Cities, the American-Canadian author Jane Jacobs once said, are engines for national prosperity and economic growth, but in their current form, modern cities are also catalysts of inequality and environmental degradation.
The share of city dwellers in poverty is growing: 33 percent live in slums and 75 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions originate in metropolitan areas.
Statistics like these should give us pause — are cities really the best way to organize human life?
They can be, but only with significant adjustments to how they are planned, built and managed. For city-led growth to empower a sustainable, prosperous future, governments and developers must reintroduce a user-centered approach to urbanization.
Most cities fail to include key stakeholders in the planning process, leading to exclusionary development.
Consider the ubiquitous housing project on the edge of town, a characteristic of many poorly planned cities. Built in the middle of nowhere, these multi-unit eyesores are often cut off from public transportation and other services, compounding residents’ isolation from the urban core.
However, design flaws like these, which have both economic and social implications, are just the beginning. Even more worrying to urban planning professionals is that in many places the entire planning process — the way we think about cities, how they are used and by whom — is flawed.
Even the best-intentioned planning departments do not always put the public first. Part of this reflects uncertainty about who “owns” a city. Residents might call a city “theirs,” but government leaders often act in ways that suggest otherwise.
For example, a government seeking to attract investment might equate economic interests with residents’ needs and thus lower environmental standards or tax burdens for businesses.
However, such decisions might lead to deurbanization, with people leaving cities as they become less livable.
The gap between economic viability and environmental responsibility can be especially wide.
Consider the production of traditional, gasoline-powered cars. Although this type of industry might power some cities’ growth today, the public’s growing concern about carbon dioxide emissions from these vehicles is spurring changes in consumer demand. Businesses that can capitalize on such shifts will be better positioned for long-term growth.
Unfortunately, for-profit entities typically fail to see future generations as tomorrow’s customers. Their short-term vision not only hurts their bottom line — it also affects cities by trading immediate gain for quality of life.
What can be done to ensure that urban planning is conducted with the interests of cities’ actual users — particularly their residents — in mind?
Most cities lack a democratic planning process and in many large metropolitan areas inequality is sewn into the social fabric, so institutionalizing participatory planning must be the starting point. Programs that safeguard local democracy by encouraging transparency and accountability are critical.
Residents who are equipped with the knowledge and means to express their views on issues affecting their communities make better neighbors, and planning discussions that take their views into account produce better design.
Because leaders everywhere, under any type of political system, are judged by the livability of the places they oversee, an inclusive planning process should be every city’s goal.
With participatory planning as a starting point, governments and residents can move toward building cities that are more strategically linked to their surrounding regions and areas beyond.
This type of growth is not only about transportation links, but also about coordinating policies and actions across sectors, including housing, social services and banking. In this way, regional roles and responsibilities become more clearly defined, with finite resources allocated strategically, equitably and according to a common agenda.
Too often, cities manage resources in bureaucratic silos, which can increase competition among precisely those who must work in concert if the urban areas they regulate are to invest wisely and implement policies effectively. Local autonomy can be achieved only through strong regional cooperation and coordination.
Urban sprawl is a good example of why a regional approach to planning is critical. Limiting sprawl requires a coordinated territorial strategy so that cities can address common concerns, like the transportation of goods, clustering of housing and services, and management and placement of industrial corridors.
Inter-municipal cooperation can also achieve economies of scale by discouraging unnecessary competition.
Many urban areas are being designed as “cities for the rich,” rather than population centers for all. This is gradually encouraging social segregation, and threatening the security and safety of residents.
Planning buzzwords like “smart cities” and “sustainable urban development” mean little if the theories behind them benefit only a few.
As Jacobs predicted, the “city” will remain the world’s engine of economic growth and prosperity for many decades to come, but if that engine is to run most efficiently, the mechanism powering it — the urban planning process itself — will need a tune-up.
Christine Auclair is project leader of the World Urban Campaign at the UN Human Settlements Programme. Mahmoud Al Burai is chief executive of the Dubai Real Estate Institute, an arm of the Dubai government.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry