Connectivity & Data
Governance and Citizen
Energy & Environment
By 2050, the UN predicts that cities will somehow accommodate a massive 2.5 billion more people than the 4 billion that already live there. The big question is, where are they all going to go? How do we make sure these places are fit for the continued influx of people? By walking a mile in their citizens’ shoes, could we simply replace imperfect cities with improved ones?
People must live and work somewhere. Given ructions in the world economy, evidence shows that more people believe their best bet for a better life is in cities. This is especially true in developing countries. And they’re right. According to the UN Habitat, urban areas generate 70% of global GDP.
With people sold on the idea of cities, where are they going to go? Existing cities have developed for good reason, but always piecemeal, forever behind the rising curve of practical need. Demand outstrips supply many times over.
Cities can expand upwards or downwards, but this is a finite solution. More often, cities sprawl sideways, the centres de-densifying in favour of suburbanisation.
Inhabitants often discover that, at the periphery, there is no public transport, forcing them into cars that worsens congestion, pollutes the air and ups the per capita carbon footprint. Life becomes stressful, with residents more prone to ill health. New arrivals intent on bettering their lot face problems. Native inhabitants intent on protecting their advantages face problems. And no one is consulted about the change.
Is better urban governance part of the solution? City leaders do organise, driven by a worthy ambition to provide shelter for all citizens. However, they suffer the same fate as the city’s infrastructure. They are unable to keep up with the real issues.
The American academic Benjamin Barber, author of ‘If Mayors Ruled the World’, is optimistic. He sees city governance as the model for a post-national, interdependent political landscape. In his words, ”The road to global democracy runs through cities”. It’s already happening. Mayors are meeting the challenges pragmatically and, by virtue of their semi-autonomous power base, are able to share these lessons with other mayors below the radar of national governments. By splicing out their city’s good genes, they can be recombined elsewhere to beneficial effect.
South African urbanist Edgar Pieterse, though, is not so sanguine. City leaders are not adequately representative or responsive. He argues for the reinvigoration of civil society to include the everyday concerns of marginalised people, especially of cities in the developing world.
Alessandra Orofino, based in Rio de Janeiro, has the tools to enable that engagement. She’s the compelling force behind Meu Rio, a digital platform for grass roots civic participation. Her tools are being used to air local grievances, rally support and change policy in Rio. Her battle cry is, “It’s our city: let’s fix it!”
These efforts tackle symptoms. They do not reconcile clashes between old infrastructure and new technologies, or between native and newly arrived citizens. Is there a more radical solution? Is there a circuit breaker to halt the downward development spiral?
Paul Romer, an American economist, thinks there is. In his view, attempting to expand existing cities is doomed, especially in developing countries. Instead, he thinks we should build new charter cities. Charter cities – cities that operate to their own set of special rules – have the unique quality of allowing experimentation by recombining good urban genes imported from more economically mature corners of the globe.
Modelled in part on Shenzhen in Southern China, his idea is that these experiments must be brand new, with the rules drawn up beforehand by the host country. That way, investors, companies, workers, and families actively opt-in to migrating there in preference to other cities. The infrastructure and public services are planned for twenty-first century conditions. Opportunity for citizens is equal. And if the experiment works, the rules can be adopted across the country.
Of course, success is in the detail. Setting rules that reform poor governance is a tall order. But by matching the common experience to expert knowledge, and integrating our findings with tech and good governance, perhaps we can walk the extra mile in citizens’ shoes - so that they don’t have to.
Matt is Aurecon’s global urbanisation expertise leader where he is responsible for mobilising the firm’s global expertise to address the vast, diverse and complex challenges associated with the influx of people into cities.
Over the past 25 years he has provided strategic planning advice to governments, donor agencies and private developers in Australia and around the world. He brings a unique understanding of how to leverage the connections between economics, infrastructure, environmental and social condition, and then reflect this in a comprehensive and enduring planning solution.
Matt has experience in the compilation and management of large and complex feasibility, integrated planning and environmental assessment projects in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Russia and in a large number of African countries (including South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Namibia).
He has applied his expertise in many cities around the world and projects involving precinct and city revitalisation, port redevelopment, greenfield airport development as well as airport expansion, transport infrastructure implementation, power and industrial developments through to water supply, electricity distribution and waste facilities.
Matt has also acted as an expert witness in the NSW Land and Environment Court on environmental and planning matters.
If you liked this, you might wish to look at the following:
It’s time for cities to evolve, says Matt Coetzee, Aurecon’s global urbanisation expertise leader
It’s ironic that our most sophisticated form of living, the urban conglomeration, is also the dumbest