Key points
- Wolch proposed zoopolis: a city planned for the animals that already live in it.
- Donaldson and Kymlicka split urban animals into domesticated, liminal and wild.
- Green bridges, hollow bricks and visible glass are concrete measures, not metaphors.
Animal City. What if we designed cities for animals, and not just for ourselves?
We explore Zoöpolis, the non-human city: an urbanism that breaks the anthropocentric approach and imagines coexistence with pigeons, foxes, rivers and trees. We talk about animal rights, urban biodiversity, multispecies design and why the city was never only ours, with Jennifer Wolch, Donaldson and Kymlicka. We walk through Jennifer Wolch's Zoöpolis, the animal citizenship proposed by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, and Christopher Stone's question about whether trees should have rights. We meet the fox that learned the rubbish collection timetable, the hawk nesting on a ledge as if it were a cliff, and why the river buried under the asphalt is still there.
Frequently asked questions
What is a zoopolis?
The city planned for the animals that already live in it, proposed by the geographer Jennifer Wolch against a planning tradition that serves human needs alone.
Which measures make a city more liveable for wildlife?
Green bridges over motorways, bricks with hollows for swifts and bats, glass with visible markings for birds, buried rivers brought back to the surface, and enough tree canopy.
