sustainability is not enough

103Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 10, No. 2, October 1998

SUSTAINABILITY

Peter Marcuse is Professor of Urban Plan-ning at Columbia University in the City ofNew York. He is a lawyer, with a PhD inPlanning from the University of Californiaat Berkeley. He has been President of theLos Angeles City Planning Commissionand is now Chair of the Housing Commit-tee of Community Board 9 in Manhattan.He has written widely on planning andhousing issues, most recently on experi-ences in Eastern Europe, Australia andSouth Africa. He is currently at work on abook on “The New Spatial Order of Cities”,dealing with the impact of globalization oninternal urban structures, and a book onthe history of working-class housing inNew York City.

Address: Division of Urban Planning,School of Architecture and Planning,Avery Hall, Columbia University, New York10027, New York; fax: (1) 212 864 0410; e-mail: pm35@ columbia.edu

Sustainability is notenough

Peter Marcuse

SUMMARY: This paper critically reviews the conceptof sustainability, especially as it has come to be ap-plied outside of environmental goals. It suggests“sustainability” should not be considered as a goal fora housing or urban programme – many bad programmesare sustainable – but as a constraint whose absencemay limit the usefulness of a good programme. It alsodiscusses how the promotion of “sustainability” maysimply encourage the sustaining of the unjust statusquo and how the attempt to suggest that everyone hascommon interests in “sustainable urban development”masks very real conflicts of interest.

“To think that their present circumstances and theirpresent societal arrangements might be sustained– that is an unsustainable thought for the majorityof the world’s people.”(1)

PROGRAMMES AND POLICIES can be sustainableand socially just but, unfortunately, they can also besustainable and unjust. On the other hand, unsus-tainable programmes may be very just but, fortunately,some very unjust programmes are also unsustainable.Examples are easy: social security for the aged hasproven to be both socially desirable and very sustain-able; but free reign and legal protection for real estatespeculation are, in the opinion of most urbanists, verydetrimental to a socially desirable environment al-though they seem to be quite sustainable at present.On the other hand, publicly financed, owned and op-erated public housing is seen by many as very desir-able but also appears unsustainable on any large scalein most countries; also, forcible evictions without dueprocess of law seems a more and more unsustainablepractice in most countries. Sustainability and socialjustice do not necessarily go hand in hand. Sustain-able, at least in its literal meaning “capable of beingupheld or defended”,(2) requires careful examination ifwe are to use it meaningfully in the arena of housingand urban development policy.

In this paper I want to make several points:

1. The formulation is a reworking of an apho-rism of the Berlin Institute for Critical Theorywhich, building on Walter Benjamin’s “...theconcept of progress should be grounded inthe idea of catastrophe,” adds: “...that things‘just keep on going’ is the catastrophe.” Inkrit,Conference Announcement, July 9, 1998.

2. Oxford English Dictionary (1971), CompactEdition, page 3191. The etymology derives theword from tenire, “to hold”, thus capable ofbeing held on to.

104 Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 10, No. 2, October 1998

SUSTAINABILITY

• sustainability is not a goal for a programme – manybad programmes are sustainable – but a constraint;its absence may limit the usefulness of a good pro-gramme;

• while sustainability may be a useful formulation ofgoals on environmental issues, it is a treacherousone for urban policy because it suggests the possi-bility of a conflict-free consensus on policieswhereas, in fact, vital interests do conflict; it willtake more than simply better knowledge and aclearer understanding to produce change;

• even in the environmental arena, sustainability can-not be the sole criterion by which programmes arejudged except in the, not useful, very long term be-cause environmental policies must also take intoaccount considerations of, for example, social jus-tice;

• if sustainability means the ability not only to for-mulate and operate a desirable urban programmebut also to see it continue without detracting fromother, also desirable, goals, then the concept mayusefully emphasize the importance of long-termpracticality to the consideration of such pro-grammes.

Sustainability is both an honourable goal for care-fully defined purposes and a camouflaged trap for thewell-intentioned unwary. As a concept and a slogan, ithas an honourable pedigree(3) in the environmentalmovement which has, by and large, succeeded in itsfight to have the standard of sustainability generallyaccepted by all sides, at least in principle, although,in practice, severe conflicts of interest still beset ef-forts to establish specific standards. Few, these days,would contest that sustainability is something desir-able in environmental terms and that represents asubstantial victory for the environmental cause.

