the creative potential of a paradigm that believes that political position and social responsibility can deliver design excellence. As we continue with design and development, we look forward to the moment when Nano City will break ground in 2009.
During the Fall Semester of 2005, graduate students in landscape architecture and environmental planning focused their efforts on long-range planning for the entire Napa River watershed. However, their charge was somewhat beyond the ordinary.
The Napa River Watershed drains into San Pablo Bay, and is home to the world famous wine region of Napa Valley as well as several small to moderate sized cities. With its headwaters at Mount St. Helena, the Napa River flows from wild slopes of the Mayacmas Mountains through picturesque vineyards toward and through the City of Napa and out past Mare Island and the city of Vallejo to San Pablo Bay. One of the most memorable and well-known geographic features in California, the Napa Valley is a highly compact watershed ranging from near wilderness to rural lands, to suburbs, to cities, to industrial zones in a mere fifty miles.
Beneath the surface of this apparent paradise is a web of relationships highly dependent on fossil fuels. From the natural gas providing electricity to homes, wineries and businesses to the oil providing gasoline for vehicles, and the petrochemicals for agriculture, the valley is held captive by the fossil fuel era. Like all regions of North America, the Napa Valley will of necessity undergo a very serious transformation to a post-fossil fuel reality. A compact, thriving watershed region like the Napa Valley allowed the class a laboratory to explore the patterns of land use and landscape that may emerge in the wake of declining fossil fuel supplies and the realities of global warming. The class presumption was simple: In thirty years, everything will change. Their job was to anticipate that change and guide it in constructive, fulfilling directions for all life forms and resources.
Led by Assistant Professor Jennifer Brooke and Beatrix Farrand Visiting Professor Robert Thayer, Professors Joe McBride and Matt Kondolf, and with the cooperation of the Napa County Environmental Planning staff members, students broke into six teams to investigate a number of critical dimensions of the river valley: Water; Land and Vegetation; Energy and Transit; Housing, Urban and Industry; Parks, Open Space and Tourism; and Agriculture, Food and Wine. These analysis teams conducted exhaustive reconnaissance on the state of the Napa River watershed with a view of likely conditions, potentials, and limitations thirty years out, when transit fuels would be more scarce and expensive, weather more extreme, population pressure more acute, and natural habitat and open space more precious.
Analysis processes were immediately followed by a master planning phase wherein student teams focused their efforts on components necessary to direct the future of the region. One team hypothesized the creation of a quasi-public initiative entitled “Common Roots”, a new twist on the contemporary CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) movement, proposing a multifaceted urban agricultural growing and distributing system with neighborhood markets and a centralized farmers market. With the goal of returning potentially productive but underutilized lands to the provision of local food, their presentation included a toolkit of strategies for small-scale, decentralized food production. Their work also included the addition of an Urban Agriculture element to the City of Napa zoning code, which would enable urban food production to be facilitated by local government yet run by a local non-profit board of directors.
Another team branded itself as “THINC Transit”, an acronym standing for “Transit Hybrid for an Integrated Napa Community”, and proposed a sophisticated yet highly feasible public transit system utilizing existing Wine Train rail rights-of-way and linking other potential transit corridors with existing BART and Amtrak lines to provide ferry, train, light rail, bus, and shuttle transit for the entire valley. Their final presentation included a highly detailed phasing plan for implementing the transit system, complete with a hypothetical and multi-modal schedule of arrivals and departures, including a by-reservation shuttle for the remote valley towns of St. Helena and Calistoga.
In the final design phase, individual students chose site-specific design projects that would build upon various goals and findings from the analysis and master planning efforts completed earlier. These included a complex transit center expansion on the site of the BayLink Ferry in Vallejo; an adaptive reuse plan to turn a routine industrial park into a showcase venue for local organic food production, distribution and waste management; a combined constructed wastewater wetland/regional park and trail complex for Mare Island; a mixed use affordable housing community built on the abandoned glider port in Calistoga; upgraded recreational and habitat improvements to the estuarine wetlands near the Napa airport; and dense transit-oriented development of land along the proposed light rail line through the City of Napa.
Running successfully through the entire course was the theme of “Not Business as Usual.” In envisioning the rather substantive changes anticipated with respect to climate, rising sea levels, the peaking of oil, increases in population quantity and social diversity, potential widening of income gaps, and the future need to shorten the supply chain distance between sources and end uses of energy, food, water, and materials, class members prepared themselves for a future where the skills of landscape architects and environmental planners, as some of the most logical systems thinkers, will be most sorely needed.
Studio instructors were Jennifer Brooke, Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning; Robert Thayer, Beatrix Farrand Visiting Professor; Joe McBride, Professor of Landscape Architecture and Forestry; and Mathias Kondolf, Associate Professor of Environmental Planning and Geography. Participating students were Patricia Algara, Jongkeun Choi, Noelle Cole, Astrid Diehl, Calder Gillin, Alethea Marie Harper, Joshua Kent, Freyja Knapp, Rusty Lamer, Erika Leachman, Miza Moreau, Jennifer Natali, Shiva Niazi, Songha Park, Natalie Pollard, Zachary Rutz, Brooke Ray Smith, Andreas Stavropoulos, Sutter Wehmeier, Alex Westhoff, Nicole Winn, Suzuko Yamada, and Liyan Yang.
A Collaboration between the Tianjin Urban Planning and Design Institute and the University of California, Berkeley College of Environmental Design
From 1998-2002 China experienced unprecedented growth, with an annual GDP increase of 7.8% – the fastest in the world. It is expected that over the next 20 to 30 years China will complete its transition from a planned to market economy, fully integrate itself into world trade, and become the world’s largest and most powerful economy .
Sustainability is a concern shared by most Western professionals who are consulting with the Chinese government, either directly or indirectly, to devise a development strategy that will support its vigorous growth. Statistics reveal that the U.S., now the world’s largest economy, uses 25% of the world’s natural resources. If China – with four times the U.S.’s population – develops similar consumption patterns, it will consume all of the world’s non-renewable resources when its economy reaches full fruition in 20-30 years.
Rising incomes in China are fueling a dramatic increase in automobile ownership: it is estimated that between 12,000 and 14,000 new cars are added to China’s streets each day, increasing traffic congestion and air pollution, and spawning the development of thousands of kilometers of new highways . Transit-oriented development, or TOD, is one element of a sustainable development strategy that can help to lessen the burden of growing cities on the world’s limited supply of non-renewable resources. TOD, supported by a detailed and integrative policy framework, promotes the efficient use of land and development of a compact urban form, while curbing automobile usage by creating incentives for transit, walking, bicycling and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
Tianjin: a snapshot
Metropolitan Tianjin is the third largest city in China, after Beijing and Shanghai. With a population of 10 million, Tianjin reports directly to the Chinese government and benefits from direct access to centralized sources of funding for large-scale development projects. The port at Tanggu (30 km southeast of Tianjin proper) fuels much of Tianjin’s economy. Tianjin’s major industries include clothing and textiles, chemicals and electronics.
Tianjin’s Central Station is one of northern China’s major railway hubs and serves as a junction point for the Beijing-Shanghai lines, while also providing direct access to other northeastern and southern provinces. After Beijing was chosen to host the 2008 Olympics, the City of Tianjin invested heavily in improvements to urban transport – most prominently a new light rail line connecting Tianjin proper with the port of Tanggu. The City is also expanding existing rail lines within Tianjin proper to support its growing population of residents and commuters.
Studio goals and approach
In the fall of 2004, UC Berkeley’s College of Environmental Design was asked by the Tianjin Urban Planning and Design Institute to develop principles and prototypes for TOD in Tianjin. The studio was comprised of fifteen graduate students in architecture, landscape architecture and city and regional planning, and led by three instructors. The interdisciplinary nature of the studio sought to combine a wide range of skills to propose a plan for new TOD in Tianjin.
The Institute suggested four sites in Tianjin, from which the studio chose three, as platforms for their ideas. Each site is distinct in its geography, history and local character, but they shared two things in common: first, on each site there is at least on transit station serving the city’s expanding rail system; and second, each site has a direct connection to Tianjin’s network of rivers and canals.
The studio viewed the river as the conceptual “thread” running through the three proposals. Echoing an approach of “ecosystem as infrastructure” , the studio envisioned the river as the City’s main artery, with riverfront paths to feed pedestrians and bicyclists into the larger network of roads and railway transit. A plan for commercial, residential and public land uses would strategically fill in the areas between transit stations and the river, thereby helping the City to gain the most from its investment by directly linking people to the transit system.
The studio authored a broad set of principles to inform the planning and design process. Based on these principles — which are further distilled into a set of strategies and guidelines — we developed prototypes for three sites in Tianjin.
The “kit of parts” breaks this set of principles down into physical components and highlights the more specific elements of each plan. Tianjin Municipal Government can use this menu of options in developing future prototypes for development.
Principle 1 – High Density/Mixed Use
Create high density mixed-use neighborhoods to support transit. A successful transit-oriented development creates a wide range of destinations (offices, community centers, and recreation areas) within easy walking or biking distance of transit.
