SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mary Lewin optusnet.com.au, Tel: Ladies and gentleman My name is Mary Lewin. I am from Melbourne. Before retiring I worked in the Government of Victoria, in the areas of Planning, Infrastructure, Local government and Environment. From 1988 until 2014 I was involved with Metropolis – World Association of the Major Metropolis. In that context, I directed various Metropolis Commissions and Initiatives on themes related to urban development such as: strategic metropolitan development; performance measurements; environment; water quality and sanitation; urban governance; and the impact of airports on metropolitan development. My presentation today is about the goal of Sustainable Urban Development. I am not going to offer any solutions to urban issues, but I will try to share with you some of my experience over the years.

Challenges of Urban Growth Liveability Plan Melbourne Circles of Sustainability I will focus on four areas: Urban growth impact and challenges The notion of “liveability” Plan Melbourne – the latest vision of the Government of Victoria for the sustainable development of the metropolitan area of Melbourne, and The Circles of Sustainability – a methodology and tool kit for governments and urban planners in planning and managing metropolitan development.

Challenges of Urban Growth Ongoing urban growth Overcrowding and poverty Environmental degradation The issues for modern cities Managing urban growth Challenges of urban growth People continue to migrate to cities every day. By 2030 the global urban population is expected to rise to 7 billion (up from the current 5 billion) – only 13 years away. [Guangzhou is an example of this trend: current population is well over 13 million, up from 7million in 2000 when I first visited the city. population] Overcrowding and environmental degradation conspire to make the urban poor particularly vulnerable as they live in sub-standard housing with little or no access to basic services such as clean water, sanitation, health care, and reliable transport. Uncontrolled growth results in crowded roads, poor air quality and health, and leads to bad planning decisions. It also leads to a bigger ecological footprint of cities through the loss of adjacent agricultural land. It would be true to say that cities per capita are the biggest consumers of the world’s resources and also the worst polluters. Although cities in affluent countries are vastly better off, they too must deal with the challenges that face modern cities: demographic change, climate change, infrastructure needs and global economic pressures. How cities deal with those challenges is critical. Managing urban growth is not easy and government decisions are not always popular. The ongoing migration to cities, the improvement in people’s living standards, and the rise in their expectations cause higher demand for urban infrastructure and services. Responding to this demand requires additional resources, new ways for funding development, and modern suitable technologies.

Responding to urban growth also requires political commitment, assessment of issues, clear implementation processes, and measurements systems. Reliable information and its analysis are critical to effective strategic planning. An fundamental part of good strategic planning is regular review of the implementation process, and monitoring of population growth. Some cities use national Census data (e.g. Moscow and Melbourne) rather than set up their own population databases which are costly and require skilled workforce. Growth management systems tend to focus on infrastructure provision rather than the broader social life that include the Economy, Ecology, and Political domains. The Economic domain Most cities rely on zoning of land and Master Plans that include designated areas for economic development. However, cities that do so fail to serve the development of the regions outside of the city boundaries. In fast changing cities, unplanned economic development is a big challenge. This is especially so when opening up to the pressures of the global market, and allowing a large number of settlements in the periphery of cities where infrastructure and other support services don’t exist. For example, areas in Gwangyong and Gyeonggy nearby to Seoul are being ‘reborn as original and creative places’ through civil investment and international expert groups. These areas have distinctive economic bases with each requiring specific infrastructure and a variety of services. To grow the economy, cities then must redirect resources to areas beyond the city boundaries. For effective management of urban growth cities must have plans for a cohesive approach to economic development together with integrated transport systems. Challenges of Urban Growth (cont’d) Responding to urban growth The economic domain The ecological domain The political domain