But the situation is quite different when it comes toother causes where, I will contend, sustainability isnot an appropriate goal; at best it is one criterion amongothers, not a goal. Its acceptance would not constitutean achievement in the cause of better housing or bet-ter cities. The acceptance of sustainability, at least inprinciple, in the environmental arena by virtually allactors(4) has led to the desire to use such a universallyacceptable goal as a slogan also in campaigns that havenothing to do with the environment but where the lureof universal acceptance is a powerful attraction. Yet,in these other areas – and I focus on housing and ur-ban development as examples – “sustainability” is atrap. It suggests all humanity has a similar interest in

3. For a brief history of its current usage, seeVoula Mega, one of the leading researchersin the area, in “Fragments of an urban dis-course” in Utopias and Realities of UrbanSustainable Development, Conference Pro-ceedings, Turin, Barolo, September 1996,pages 66-67. David Satterthwaite, of the In-ternational Institute for Environment and De-velopment, has pointed out to me BarbaraWard’s use of the phrase, in very much theBrundtland Commission’s sense (see below),in the early 1970s and its somewhat unthink-ing adoption as a catchword by many inter-national development agencies to mean, sim-ply, funded projects that could survive with-out falling apart in the medium to long term.Letter dated July 6, 1998.

4. David Satterthwaite comments on this phe-nomenon, and points to its potential as anescape from recognizing direct responsibili-ties, in an excellent article I saw subsequentto writing this paper: Satterthwaite, D. (1997),“Sustainable cities or cities that contribute tosustainable development?” in Urban StudiesVol.34, No.10, pages 1667-1691.


SUSTAINABILITY

“sustainable housing” or “sustainable urban develop-ment”; that if we all simply recognized our commoninterests everything would be fine, we could end pov-erty, exploitation, segregation, inadequate housing,congestion, ugliness, abandonment and homelessness.Yet, in these areas, the idea of universal acceptance ofmeaningful goals is a chimera. Housing and urbandevelopment are conflict-laden arenas: what benefitsone hurts another. A landlord’s profits are at a ten-ant’s expense; high-rise construction casts shadowson neighbouring land uses; accessibility for one is pol-lution for another; security for some is taken to meanexclusion of others; profit for business owners maymean layoffs for that business’s workers. Even ideo-logically, the parallel with environmental issues is de-ceptive. It is hard to argue that a little short-term pol-lution contributes to a better long-term environmentbut the argument is heard constantly that a few lay-offs now will lead to increased competitiveness andfewer layoffs later.

I suggest, then, that “sustainability” as a goal forhousing or urban development just doesn’t work.(5) Inthe first place, sustainability is not a goal; it is a con-straint on the achievement of other goals.(6) Look atthe early,(7) and still a standard, definition, that of theWorld Commission on Environment and Development(the Brundtland Commission) in 1987:

“Sustainable development is development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their ownneeds.”(8)

Clearly, here, the goal is “meeting the needs” andthe remainder, “making it sustainable”, is obviously aconstraint on the appropriate means to be used.(9) Otherformulations, defining sustainable developmentthrough a “rule of constant capital” in which the goalis to pass on to the future the same stock of “capital”as we have today, seem to drop the broad goal entirelyand simply require that the human and natural capi-tal (a perversion of the term?) of one generation bepassed on unimpaired to the next. Others focus onthe “carrying-capacity of supporting ecosystems”,(10) amuch more questionable concept from the outset.(11)

No one who is interested in justice wants to sustainthings as they are now. Sustainability plays very dif-ferently in the environmental sphere, where the wholepoint is simply that conditions as they are cannot besustained and the only question is how rapidly toameliorate them. If the environmental status quo weresustainable, environmentalists would be without acause.(12) That perception is hardly prevalent in urbanaffairs or housing – we would hardly be satisfied if

5. I have in mind formulations such as: thegoal is the “...development of a housing sys-tem that is sustainable for people and theplanet.” Bhatti, M., Brooke, J. and M. Gison(editors) (1994), “Housing and the environ-ment: a new agenda”, Chartered Institute ofHousing, Coventry, quoted in review in Hous-ing Studies Vol.12, No.4, page 579.

6. After this was written, I came across a dis-cussion which raised some similar issues asraised here: “…the primary environmentalconcerns of the more disadvantaged urbandwellers are not issues of sustainability, nar-rowly defined. Should a broader definition ofsustainability be adopted or should the pre-eminence of sustainability concerns be re-jected? … Should the definition be reworkedor …sustainability… be only one objective orconstraint, among many?” McGranahan, G.,Songsore, J. and M. Kjellen (1996),“Sustainability, poverty and urban environ-mental transitions” in Pugh, Cedric (editor),Sustainability, the Environment and Urbani-zation, Earthscan, London, page 103. With-out resolving the question as a theoretical one,the paper goes on to point out the differenti-ated views on the issue by class.

7. The earliest formal usage I have found is inUNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Pro-gramme in the early 1970s, followed by ex-plicit focus on the term in the World Conser-vation Strategy of the International Union forthe Conservation of Nature although it wasstrictly limited to environmental aspects. SeeLawrence, Roderick J. (1996), “Urban envi-ronment, health and the economy: cues forconceptual clarification and more effectivepolicy implementation” in Price, C. and A.Tsouros (editors), Our Cities, Our Future:Polices and Action Plans for Health and Sus-tainable Development, WHO Healthy CitiesProject Office, Copenhagen.

8. WCED (1987), Our Common Future, theBrundtland Report, Oxford University Press,page 43. This and the following discussiondraws on European Foundation for the Im-provement of Living and Working Conditions(1998), Redefining Concepts, Challenges andPractices of Urban Sustainability, The Foun-dation, Dublin. For an alternative formulation,see the suggestion at the conclusion of thispaper.

9. The same is true of William Rees’ defini-tion: “…positive socio-economic change thatdoes not undermine the ecological and so-cial systems upon which communities and so-cieties are dependent” in Rees, William(1988), “A role for environmental impact as-


SUSTAINABILITY

only present conditions could be sustained. In termsof our focus here, “sustainability” taken as a goal initself only benefits those who already have everythingthat they want. Indeed, even focusing on environmen-tal concerns, the problem for most of the world’s pooris not that their conditions cannot be sustained butthat they should not be sustained.

Sustainability as a goal in itself, if we are to take theterm’s ordinary meaning, is the preservation of the sta-tus quo. It would, taken literally,(13) involve making onlythose changes that are required to maintain that sta-tus. Presumably, that is what the World EconomicForum, held in Davos, Switzerland in 1995, had inmind when it chose as its theme “sustaining globaliza-tion”.(14) One might argue that the status quo is notsustainable socially because an unjust society will notendure. That is more a hope than a demonstrated fact.Indeed, the argument that the trouble with presenturban conditions is that they are not sustainable opensthe door to a fearsome debate of six decades ago inwhich the durability of some form of fascism was de-bated and indeed widely conceded on all sides. Unjustregimes have not always historically been the mostshort-lived ones. Teleological views of history are outof fashion and the “end of history” argument is, rather,that the present is so sustainable that basic change isno longer conceivable, even if it were desirable.

Alternatively, one might argue, and with more evi-dence, that the status quo is not sustainable in strictlyenvironmental terms; indeed, that is the origin of the“sustainability” slogan.(15) But changes within thepresent system may be targeted at problems of envi-ronmental degradation, global warming, etc., whileleaving other key undesirable aspects, such as socialinjustice, intact.(16) Presumably, good planning callsfor social justice as well as environmentalsustainability, not just the one or the other.

The more logically defensible use of the concept ofsustainability might be to consider it as a constraint:any measure, desirable on other grounds, to meet sub-stantive goals must also be capable of being main-tained and must contribute to the desired goal in thelong run.(17) Here again, we run into problems if we arenot careful to distinguish a constraint from a goal. Ifthe sustainability of a measure is taken as a goal, theterm can become either tautological or perverse. If adesired measure is socially just, the argument couldgo, then, and only then, is it sustainable.(18) (Any otherargument would allow the conclusion that an unjustmeasure would be sustainable and, if that were so,would we want it or would we not reject the criterion ofsustainability as validating it?) So, if justice is thestandard by which sustainability is measured, whyadd the criterion of sustainability in judging the meas-

sessment in achieving sustainable develop-ment” Environmental Impact AssessmentReview Vol.8, page 279.

10. The World Conservation Union, UNEP andWWF; see contributions to Price, Charles andAgis Tsouros (editors) (1996), Our Cities, OurFuture: Policies and Action Plans for Healthand Sustainable Development, WHO, Copen-hagen, 1996.

11. See Marcuse, Peter (1974), “Conserva-tion for whom?” in Smith, James Noel (editor)(1974), Environmental Quality and Social Jus-tice in Urban America, The ConservationFoundation, Washington DC, pages 17-36; re-printed in California Today Vol.2, No.6, June.

12. This does not apply, of course, to the en-vironmental justice movement whose issueis the discriminatory impact of environmentaldegradation. The distribution of the costs andbenefits of achieving a sustainable environ-ment remain an issue even were the goal ofsustainability to be achieved, but it then be-comes an issue of justice, not of sustainability.