Principle 2 – Pedestrian/Bicyclist Network
Develop an independent pedestrian and bicycle network to support transit and access through neighborhoods. Directly connecting pedestrian and bicycle-only pathways to transit stations encourages the use of non-motorized transport. These car-free pathways also increase foot traffic visibility for local businesses.
Principle 3 – Transit Connections
Facilitate connections to transit with a fine-grained street grid. An urban street grid works best when it incorporates a clear hierarchy of street types. The grid allows for the dispersion of travel and access through neighborhoods, while the hierarchy provides different street environments to accommodate both faster and slower traffic.
Principle 4 – Public Realm
Create spaces for social interaction. Planning urban neighborhoods with an inviting public realm is key to creating vibrant communities. Streets, parks and open spaces should provide places for recreation and leisure. Buildings should be designed with outward-facing elements — such as balconies and porches — to enliven the streetscape.
Principle 5 – Self-sufficient Neighborhoods
Design “Zero Waste” self-sufficient neighborhoods. Generating much of their power needs on-site, self-sufficient neighborhoods create less demand on the centralized infrastructure for non-renewable resources. Block designs should include systems to generate energy, and to collect and reuse water and waste.
Principle 6 – Heterogeneous Communities
Promote diversity and choice within neighborhoods, encouraging the formation of heterogeneous communities. Neighborhoods should incorporate a range of housing types, services and amenities to allow residents of different income types and lifestyles to live in the same area.
Principle 7 – Existing Site Conditions
Respect the site’s history and natural features by incorporating existing elements into future site plans. One of the most recognizable features in Tianjin is the river network from which the city grew over time. Incorporating existing natural and historical features into new development is an important strategy for creating viable, sustainable communities that identify with the city’s past.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This project examined opportunities for TOD in three very different contexts. While all of the plans are based on the principles of TOD, they apply these principles differently to respond to the characteristics of each site.
We identified several obstacles to effective TOD in Tianjin during our planning and design process.
First, the current development process in China results in large-scale, master-developed projects with repetitive architecture on super-blocks. This development pattern does not support transit and is not consistent with TOD principles of mixed-use, public realm, diversity, and site history. The city should aim to better balance architectural diversity, solar access requirements and environmental sustainability goals.
Second, the city’s efforts to expand roads and build large thoroughfares are not consistent with the TOD principle of connectivity, which requires a dense network of streets. Some may believe that a dense street network causes traffic, but in fact, it provides many alternative routes to travelers, which spreads traffic out. Instead of expanding roads, Tianjin should create a dense network of narrower streets to support transit, bicycling, and walking.
Third, we noted many examples of automobile priority in new development. For example, many new buildings have a large parking lot in front of the building. This facilitates automobile use, but disadvantages pedestrians who have to walk through the parking lot to get to the entrance. It also creates a “dead space” along the street, which is unpleasant for pedestrians and bicyclists. Instead, buildings should be sited close to the street, with any parking in the rear. This encourages people to take transit and then walk or bicycle to the building rather than drive, which reduces traffic and creates a lively streetscape.
Finally, Tianjin has unique natural assets and a special history, but most new development does not reflect this. In order to create a positive image and identity for the city, new development should incorporate these assets, such as the river and canal system, agricultural history, and existing open space.
These are challenging issues, but they are critical to the success of TOD in Tianjin. If Tianjin is committed to TOD, they can be resolved. Our plans and principles provide guidance, and the city can use demonstration projects to test these development models.
We identified seven key steps to implementing TOD in Tianjin. Each is discussed below.
Adopting a clear set of TOD policies is critical. We have developed a proposed set of TOD principles, strategies and guidelines. The City of Tianjin could create a TOD district for all areas within 1 km of a transit station in which these policies would apply. The city could then create a specific plan for each TOD district that outlines a development vision based on these policies [1-4].
Implementing TOD requires the participation of multiple partners . In Tianjin, these may include city agencies, the Tianjin Urban Planning and Design Institute, transit operators (subway, light rail, and bus), the private sector (developers, financial institutions, and other businesses), the central government, and Tianjin residents. Each of these partners can contribute to a distinct aspect of TOD. The city may lease or sell land, provide infrastructure, supply funding, and control the review of development proposals. The Urban Planning and Design Institute and transit operators may work with the city to develop TOD policies and specific plans. The private sector may develop and invest in TOD projects. The central government may provide funding or technical assistance. Finally, Tianjin residents may offer feedback on proposed plans and development proposals. To facilitate coordination, the city could create a TOD committee with representatives from each partner to review and approve development proposals in TOD districts.
