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 per cent 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.
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.
Within the former linear structure, sales were the success markers.