13. On the other hand, its meaning can bemade elastic and it can be redefined to en-compass many other goals; but then the use-fulness of the term evaporates. “A sustain-able city is one which succeeds in balancingeconomic, environmental and socio-culturalprogress through processes of active citizenparticipation” quoted in Mega, Voula and JornPedersen (1997), Urban Sustainability Indi-cators, European Foundation for the Improve-ment of Living and Working Conditions, Dub-lin, page 2. A good formulation of a goal forcity development but use of the word “sus-tainable” does not contribute much to itsmeaning. Or take the even more far-reachinguse in AHURI’s 1997 catalogue of publica-tions: “Sustainable issues… are taken as ageneral umbrella term incorporating researchinto processes of urbanization, globalizationand economic restructuring, their urban andregional impacts, urban metabolism as aframework for analyzing quality of life andevaluating the performance of cities and theirregions, strategic frameworks for regionaleconomic development, social polarization incities and regions, and issues of urban andregional governance” page 25. Or: “The ob-jective of [sustainable] development would behuman welfare in balance with nature, basedon the values of democracy, equality beforethe law and social justice, for present and fu-ture generations, in the absence of ethnic,economic, social, political or gender discrimi-nation or that based on creed” quoted in Car-rion, Diego (1997) “Re-thinking housing pro-


SUSTAINABILITY

ure at all? Why not simply ask if it is just?Sustainability becomes tautological here. Presumablyone does not want the perverse result that whatevercan be kept up in the long run is good; the more effec-tive the dictatorship, then, for instance, the better itwould be.

If, however, sustainability is a constraint rather thana goal, then it can be used as a criterion to evaluatemeasures that achieve otherwise defined desirablegoals; a desirable measure that is not sustainable isnot as good as an equally desirable measure that is.(19)

This goes beyond the Brundtland Commission defini-tion which simply requires no harm in the long run. Itmeans that “sustainability” is used to ask, in effect,what will be the long-term consequences of a givenaction or proposal? “Sustainability” is not an independ-ent goal, the contribution to which is to be weighedalong with justice, etc. in evaluating a policy: a badpolicy that is sustainable is not better than a bad policythat is unsustainable.(20) Sustainability is a limitationto be viewed in the context of an evaluation of the de-sirability, on substantive criteria, of other measures.(21)

Balancing is required: a very good programme that isnot sustainable may be more desirable than a minorone that is. It may be more desirable to build 1,000houses for low-income people this year, even if the pacecannot be sustained, rather than ten a year for theindefinite future.(22)

Perhaps “sustainable” should only mean sustainablephysically, environmentally, in the long run? That is apossible interpretation,(23) a modest one indeed, butperhaps a sustainable one? It would mean that ourcall for a sustainable living environment simply meansfocusing on the constraint of environmentalsustainability? But even that limited use of “sustain-able” as “environmentally sustainable” raises ques-tions. For certainly, many desirable measures havean immediate adverse effect on the environment: build-ing housing for low-income families on open land in apossible conservation area might be a classic exam-ple.(24) Or, the reverse situation, a short-term or lim-ited measure protecting the environment may contrib-ute to larger longer-term damage: saving electricity ina sprawling suburban development, for instance.(25) In-deed:

“There seems to be no place for cities in ecologicaldesign. If we look at each landscape separately, weare unable to ecologically justify plans for denseurban development. From a regional perspective,however, aggregation of urban and residential landuses may in fact be preferable.”(26)

Two quite separate problems arise here, one social

duction: time for responsible co-responsibil-ity” in Habitat International Coalition (1997),Building the City with the People, The Coali-tion, San Rafael, Mexico, page 27. But a muchbetter formulation is found on page 32 whichspeaks of humanizing the city. To quote PeterHall: “The late Aaron Wildavsky once wrote apaper with the title ‘If planning is everything,maybe it’s nothing.’ His argument could applyto sustainability as well; it could come to meananything you think is OK and ought to bedone...” in “Utopias and realities of urban sus-tainable development”, conference proceed-ings, Turin, Barolo, September 1996. For oneof the efforts to broaden the meaning of theterm, yet give it a strongly critical meaning,see Hamm, Bernd (1992), ”Introduction” inSustainable Development and the Future ofCities, Trier, Centre for European Studies,page 9 onward.