Incorporation into Plans
To be truly effective, Tianjin should incorporate TOD concepts and principles into plans at multiple levels — regional, city, and site — as well as into plans of various kinds (i.e. land use, housing, and transit). For example, the city could include TOD principles in its updated General Plan as well as its Transit Plan and the Regional Strategic Plan. Tianjin could also develop a pedestrian plan and a bicycle plan[6,7]. These are critical components of TOD since most transit riders either walk or bicycle to the station.
Architectural diversity is a key element of TOD. A site with many different building types and styles serves a variety of uses and housing needs, which allows a mix of people to live, work, and shop in one area. This can be achieved by encouraging multiple developers to work on a site: a group of developers could work together on each phase of a project; a site could be separated into smaller pieces with different developers for each piece; or the city could limit the total number of units on a site designed or developed by one entity.
Development around stations can also be structured in several ways: a developer could acquire the air rights above an underground station while the city retains control of the ground, the city could lease or sell the land to a developer but keep certain areas for transit facilities, or the city and developer could share construction or operating costs.
In some cases, particularly in suburban or edge stations, it may be necessary to implement the specific plan in several phases. However, a full mix of uses (residential, office, commercial, public facilities, and open space) should be included in each phase if possible. This ensures that the neighborhood functions as a mixed-use community, rather than as isolated islands of housing or office development.
One phasing strategy is land banking. This means concentrating development and density in specific parcels and leaving other parcels undeveloped, or developing them at lower intensity interim uses that allow for higher intensities later. This allows high-density development to occur around the station over a longer time frame, which conserves land and reduces sprawl .
Plan review is important to ensure that proposed development complies with TOD principles and the specific plan. The City could issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) that asks developers to submit proposals for an element of the specific plan. The TOD committee could review these proposals for the quality of their urban and pedestrian design (including traffic and parking), environmental sustainability, and transit impact.
Housing development should serve a variety of incomes. One strategy for this is inclusionary zoning, which requires that a percentage of the units in each development (often 10-20%) are affordable to lower-income households. Another approach is to create a “housing protection district,” in which any affordable housing that is demolished has to be replaced in new buildings. The city could also provide a “density bonus” that allows 15-25% more units than normally allowed under the zoning if developers include a certain percentage of affordable housing units. These units should be scattered throughout the site, not concentrated in one area.
The City of Tianjin is making a significant investment in its rail network. TOD can help Tianjin realize of the benefits of this investment through “value capture” — mechanisms that return to the City some of the economic value generated by the transit system and the development pattern of TOD. For example, lease payments from developers to the city can be adjusted based on the increase in land value due to TOD, as reflected in regular appraisals. Alternatively, the city can require developers to return a percentage of their profits to the city with their lease payments each year.
This “captured value” should not go to the City’s general fund. It should further support TOD by subsidizing or enhancing transit, paying for landscaping and maintenance of parks and public facilities, or providing funding for affordable housing. Revenues could also go to a “TOD fund” for future TOD projects.
TOD and Tianjin’s Future
Tianjin currently faces many challenges: a booming population, rapid growth in vehicle ownership, and increasing congestion and pollution. At the same time, the city has great assets: a rich history, a river and canal network, strong neighborhoods, and a growing transit system.
By investing in transit, Tianjin is taking an important step towards a more sustainable future. TOD represents the next step. The principles, plans, and guidelines outlined in this report present an opportunity for Tianjin to not only create a future that is more economical, livable, and sustainable than the present, but also to become a leader in progressive planning and a model of responsible development for other cities in China.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that TOD is not a cure-all for the challenges that Tianjin faces. Other policies are also needed: in particular, pricing of vehicle ownership and use to reflect its full social and environmental costs, and policies to encourage resource conservation and the use of renewable energy sources. A holistic approach that addresses both the demand and supply of resources will be most effective at reducing congestion.
Harrison S. Fraker, FAIA, Dean, College of Environmental Design
David E. Dowall, Director, Institute for Urban and Regional Development and Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning
Tom Lollini, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Physical and Environmental Planning
Emily S. Johnson
2. Robert Cervero, Lecture (April 11, 2005), City and Regional Planning 219: Comparative International Transportation, University of California, Berkeley Department of City and Regional Planning.
3. Martin C. Pedersen, “Eternal Optimist: Architect William McDonough has witnessed China’s rapid modernization and sees hope for sustainable development,” Metropolis, (http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1130), January 24, 2005.