Masdar: Pretty but not Practical

Before I read this weeks article "Out of an Arabian Desert, A Sustainable City Rises," I search for images of the city of the future, Masdar. Through these images, I concluded that this city may be a space ship getting ready to take off. I thought that maybe reading the article would be a good idea. As I read, I was surprised to hear that Norman Foster, the principal partner of Foster & Partners, looked to ancient cities of the middle east for designs that created a comfortable temperature without using air conditioning. Then some of the images I saw started to make sense such as the funnel-like structures in the middle of the city and fake "palm trees." That got me to thinking, why didn't Mr. Foster test his ideas in real cities by making simple design adjustments such as building under the shade of trees or on top of a hill? It doesn't even have to look like a high-tech space ship to achieve results. In fact, it's probably better to implement these ideas in a more cost-effective way than to create a utopian paradise for only the elite.

Throughout this course I have been surprised over and over by the simplicity of high-impact innovations. Masdar is not simplistic has not yet created a high-impact. I don't believe that the Masdar project is really a social innovation. Instead, it looks like a gated community that focuses on aesthetics, design, and exclusiveness more than innovation for the common good. I believe that for something to be a social innovation, it has to better the lives of all people. There are some great ideas that Norman Foster took from other cities, but he didn't apply them in a way that can be easily adjusted for a variety of socioeconomic situations or locations, which leaves out the majority of the population. What we really need to focus on, as far as energy efficiency goes, is lowering the upfront cost of energy efficient innovations.

Currently, there are many great devises, appliances, and energy resources that are underused due to their upfront costs. Although, one may save money in the long run, the initial cost can be too much for an average person. For example, a geothermal heat pump is an energy efficient and environmentally safe way to heat and cool your house by using the constant temperatures of the earth. People can save money over the long run, but few choose to invest. If we can find a way to lower the upfront cost, people will choose to use geothermal vs. gas or electric - if not for saving the earth, for saving money.

Masdar sounds like a great place to visit and enjoy. (It was described as Disneyland.) However, I don't believe it should be the example of a carbon-free, environmentally friendly city. I would like to see more people investing in better ways to lower the carbon footprint of current "real" cities, but in a cost-effective way for the short and long-term.