14. Or, to go one step further, listen to thepresident and chief executive of the empow-erment zone, Deborah C. Wright, who saidthat some of the concerns about the evolvingeconomy of 125th Street are perhaps justifiedin the eyes of the community. But “...the factis,” she said, “...capitalism has no plan, ex-cept to go where money can be made. …It’sscary, frankly, because, as you know, one ofthe basic tenets of capitalism is that you can’tcontrol it. ...Nor do I think we want to. We wantto prepare people to compete in a marketbased economy because that is the only thingthus far that has been shown to be sustain-able.” Or, “If a neighbourhood is to retain sta-bility, it is necessary that properties shall con-tinue to be occupied by the same social andracial classes. A change in social or racialoccupancy generally contributes to instabil-ity and a decline in values” quoted in UnitedStates, Federal Housing Administration(1938), Underwriting Manual: Underwritingand Valuation Procedure Under Title II of theNational Housing Act, US Government Print-ing Office, Section 937, Washington DC,quoted in McKenzie, Evan (1994), Privatopia:Homeowners Associations and the Rise ofResidential Private Government, Yale Univer-sity Press, New Haven, page 57.

15. Actually, the term has mixed provenance.On the one hand, it is related to the “land ethic”of Aldo Leopold which is frequently cited intreatises on sustainability. See, for example,Journal of the American Planning Associa-tion, Autumn 1997, page 513. On the otherhand, it has been expanded frequently into ablanket slogan serving many purposes, as weargue at the end of this paper.


SUSTAINABILITY

and political, the other scientific.Socially, the costs of moving towards environmental

sustainability (like the costs of environmental degra-dation)(27) will not be borne equally by everyone. In con-ventional economic terms, different people have dif-ferent discount rates for the same cost or benefit. Meet-ing higher environmental standards increases costs.Some will profit from supplying the wherewithal to meetthose standards; others, not being able to pay for them,will have to do without. The effects of income inequal-ity are likely to be aggravated by such raising of stand-ards. We encounter the problem internationally in con-nection with issues such as atomic power plants indeveloping countries without other available sourcesof energy or in the rainforest disputes in South America.They are paralleled by issues raised in the environ-mental justice movement in the United States. Betterenvironments for some will be at the expense of worseenvironments for others, as waste disposal sites, airpollution and water contamination are moved around.Even when there is a solution that improves condi-tions for some without hurting others, the benefits willbe unevenly distributed; costs and benefits to differ-ent groups and individuals cannot be simply nettedout in quantitative terms.(28) The balancing act is oftendifficult indeed. What is clear is that the simple crite-rion of sustainability does not get us far.(29)

Indeed, the very definition of “better environment”varies, in practice, by class and poverty level. AsMcGranahan, Songsore and Kjellen point out,(30) theissues tend to vary by scale and class. In the UnitedStates (and perhaps not only in the United States -certainly historically in South Africa, also I suspectincreasingly in England and, to varying degrees, else-where) race plays a central role: the differential loca-tion of toxic waste sites by racial composition of sur-roundings is a classic example. For the poor, the is-sues tend to be immediate and very local: water sup-ply and waste disposal are immediate environmentalproblems. The affluent can escape these problems bychoice of neighbourhood or private market provision;their problems tend to be on a larger scale: automo-bile pollution at a city level, perhaps, global warmingat a national or worldwide level. The agenda even foran environmentally limited definition of sustainabilitywill be very different for different groups.

Scientifically, our knowledge is limited and the fur-ther into the future we wish to project it, the more theuncertainties grow. Malthus, who might uncharitablybe called the grandfather (and the Club of Rome itsfather?) of the environmental sustainability movement,calculated with the best of the scientific knowledge ofhis day that food production would not sustain a worldpopulation much beyond its size at the time he wrote.

16. The World Business Council certainlysees “eco-efficiency” as a profitable, marketconsistent and indeed market driven, aspectof international business. See De Simone,Livio D. and Frank Popoff with the World Busi-ness Council for Sustainable Development(1998), Eco-efficiency: the Business Link toSustainable Development, MIT Press, effec-tively reviewed by Gina Neff, “Greenwash,”The Nation, November 1997, page 50. DeSimone is CEO of 3M and Popoff Chairmanof the Board of Dow Chemical. JoshuaKarliner, in The Corporate Planet: Ecology andPolitics in the Age of Globalization, Sierra Club(1998), points out, as cited by Neff, that Chev-ron spent US$ 5,000 on a butterfly protectionprogramme at its El Segundo refinery butspent more than US$ 200,000 producing anad boasting about it - and el Segundo is oneof the largest single sources of pollution inthe greater Los Angeles area.