Economic (cont’d) Melbourne, for example, formally requires simultaneous transport and land use planning decisions. Coordinating residential development with employment locations and transport networks can create powerful economic nodes within cities. Demarcating particularly economic precincts (e.g. technology) is often used, but in these circumstances urban growth needs to be carefully managed. Examples of specific economic zones: Incheon Free Economic Zone in Korea; China’s Special Economic Zones. Centralising metropolitan planning and decision-making within one agency is desirable as it may achieve fully integrated plans – but centralised planning is very rare. The Ecological domain Reducing the ecological footprint of cities must be a fundamental objective of all integrated plans. To achieve this objective cities should must adopt ‘Greening the Cities’ actions such as: Recycling stormwater for use in parklands; capturing rainwater for use in domestic gardens (many Melbourne houses have been fitted with them); recycling of sewage and the purified water used in agriculture. Recycling garbage and other solid wastes – it makes economic sense as well. Zero Emission Neighbourhoods (ZEN) built with innovative water, wastewater and energy solutions; renewable energy supplies; construction of buildings in line with sustainable building design and materials, and on-site recycled water. Integrated renewable energy resource systems (solar, wind, thermal). Cities that neglect environmental issues do so at their peril. Failing to address environmental concerns results in reduced liveability (e.g. health problems, crime levels) with negative effects on their economy.

Political domain It is useful to remember that the managing of urban growth is subject to political systems and Constitutional requirements that guide urban development. Each level of government, from the municipal to the national levels has different requirements. They are also subject to different political imperatives. NOTE: This is more obvious in multi-party democratic systems where political divisions permeate right across the various levels of government (national, state, municipal), and often decisions are based on political expediency rather than on the merits of a policy, plan or project. Urban governance has become progressively complex, because the growing size of cities requires ongoing negotiations between the various levels of government when prioritising projects and funding them. In the face of this complexity and rapid change, engaging all stakeholders (government, business, NGOs and the communities) and forming partnerships is essential. No one agency or group can manage urban growth alone. Leadership, community engagement and new approaches to decision making have become critical to managing urban growth. Cities that consciously engage their organisation and human capital (skilled workforce, empowered communities, effective planning and development organizations, established companies) are better able to manage urban growth that is consistent with both the economic and ecological goals.

Liveability Definition Concepts of liveability So what exactly makes a city liveable? And how? Is it through planning or by sheer luck and confluence of circumstances? How effective are government strategies? These are some of the questions that I have encountered in the past when asked to define ‘liveability’. There are many definitions of liveability, but I prefer my own simple, but succinct, definition. Liveability is an assessment of what a place is like to live in, using particular criteria and concepts. Concepts of liveability vary as well, but the ones often used are: Places – geographical location (cities, towns, villages etc) Spaces – the areas in which we live and work Environment – the quality of air, water, social services, housing Interconnectivity – transport to go to work, schools, shopping Sustainability – effective and efficient use of resources Scale – size of the urban area and magnitude of resources Change – urban growth, demographic, political, economic Melbourne is high on the Liveability Index, but is it sustainable? [Notes to myself: refer to the photos, and the metropolitan spread.]

Liveability: A Tale of Two Cities VANCOUVER MELBOURNE For the purpose of highlighting examples of liveability, I chose Vancouver and Melbourne. Last year Canada and Australia both had three cities each in the top ten most liveable cities. Canada: Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary Australia: Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth Other cities: Auckland, Vienna, Helsinki, Hamburg Since 2011 Melbourne occupied continuously the position of Most Liveable City. I have been to Auckland, Adelaide, Perth, Vancouver and Toronto, and I can assure you that all of them are as good, if not better than Melbourne. And although we Melburnians like the celebrity of this title, we know that our city has many, many flaws. Both Vancouver and Melbourne rank highly. The difference is miniscule; I would say non-existent. On the face of it, the Ranking Criteria address all the key issues: Amenities, Demographics, Economy, Education, Health Care, Housing, Social and Civic Capital, and Transport and Infrastructure. But one should remember that the Liveability Ranking is a construct of the Economist Intelligence Unit – a British business within the Economist Group that provides regular reports on liveability and cost of living in the world’s major cities. Given the business focus of this Group, this information is used by multi-nationals when considering where to locate their offices. Their primary concern is what their own employees want as preconditions for moving to overseas destinations. They want security (not war zones), good schools for their children, good amenities, health services, public transport, and good weather. They are not interested at all in local issues that affect local communities. Issues such as housing affordability, employment options, the rising health costs, the long hospital waiting lists if you don’t have private insurance, or the old public transport systems that was neglected for many years – these issues are not considered at all.

