Cleaner Greener China: Clean Technology, Green Products, New Ideas, Clean China

Section 8 deals with the Expo itself and is broken down into a few sub chapters that deal with the site preparation, building construction, energy efficiency, and the eventual removal of pavilions. It is THE CHAPTER of importance, and if you ar just downloading the UNEP report, and want to skip to page 109 in the report, the next 25 pages will prove to be an interesting read – with the last 10 having some very interesting project profiles (and pictures).

Where this chapter is important is that it is perhaps the only one of the 8 thus far where one can say without a doubt that the efforts behind the site are FOR expo, and at the same time it is perhaps THE area where the environmental performance is perhaps THE worst. That unlike the previous chapters, where the UNEP highlighted long term investments that were going to have payback in the short term and long term, the chapter highlights the efforts that have gone into building a site full of venues which will be removed once the event is over.

The opening paragraphs set the stage:

The Expo site, after rounds of discussions and comparative studies, was designated to be alongside the Huangpu River, covering a land area of 5.28 km2. After decades of industrial development, the site was crammed with shabby dwellings, factories, docks and warehouses. The 272 factories in the area, mostly outdated and heavily polluting, were a mosaic of power plants, steel refineries, chemical industries, mechanical workshops and shipping manufacturers.

The site construction was therefore also a massive urban renewal project for the area. Residents were compensated and relocated. Factories were either closed down or relocated with upgrades. The area was fundamentally transformed to meet with updated socio-economic functions and environmental requirements. This transformation in itself is a precise expression of the Expo theme “Better City, Better Life”.

I think it should be mentioned that moving the factories out of town was a huge improvement to the city, and the assertion that the movement of people off the site was a cause to be celebrated is something to debated, and there are a number of studies that have focused (and one movie) on the impact the move had on families.

With the stage set, the report tries to put a positive spin on the fact that of all those buildings being build, only the 4 China pavilions will remain while the rest removed (UNEP is “recommending” builders use materials and processes that will reduce waste – ha). It is perhaps one of the most hotly debated issues, and could result in a bit of a black eye as even the Urban Best Practices Area (i.e. green corner) will be summarily leveled as well.

To make matters worse, the buildings themselves are set to be super duper green (See Spanish and Swiss Pavilions) .  Green lighting, insulation, double glazed windows, solar panels, and so on.  In essence, these buildings will represent the MOST SUSTAINABLE in Shanghai, perhaps China, and together will become the only Ecotowns that managed to open.  Just another kick in the side of Al Gore’s drowning polar bears.

The chapter ends with:

UNEP acknowledges the enormous efforts the organizer put into ensuring environmental considerations were taken into serious consideration during the earlier planning and design phases of Expo 2010. The selection of the site and its transformation, as well as the addition of new green design buildings and the preservation and renovation of old ones, was carried out with a clearly
articulated sustainability vision.

The vast amount of green ideas and technologies that will be extensively demonstrated in and by the pavilions in the core area (Expo Axis, Theme Pavilion, Expo Center, Performance Center and China National Pavilion), the Urban Best Practices Area and those of the participating countries will help to set new agendas for green architecture and urban environmental strategies.

Due to the limitation of the Expo rules, many pavilions were built as provisional structures. It is recommended that these temporary pavilions should be either preserved and reused on-site,  or reassembled elsewhere to maximize the demonstration impacts of their eco-designs and to minimize waste generation. The Expo will not qualify as a green project if all the temporary structures become waste after a few months.

Which, contrary to reports, I think represents another report which failed to take a stand against what is so clearly the very opposite of “green and sustainable”.  It was a missed chance for an organization with real clout to drive not only some attention to the issue globally, but was one of the few organizational chances I think to make a change.  Instead, Expo officials now have a green light to essentially white wash over greenwash once the Expo is over, plant a couple of trees, and call it a success.

Tt is now more apparent than ever why the UNEP had to spend 100 pages talking about investments that were only marginally related to the event itself.  That no matter how distant the connection, an offset needed to be found, and one can only hope that the Expo officials will (on their own) realize what an asset the site is with the pavilions.  that there are ways to use the pavilions in a way that Beijing could not with its event spaces.  Loft apartments, corporate campuses, new university, city libraries and community centers…… or (and this is just off the top of my head) perhaps an R&D center for sustainable urban planning.

One can only hope.