17. What “long run” means is, of course, al-ways a matter for debate. In 1992, the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and De-velopment (UNCED) concluded that timeframes should be extended from a few yearsto a few generations. Cited in Lawrence, page46 (see reference 7). But any specific defini-tion is necessarily arbitrary.

18. “…ecological stewardship, social equity,and economic prosperity are the essentialingredients for sustainable human progress”summarizes a review of four leading workson sustainable communities. The statementis more of a postulate than a conclusion.Lukerman, Barbara L. and Rolf Nordstrom(1997) “Sustainable communities” in Journalof the American Planning Association Vol.63,Autumn, page 513.

19. An interesting logical question: is a meas-ure that is not sustainable ipso facto undesir-able? One argument against the worship ofthe capitalist system as “the end of history”is that capitalism is not sustainable in itspresent form and that there necessarily willbe other forms of economic organization re-placing it because it cannot continue as it istoday. Is that a logical criticism of contempo-rary capitalism? I think not. It only becomessuch if the further argument is made that thenegatives of its end will outweigh the posi-tives of its growth. It is, then, not the fact ofunsustainability that matters but the conse-quences that flow from it, a quite differentmatter. A single person’s life is not “sustain-able” indefinitely but that is no reason not tovalue it.


SUSTAINABILITY

Since then, it has increased more than five-fold, andis better nourished and lives longer. We know we needto deal with the problem of global warming and weknow that relying on technological fixes is dangerous.Those two propositions should lead us to scale downcertain activities linked to growth and to seek substi-tutes for others; they mandate adoption of a limitedset of specific policies to achieve specific goals by spe-cific actors in a specific timetable. But, apart from thosespecific policies, a great deal is uncertain. Valid long-range concerns do not help very much in reaching aconclusion on even medium-range questions.

In any event, environmental long-term considerationsare not the only ones that need to be taken into ac-count when making decisions.(31) Other goals weigh inand other constraints need to be brought into the bal-ance. Matters of social justice, of economic develop-ment, of international relations, of democracy, of demo-cratic control over technological change and globali-zation also have both short and long-term implications.For a given policy to be desirable, it must meet theconstraints of sustainability in each of these dimen-sions; failure in any one is, in theory, sufficient causefor rejection. Environmental sustainability seems atfirst blush to be the most “objective,” the most ines-capable, of all these constraints: if humankind diesoff, the game is over. But may that not ultimately besaid also if freedom or democracy or tolerance disap-peared? Since none of these events would be one-shotcatastrophes, is the danger of environmental degra-dation greater today than that of war, fascism, pov-erty, hunger, disease or impoverishment for large num-bers of people?

The problem of balancing differing goals and con-straints is a well-recognized one. There is, for instance,an important debate on the relationship betweengrowth and development,(32) a difficult issue and oneviewed very differently in the developed as against thedeveloping world. The discussion of sustainability hasmade a significant contribution to advancing the un-derstanding of policy alternatives and their implica-tions but it is not quite clear why using the concept“sustainable” in only half of the balancing equationclarifies the debate.

If we want to talk about sustainability as a constraintaffecting all goals, we not only have to face the balanc-ing problem but we have also to recognize the practi-cal fact that sustainability in most usages is heavilyfocused on ecological concerns. That is not surpris-ing, considering that “sustainability” had its origins inthe environmental movement. But why, given limitedresources and limited power to bring about change,are efforts in the real world thus focused; what are thepolitics of the environmental sustainability movement?

20. The point is the same as with the frequentdebates about whether a given proposal is“practical” or not: if practicality becomes a goalrather than a constraint, the result is sheeropportunism.

21. In the interesting evaluation of projectsundertaken by the European Foundation forthe Improvement of Living and Working Con-ditions (Towards an Economic Evaluation ofUrban Innovative Projects, Dublin, November,1996) the usefulness of such an approach canbe seen. Issues such as “level of crime” arelisted as a measure of social sustainabilitybut no distinction is made between long andshort-term impacts so that unsustainablemeasures might well be given a higher ratingthan sustainable ones, e.g. police crackdownsor long prison sentences vs job generation orrehabilitation.

22. That precise calculation is made when itis decided to finance housing constructionthrough borrowing rather than all at once, upfront; more gets built now, even if the certaintyof as many being built next year is reducedby the on-going burden of repayment for pastconstruction. The opposite calculation wasmade by the Austrian Social Democrats in the1920s, in deciding to pay for new social hous-ing projects all at once, hoping thereby tomake it easier to fund new construction in fol-lowing years. See Marcuse, Peter (1986), “Auseful instalment of socialist work: housingin red Vienna in the 1920s” in Bratt, Rachel,Hartman, Chester and Ann Meyerson (edi-tors) (1986), Critical Perspectives on Hous-ing, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

23. Not only possible, but frequent. The Sus-tainable Cities Programme of UNCHS/UNEP,for instance, states flatly: “The SCP activitiesare primarily focused upon promoting moreefficient and equitable use of natural re-sources, and control of environmental haz-ards in cities…” in Sustainable City News(1998), Vol.1, No.4, June, page 1.