Cont’d Over the past years the State Government failed to invest in upgrading public transport infrastructure, resulting in road congestions and, at times, poor train services. To the credit of the current State Government, they invested significant funds in the past two years for the removal of level crossings, the construction of new underground rail connection and the upgrading of trains – with many projects completed and others are being implemented. Vancouver works harder to improve the liveability and quality of life of its population. Their transport system is very effective, with reliable and affordable bus services. The city is more compact with higher densities per square kilometre – unlike Melbourne with very low densities. Both Vancouver and Melbourne are very liveable. Both have strong economies. Both are vibrant and rich in cultural life. Both have good governance and both consult with their respective communities. So what makes Melbourne better than Vancouver? Subjectively, the only difference I see between the two is the climate: Melbourne has a temperate weather; Vancouver’s winters are longer and much colder. Importantly, the liveability of any place should be measured from the local perspective – not from the limited perspective of multi-nationals. Liveability is about job security, affordable housing, good access to clean water, sanitation and health services. These are essential ingredients for a civil society – a caring society. I suspect though that Australian and Canadian cities will continue to dominate in the Liveability Index because they have the right mix of ingredients needed for liveability, and…………. because they are affluent. However, having said that, I cannot supress the feeling that a different liveability index would have resulted with a different mix of cities at the top level. Seven of the top ten cities have British heritage. Could it be that the Economist Intelligence Unit’s index is slightly biased?

Plan Melbourne Metropolitan planning strategy Plan Melbourne is the vision that will guide the government in planning and managing the future growth of the city . It is a statement of intent with desired strategies for supporting jobs, housing and transport, while building on Melbourne's legacy of being liveable, connected and sustainable. Although a long-term vision, it is a living (organic) strategy that is regularly updated to reflect the demographic, economic, cultural and environmental changes. My presentation today is a synopsis of the key desired outcomes. It does not refer to particular strategies or their specifications. But before going into the details of Plan Melbourne, it would be useful to explain the Australian governance system and how it affects funding allocations at the local government level. Plan Melbourne

Australian political structure Federal Government State Government Local Government Federation brought with it a three tier government system with clearly defined roles for each one: Federal – The Australian government is responsible for defence and foreign affairs; trade, commerce and currency; immigration; postal, telecommunications and broadcasting services; air travel; most social services and pensions. It also collects taxes (income and Goods and Services) which it then allocates to each State. States – The primary responsibilities for the States are education, public health, justice, police and prisons, transport, roads and public works, environment, planning and infrastructure, water and sanitation, sports and recreation, consumer affairs and emergency services. Local Government – At the local level Councils are concerned with matters close to our homes, such as building regulations and development, public health, maintenance of local roads and footpaths, parks and sport playing fields, garbage disposal, local environmental issues, and many community services (child care centres, meal on wheels). As well as funding from the Federal Government, both the States and Councils have other revenue sources derived from tariffs, levies, property tax, and council rates. significantly, most major urban infrastructure projects depend on special budget allocations from the Federal government.

Plan Melbourne The Metropolitan area of Melbourne comprises of 31 cities (local government Councils). In the absence of a regional metropolitan government, the Victorian Government has overall responsibility for the planning and development of the Melbourne metropolis. Following the consolidation in the early 1980s of various government and semi-government planning authorities into one Victorian Government department, the government articulated a vision for the planning, development and management of the metropolitan area. That was the Shaping Melbourne’s Future which was released in 1987. Subsequent plans were the: 2003: Melbourne 2030 2017: Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne VISION: Melbourne will continue to be a global city of opportunity and choice PRINCIPLES: Liveable, Connected, Sustainable DESIRED OUTCOMES: A productive and innovative city Affordable and accessible housing Transport for a growing city A distinctive and liveable city Inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods A sustainable and resilient city Continuing to invest in regional Victoria Plan Melbourne is a long-term plan to accommodate Melbourne’s future growth in population and employment. [Refer to Vision, Principles, and Desired Outcomes on the slide]

Plan Melbourne Melbourne’s urban growth 1883 to 2015 Metropolitan Melbourne growth from 1883. [Describe the changing face of Melbourne over the years.]

Plan Melbourne Melbourne 2050 projections Projected growth to 2050. Note the that the forecast anticipates the metropolitan area will reach regional centres around Melbourne.

