Viewing posts categorised under: Urban Thoughts
As rates of urbanisation continue to increase, society needs to better utilise its scarce urban resources. This can be achieved through the use of big data. “Big data” is a universal reality and a reflection of our society. As individuals we cannot avoid contributing to it nor can we avoid its wide spread (and largely unbeknownst) use. Big data has shaped our daily lives in ways that could not have been imagined a few decades ago ranging from traffic management to online purchases, taxes, insurance, finances, food and housing choices. This will only grow in significance and scope, big data is here to stay.
A defining feature of the 21st century is the mass rural to urban migration movements that have taken place first in the Global North during the industrial revolution of the late 1700’s and more recently in the Global South as those countries industrialise at a rapid pace (Seto, Fragkias & Gu, 2011). Such migration mostly takes place in-country (Haug, 2008) and is primarily motivated through climate or economic incentives (Barrios et al.. 2006) but often incorporates a desire to access public services upgrade lifestyles or access education. By the middle of this century we will be a predominantly urban civilisation (UN, 2015). Up to a third of the world’s population is involved in this vast human migration (Saunders, 2010) which impacts nearly everyone in some tangible way. There are approximately 498 cities globally that have over a million inhabitant, over 70% of which are located within the Global South (UN, 2016; 4). Approximately half of all urban growth in the Global South is a direct result of rural to urban migration (Smart & Smart, 2003) leading to fears that the pace of population growth outpaces the capacity of the city to sustainably absorb those migrants into the urban economy (UN, 2015; Røpke, 2006). Such a shock to the city will inveitably lead to considerable transformation of the urban space (Smart & Smart, 2003).
Much ridiculed in the international press and surrounded by extreme mystique, Pyongyang and other cities in the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) seem to be for most, cities of aberration, of poverty, of repression and of delusional grandeur.Yet, for urban planners globally, Pyongyang is a wet dream come true. Many planners would wish to have a tenth of the decision making capacity that North Korean planners have. Pyongyang (and by extension other cities in DPRK) is unique today in that it is a city that has been completely planned with no community led organic growth, every aspect of the city has been planned for the optimal functionment of a deeply Confucian society.
While there is little agreement as to the particular benchmarks and standards that make up urban sustainability (Khan, 2006), the traditional pillars of sustainability are considered to be “Social Development”, “Economic Growth” and “Environmental Protection” as initially set out by the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) and later defined by the 2005 World Summit on Social Development (Kates et al. 2005). Those pillars are often supplemented by a fourth, considered to be “Cultural Vitality” (Hawkes 2001), a part of the “circles of sustainability” of UN Agenda 21 (Spangenberg, 2002). Cultural Vitality is a focus away from the social elements of sustainability and towards the intangible human and cultural dimension, their heritage and the differences that exist between various urban areas to be preserved and enhanced (Duxbury and Jeannotte 2012). This involves an adaptation of sustainability according to cultural norms and strategies employed (Nadarajah and Yamamoto 2007). Academics (Banister, 2008; Maoh and Kanaroglou, 2009; Geels, 2012; Tran et al., 2014) argue to the undervalued importance of technology in sustainability and its impact in improving social equity, economic efficiencies, transparency and governance within urban systems.
While financial viability is central to the principles of long-term urban sustainability, should it become the defining factor of policy making, beyond its social equity remit? Keeping both elements into balance is essential towards improving the long-term viability of those sustainable efforts. To better understand those key terms, they must first be defined and understood. For the purposes of this essay, the point of view of public sector investments only is taken ignoring the financial viability aspects of the private sector involvement within the built environment, even if they increasingly take on traditional responsibilities of the public sphere, since profit is almost always the overriding and ultimate goal.
This essay explores the relationship between the needs for improved social inclusiveness within our urban environment and the impact that this may have on current place-making efforts. The ‘Right to the City’ movement, initially launched by Henry Lefebvre in 1967 and taken up by Harvey in 2003, demanded greater distribution and access to urban resources through revolutionary means. This has mutated into a greater discourse about growing inequalities in cities, the privatisation of common space and access to public spaces. Place-Making, despite its efforts in promoting inclusiveness and improved connectivity to public space can also have detrimental effects by furthering exclusion of certain disenfranchised populations.
In this essay, I will endeavour to explore how frontier markets cities such as Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia are particularly vulnerable to climate change and how, through various measures of adaptation and mitigation at varying scale, the issue can be partially tackled. A number of potential strategies will be presented at a National, Municipal and Community level.
Over the past decade, the importance of urban space has returned to the forefront of the collective mind. Magazines, documentaries, books and public debates increasingly revolve around the use and misuse of our built environment whilst university courses and consultancies focusing on urban development spring up every day. As a result of this attention, studies are frequently carried out on the social and economic impact of our built space. Never has the knowledge of our urban environment been so great, yet never have the inequality of its citizens been so apparent. Stakeholders are given a conflicting message of a “global north” turned towards sustainability, the abandonment of the car as the first urban design prerogative and the pursuit of a ‘human scale’ for the privileged few while the ‘global south’ has less ambitious aims, centring around resilience, a pursuit of affordability and the provision of basic public services for all. In this race to the top, must the ‘global south’ truly forsake its sense of place and identity in the pursuit of emulating a vulnerable, flawed and often frail ‘global north’? Is sustainability achievable or must they settle for resilience instead? Should we achieve our utopian desires, is humankind destined to live in a globally uniform and sceptic urban environment as Hollywood would have us believe?