24. I am aware that a conflict between the twoprinciples of low-cost housing and environ-mental protection can generally be avoidedand is often used as a cloak to oppose hous-ing for poor people (see Mary Brooks’ work,for instance); nevertheless, the possibility ofa conflict is real.

25. “The Llujiazui International ConsultativeProcess also perpetuated the contradictoryapproach to ‘sustainable development’ plan-ning where a designer’s concerns rest withreducing energy consumption within a smallspatial area while ultimately supporting


SUSTAINABILITY

I would suggest that it is not for reasons of logic, notbecause the difficult issues of balance have been facedand brought to that conclusion but because of muchmore pragmatic concerns: that the environmentalmovement is a multi-class, if not indeed upper andmiddle-class, movement in its leadership, financingand political weight. While the environmental justicemovement is making a substantial contribution bothto social justice and to environmental protection, theenvironmental movement as a whole often proclaimsitself to be above party, above controversy, seeking so-lutions from which everyone will benefit, to which noone can object. Thus, we get the report of a two-dayworkshop of the Sustainable Cities Programme stat-ing:

“One of the most important conclusions of the meet-ing was that implementation of concrete actions isoften hampered by a variety of obstacles, and themeeting therefore recommended and agreed that theforthcoming annual meeting of the SCP be centeredaround this key theme.”(33)

How nice it would be if the next meeting figured outhow to get over this variety of obstacles so that wecould go on to other things! Perhaps it will build onthe “tool development activities” of the SCP and utilizeits process.

The SCP process consists of a logically sequencedand interactive set of key activities whose systematicimplementation and infusion into the existing institu-tions would bring about profound changes in man-agement approaches, and improvements in informa-tion, decision-making and implementation. The proc-ess forms the basis of the Source Book series.(34)

Maybe the next workshop will find a programme wecan all rally round and we could escape the unpleas-ant business of facing conflicting interests, having todeal with the unequal distribution of power, the ne-cessities of redistribution, the defeats that accompanythe victories. No wonder “sustainability” is an attrac-tive slogan, with such a hope! But if the goal is redis-tribution of wealth or opportunity, or sharing poweror reducing oppression, sustainability does not get usfar.

To the extent that sustainability requires the reviewof policies designed today to meet the needs of todayin such a way that they do not make things worse inthe future, it is an important, if for planners not verynew, concept. It might then be reformulated, to buildon the words of the Brundtland Commission:

“Sustainable development is development that meetsspecific needs of the present, and can be maintained

broader processes, such as the plunderingof China’s natural resources by financial in-stitutions which use these urban spaces asbases for their ‘command and control’ activi-ties.” Quoted in Olds, Kris (1997), “Globaliz-ing Shanghai: the ‘global intelligence corps’and the Building of Pudong” in Cities Vol.14,No.2, pages 109-123.

26. From a review by Kristin Kaul of van derRyn, Sim and Stuart Cowan (1995), Ecologi-cal Design, Island Press, Washington DC.

27. The literature, by now, is extensive. Seethe citations in a recent excellent review,Collin, Robin Morris and Robert Collin (1994),“Where did all the blue skies go?Sustainability and equity: the new paradigm”in Journal of Environmental Law and Litiga-tion Vol.9, pages 399-460.

28. Many have made the same point. For arecent comment in our specific context, seeAlbrechts, Louis (1997), “Genesis of a West-ern European spatial policy?” in Journal ofPlanning Education and Research Vol.17.

29. David Harvey has put forward this argu-ment very eloquently in Harvey, David (1996),Justice, Nature and the Geography of Differ-ence, Blackwell, London; also, more recentlyand concisely, in Harvey, David (1998), “Marx-ism, metaphors and ecological politics” inMonthly Review, April, pages 17-31 in whichhe points out that a wing of capitalism is quitecontent to judge sustainability in terms of thecontinuity of capital accumulation, and callsfor a “...more nuanced view of the interplaybetween environmental transformations andsociality” (page 30).

30. McGranahan, G., Songsore, J. and M.Kjellen (1996), “Sustainability, poverty andurban environmental transitions” in Pugh,Cedric (1996), Sustainability, the Environmentand Urbanization, Earthscan, London, pages103-133.

31. As many definitions do not. See, for in-stance, the formulation of the Commission ofEuropean Communities: “...sustainable... isintended to reflect a policy and strategy forcontinued economic and social developmentwithout detriment to the environment.” Citedin Lawrence, page 64 (see reference 7).

32. See, for instance, the pieces collected inHamm, Bernd et al., (editors) (1992), Sustain-able Development and the Future of Cities,Trier Centre for European Studies, Universityof Trier.


SUSTAINABILITY

into the future, without detracting from the satis-faction of other needs in the present or future.”

It then amounts to little more than a call for long-term planning, something that has always been plan-ners’ bread and butter but puts perhaps a little moreemphasis on long-term implications.

But the pursuit of sustainability is a snare and adelusion to the extent that calling for “sustainable”activities in any sphere, be it housing, planning, infra-structure, economic development, etc., suggests thatthere are policies that are of universal benefit, thateveryone, every group, every interest will or should ormust accept in their own best interests. If the appealfor sustainability implies that only our ignorance orstupidity prevents us from seeing what we all need,and prevents us from doing it,(35) it can undercut realreform. Indeed, a just, humane and environmentallysensitive world will, in the long run, be better for all ofus. But getting to the long run entails conflict and con-troversy, issues of power and the redistribution ofwealth. The frequent calls for “us” to recognize “our”responsibility for the environment avoids the real ques-tions of responsibility, the real causes of pollution anddegradation.(36) The slogan of “sustainability” hidesrather than reveals that unpleasant fact.

We should rescue sustainability as an honourable,indeed critically important, goal for environmentalpolicy by confining its use only to where it is appropri-ate, recognizing its limitations and avoiding the temp-tation to take it over as an easy way out of facing theconflicts that beset us in other areas of policy. If we dofeel called upon to use it in the area of social policy, itshould be to emphasize the criterion of long-term po-litical and social viability in the assessment of other-wise desirable programmes and not as a goal replac-ing social justice, which must remain the focal pointfor our efforts.

33. Sustainable City News Vol.1, No.4, June1998, page 2.

34. See reference 33, page 3.

35. See the innumerable calls for “us to re-think our priorities”: “A new ethic must be putinto practice. But this will remain impossibleunless we stop thinking of our participation inthe common good as a tax”, Head of the Ur-ban Affairs Division, OECD. Or: “The devel-oped countries have to recognize that theirurban lifestyles… are an important part of theglobal environment problem”, Klaus Töpfer,UN Commission on Sustainable Develop-ment, quoted in page (iii) of Price and Tsouris(1996), see reference 10. The creation of aPresident’s Council on “Sustainable Develop-ment” flows from the political belief that theformulation is a non-controversial, universallyaccepted one.

36. A point also eloquently made by SandraRodriguez in “Sustainable and environmen-tally just societies”, Planners’ NetworkNo.129, May 1998, pages 4-7. To quote fromthis: “An underlying premise in discussionsof sustainability is that ‘we’ are in this together.This generic ‘we’ assumes that all people areequally to blame for society’s environmentalproblems and that ‘we’ all have a responsibil-ity to change our lifestyles to ‘save the planet.’As Catherine Lerza asks, ‘Are the poor, themarginalized equally to blame for the wasteand pollution that exists, when they are thepeople least benefiting from economic growthand they are bearing most of the environmen-tal burden?” (page 5).

THE POINT OF ANY CITY IS

INNOVATIONTHE FORCING OF

NEW IDEASUrban Age is a quarterly international magazine thatbrings you the best world-class thinking on urbanaffairs. Subscribe now to begin receiving news andresources about cities and the people who makethem work.

Look for these themes in coming issues:The World’s Water Crisis nEconomic Lifelines of Cities n Corruptionin Cities nUrban Creativity and Innovations n Disaster Preparedness

Send this coupon to: Urban Age Subscription Department, Room F4K-258, 1818 H Street NW,Washington, DC 20433; E-mail: [email protected]

Please Print:

Name______________________________________________Title_____________

Organization_________________________________________________________

Address_____________________________________________________________

City________________State/Province______________Postal Code____________

Phone_________________________Fax__________________________________

E-mail_____________________________________________________________

r Enclosed is my check, payable to IBRD (Urban Age), for US$20 for one year’s subscription.(Only checks drawn on U.S. banks or international money orders).

r No charge to residents of developing countries.

sustainability is not enough

Documents