1. A productive and innovative city Plan Melbourne envisages the need for a structure that strengthens Melbourne competitiveness for jobs and investment. The aim is to position Melbourne as Australia's pre-eminent knowledge economy, services sector and freight hub. Its focus is on key employment areas, targeting infrastructure investment and ensuring they are linked to transport networks to maximise the city's productivity. Melbourne will need 1.5 million new jobs over the next 35 years. What those jobs will be and where they will go will determine Melbourne’s future as a globally connected and competitive city. Melbourne’s population is around 4.5 million. Currently, the city has around 2.1 million jobs. As the population moves towards the projected 8 million, the number of jobs is estimated to reach 2.8 million by 2031 and 3.6 million by 2051. The central city will continue to be Melbourne's largest concentration of employment. National employment and innovation clusters will be centred on knowledge-based employment that is crucial for maximising access to high-productivity jobs for the middle and outer suburbs and growth areas. The priority investment sectors are medical technology and pharmaceuticals, new energy technologies, food and fibre, transport, defence, construction, international education and professional services. Plans are being developed for a number of major urban renewal precincts in and around the city [refer Fishermen’s Bend]. Together with key industrial precincts, transport gateways, health and education precincts and metropolitan activity centres, these locations will attract investment and stimulate employment. The spread of jobs across Melbourne

2. Affordable and accessible housing Manage the supply of new housing in the right locations to meet population growth and create a sustainable city Deliver more housing closer to jobs and public transport Increase the supply of social and affordable housing Facilitate decision-making processes for housing in the right locations Provide greater choice and diversity of housing Optimising housing choices and affordability for all Melburnians is key to Plan Melbourne. Affordable and accessible housing is a social necessity. Melbourne will need 1.6 million new homes over the next 35 years. Demographic changes will also mean that there will be a need for more diverse housing for different household types and lifestyles. Issues that need to be addressed include: housing affordability, the types of housing available to cater for different household needs and lifestyles, and the provision of medium- and higher-density housing close to jobs and services. From a sustainability perspective, people need to be able to live closer to jobs, public transport and services. This will encourage more people to walk or cycle, and will result in reduced travel times and greenhouse gas emissions. Another pressing issue is the growing number of homeless people and the long waiting lists for public housing. To grow strong, healthy and sustainable communities, Melbourne must remain affordable and accessible. That will require a decision-making process that facilitates building the types of dwellings people want and need, and in locations where they want to live. Plan Melbourne

3. Transport for a growing city Transport system that supports productivity Improve services to out Melbourne Improve travel options Improve and increase freight efficiency and capacity [Read from slide the key imperatives needed for an effective transport system.] Melbourne’s transport system copes with 12.5 million trips per day. By 2050 it will need the capacity to cope with an additional 10.4 million trips a day — that is a total of 22.9 million. For Melbourne to remain a globally connected and competitive city, it needs an integrated transport system and a huge and a well planned investment in transport infrastructure. That will including improving Melbourne's freight network through the Port Capacity project; boosting the efficiency of this freight network by upgrading road and rail freight infrastructure; creating new intermodal freight terminals; continuing with the removal of level crossings in the suburbs; and extending services to new suburbs. Chiefly, Melbourne needs to consolidate all its transport service modes into a single reliable, connected transport network where services are regular and easy to use, timetables are integrated, and major interchanges work better. That means a transport system that includes convenient trip options so that more people can meet most of their needs locally and be less reliant on private vehicles. For Melbourne to continue to be a globally connected and competitive city with strong and healthy communities and higher social and economic participation, the share of trips by public transport, as well as active transport modes such as walking and cycling, must increase. Existing rail and road transport infrastructure

4. A distinctive and liveable city Create more great public places across Melbourne Support Melbourne’s distinctiveness Build on Melbourne’s cultural leadership and sporting legacy Achieve and promote design excellence Respect Melbourne’s heritage as we build for the future Strengthen community participation in the planning of our city The liveability of cities is an essential component in the competitive global economy. Melbourne has always been a place defined and designed by its people. However, not only it aims to retain the title of Most Liveable City, but that by 2050 it will be a global city famous for its design, built environment, open spaces, creative culture and liveability. To achieve this ambition the city and the state need to: Promote quality design Focus on people needs for more open public spaces Foster its heritage (both European and Aboriginal) cultural identity. Aboriginal cultural heritage will be recognised and protected as a part of the contemporary and social life of Melbourne. Sports is another cultural identity of Melbourne. Melbourne is a sports city. Some would say that sport is Melbourne’s religion. The Plan envisages continuing building on this legacy. Heritage will continue to be one of Melbourne's competitive strengths, contributing to its distinctiveness and liveability, attracting visitors, new residents and investors. Lastly, strengthen community participation in the planning process. The city needs to build on and enhance its reputation as a great place to live and work - and use liveability as a magnet to attract new people, new ideas and new opportunities. Plan Melbourne

5. Inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods A desired outcome of Plan Melbourne is Inclusive, vibrant and healthy neighbourhoods. It aims to make the 20-minute neighbourhood a reality for every Melburnian. The concept of the 20-minute neighbourhood is simple. It is all about giving Melburnians the ability to 'live locally’ – meeting most of their everyday needs within a 20‑minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home. The city needs to make better use of existing public land – including schools, underutilised road space and easements – and create a diverse range of new parks, as well as high-quality public spaces, for new and existing neighbourhoods. The building blocks for social sustainability include: Amenities and social infrastructure (schools, childcare, transport health clinics, nursing homes for the aged, transport, banks, wireless networks, shops, community assets, safe streets) Social and cultural life (neighbourhood networks, community groups, distinctive architecture, festivals and local rules) Parklands and open spaces. The concept in envisaged to apply to both new and existing neighbourhoods. Local communities will also be encouraged and supported to become actively involved in the provision of local parks and greening of their neighbourhoods.

6. A sustainable and resilient city Transition to low-carbon city Reduce the consequences of natural hazard events and adapt to climate change Integrate urban development and water cycle management to support a resilient and liveable city Make Melbourne greener and cooler Protect and restore natural habitats Improve air quality and reduce the impact of noise Reduce waste and improve waste management and resource recovery. The Melbourne of 2050 needs to become a low-carbon city designed to cope with the effects of climate change. To be more sustainable and resilient Melbourne will need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero emissions by 2050 while creating new jobs, driving innovation within new and traditional industries, and reducing household energy bills. In addition, areas at risk from natural hazards will be identified and planned for. Urban areas will be designed to encourage more active modes of transport and be less dependent on private cars. Buildings will be designed to improve energy efficiency, collect and reuse water, and to generate energy from local renewable sources as well as distributed energy technologies. The city will generate less waste, with resource reuse technologies extracting economic value from recycling of waste. An integrated approach to managing the urban water cycle will make the best use of all water sources and transform Melbourne into a water sensitive city – protecting the health of the city's waterways and bays, reducing the risk of flooding and keeping parks, gardens and street trees thriving. Melbourne will be cooler, greener and more liveable. The community's access to open space and nature will be improved and biodiversity and ecological processes will be protected for future generations. Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne – summary The challenges Retaining liveability Economic and employment growth Ensuring sustainability Implementation Tools Strategic planning Methodologies: e.g. Circles of Sustainability Contrary to past demographic forecasts Victoria is undergoing its third population boom. Most of this growth is in metropolitan Melbourne and the abutting regional towns. The result of that growth is the rise in demand for both physical and social services. The challenges for Melbourne are: How to grow whilst remaining liveable and also ensuring that it is sustainable. What strategies it needs to adopt to promote economic growth and how to plan for suitably skilled employees for future businesses. But, importantly, how to ensure sustainable development and growth and what measures will be employed in mitigating environmental issues such as climate change, reduction in carbon emissions, and becoming more energy efficient. Melbourne must reduce its ecological footprint. Its liveability comes at a high price for the rest of the world. If everyone in the world used as many resources and energy as Melbourne (or other Australian cities or the USA ), we would need the resources of four worlds – yes, 4. Melbourne’s ecological footprint is unsustainable. By comparison: China’s resource use is 1.1 worlds; France – 2.5 worlds; and the United Arab Emirate – 5.4 worlds. To achieve the Plan Melbourne vision will require a strategic planning approach where land use, transport needs, employment and activity centres are considered in a holistic manner. Melbourne’s (and any other city’s) success would depend on the strategies they adopt and the implementation tools they employ. Which brings me to the fourth part of my presentation…. the Circles of Sustainability. Plan Melbourne

