#urbanisme

Photo originale par Steph-Photo

.

Plaisir de découvrir ce jour ce recueil qui multiplie les regards poétiques sur la ville sous la plume de nombreux auteurs et auquel j’ai la joie de participer !

Merci à Hélène Lécot, éditrice des Editions du Bunker, pour ce beau projet au cœur de nos vies citadines, d’autant plus précieux que certains poèmes orneront les murs aveugles et silencieux de nos villes.

Une belle TRAM.ES urbaine qui nous mène vers des images multiformes, renouvelées et fortes sur notre quotidien urbain.

Parution le 9 avril 2026 !

by Darin Givens | August 10, 2026

2026 has been a grueling year for heat in many cities, with urban heat islands getting a lot of focus (rightly so). Following the conversations online, I've sensed a pervasive negativity about dense cities that seems to put the blame on them for climate-change woes, when the opposite is actually true.

Yes, urban heat islands are real. But any argument that lays blame on cities for their own extreme heat this year is getting the larger climate equation wrong.

It's irrefutably true that car-dependent, low-density sprawl worsens our emissions in multiple ways: increased vehicle miles traveled, destruction of natural carbon sinks like forests and wetlands, wasted energy from low-density infrastructure, and more.

The carbon footprint of sprawl is huge, and yet...

Judging from the chatter I read online, it's clear to me that many people have a twisted concept of the way urbanism impacts the climate. They seem to view denser urban fabric as a scourge because of its heat island effects, while viewing sprawl as a balm for the climate by way of the greenery around detached homes.

I understand where the confusion comes from. Suburbs can have cooler microclimates (as long as you're away from the wide roads and parking lots) and urban heat is a menace, especially with this year's temperatures. But the situation is much more complex than it may seem at first glance.

We have to look at the higher per-capita carbon footprint caused by sprawl: as the UN panel on climate change has reported, households in low-density, sprawling places emit significantly more greenhouse gas per capita than urban homes due to their higher energy use (in cars, homes, and more).

The climate effects of that higher energy use are exacerbating urban heat islands in denser cities.

How? Those higher levels of emissions elevate global baseline temperatures. Due to the overall hotter temperatures, urban heat islands in cities are becoming worse. It’s a dangerous environmental relationship.

And make no mistake: pedestrian-oriented, denser urbanism is the solution for a more sustainable future for our built environments, not the enemy.

When daily necessities are located within a walkable or bikeable distance -- or within an easy bus ride -- the use of personal cars ceases to be a requirement for all trips. And higher population density can provide the ridership that's necessary to make mass transit more viable and more efficient: the FTA explicitly states that dense, walkable, mixed-use development increases ridership for transit.

Additionally, multi-family buildings with shared walls minimize thermal leaks, dramatically reducing a home's exposed surface area. A household in a multi-unit building consumes much less energy for heating and cooling than a standalone, detached suburban home.

There are many details that have to be tended to in these urban environments to achieve the best results, no doubt. Cities need trees and parks and great pedestrian/bike infrastructure and more -- density needs to be done well. So let's do it well.

This data about the sustainability benefits of pedestrian-scaled urbanism has literally been available to us for decades through qualified sources like the EPA, but I feel like this information is slipping away from us amid the noise of daily news intake and the various crucial issues that are understandably occupying our attention.