The Circles of Sustainability is a toolkit for planners in developing strategies for the development and management of cities. It was developed by Prof Paul James and his team when he led the Global Cities Institute at the RMIT University in Melbourne. Originally, it contained three domains: Politics, Economy and the Ecology. As the methodology was being tested in various cities (Melbourne, Berlin, Hyderabad, Port Moresby, Johannesburg, to mention a few) it became clear that, to be relevant a more inclusive, approach was required – one that examines the human dimension: CULTURE. The following is an introduction to the methodology. For comprehensive and detailed information please refer to the Circles of Sustainability website. Courtesy of Prof Paul James, University of Western Sydney,

What should we do? Ecology
Urban settlements should have a deeper and more integrated relationship with nature. Economics Urban settlements should be based on an economy organized around negotiated social needs rather than growth. Politics Urban settlements should have an enhanced emphasis on engaged and negotiated civic involvement. Culture Urban settlements should actively develop ongoing processes for dealing with the uncomfortable intersections of identity and difference. The propositions (or assumptions) underpinning the methodology.

Ecology The ecological domain is defined as the practices, discourses, and material expressions that occur across the intersection between the social and the natural realms, focussing on the important dimension of human engagement with and within nature, ranging from the built- environment to the ‘wilderness’. 1. Materials and Energy 2. Water and Air 3. Flora and Fauna 4. Habitat and Settlements 5. Built-Form and Transport 6. Embodiment and Sustenance 7. Emission and Waste Availability and abundance Soil and fertility Minerals and metals Electricity and gas Petroleum and biofuels Renewables and recyclables Monitoring and reflection Each domain has a definition. Each domain has a number of sub-domains that enable developing the sustainability profiles of cities. For example, the ecological domain is defined as the practices, discourses, and material expressions that occur across the intersection between the social and the natural realms, focussing on the important dimension of human engagement with and within nature, ranging from the built environment to the wilderness. Its sub-domains are: Materials and energy Water and air Flora and fauna Habitat and settlements Built form and transport Embodiment and sustenance Emissions and waste

Ecology: Habitat & Settlements Each sub-domain has Unique and Particular questions. For example, for Ecology: Habitat and Settlements general question is “How well does the urban area relate ecologically to the landscape on which it is built?” It also has a number of particular questions that help assess the various sustainability aspects of the urban reqion.

Ecology: Air and Water

Economics: Accounting and Regulation

Culture: Wellbeing and Health

What makes for a liveable city?
1. What considerations are central to liveability? How do we know when a consideration is more than a fashion statement? 2. What capabilities are basic to making cities liveable? What capabilities should we focus upon? 3. What should be done to make our cities more liveable? What should we do in practice? 4. How can we judge what is good liveability? What is the basis of the judgment, and who judges? Ultimately, the Circles of Sustainability – or the Circles of Social Life as it is also known – help planners to focus on the: Considerations Capabilities What should be done Judging liveability

Continuous improvement through reflexive learning

POSTSCRIPT I would be remiss if I did not refer to some key issues that have affected, and will continue to affect, the development of Melbourne. In spite of having one government department that is responsible for the overall planning and development of the metropolitan area, the reality is that we do not have a fully integrated system. For example: Infrastructure Victoria is a separate government agency responsible for ports and harbours. The Growth Area Authority has been removed from the Department. It operates independently and is answerable to the Minister for Planning. Other issues I have not discussed are Privatisation, and Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). What is the experience? What are the lessons learnt? Are the PPPs and privatisation models outdated? Do we need different models for stakeholders participation? The questions are many and varied. Suffice it to say that the experience to date reveals many flaws in the application of PPPs and privatisation models. Government authorities – who are responsible for the overall development and management of their metropolitan area – must become better at negotiating the delivery of projects. The cost of many services in Victoria (electricity, gas, public transport, telecommunications) have gone up whilst at the same time the quality of the service has declined. It makes no economic sense if the government underwrites the operation of private businesses – as is the case for transport in Melbourne. These issue were not addressed in Plan Melbourne.

THANK YOU 謝謝 Mary Lewin optusnet.com.au, Tel: That concludes my presentation Thank you for the opportunity to address you.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback