An overview of how cities developed and overwhelmed their environments seems pertinent now as we ponder what our future living environments may become. We can do nothing of course and just await whatever happens in a most non-adaptive and fatalistic way. Some believe that we can keep growing into more Megalopolises of concrete, steel and glass that stretch for never ending miles across the human landscape.
Let’s ponder the nuances of cities. The way most cities in the world grow/grew was for people to move from rural environments to the concentrated living environments of concrete, steel and glass. As such, cities lost green spaces (except for designed urban parks that are largely manicured garden areas, even when they seem to be designated ‘wild’) and everything the city population needed had to be imported from rural land outside the city. Hence cities are sinks for resources; they depend on a vast countryside to supply them with necessities. If you live in or near a major city you will be aware of this happening. The largest cities in the world (e.g. Tokyo, Mexico City, New York, Sao Paulo, Mumbai, Delhi, Buenos Aires, Shanghai, Karachi, Cairo, London, Moscow, Los Angeles, etc.) all over 10 million people need upwards of 50 times as much land for their inputs than the actual land area of the city itself. While they occupy about 2% of land, they use over 75% of the available resources producing more than 75% of the total waste of a region. They input energy, water, food, raw and manufactured goods, and output massive amounts of solid waste and heat, pollution, and noise. And, economists convince politicians that this kind of growth is good and to be encouraged. What seems lost in all of this is that cities need ecosystem services that natural lands provide, such as clean water and air, nutrient cycling, and waste treatment. After all, growth sounds good, but sprawl describes it much better and with what I believe is a correct negative connotation of the outcomes of this kind of unrestrained growth.
Sprawl really began in the 1950s, as many people around the world, and especially today in developing countries moved from crowded cities out to suburbs. A natural outcome for a better standard of living meant people wanted more space, better economic opportunities, cheaper real estate, less crime, and better schools, leaving the inner cities to degenerate into slumlands (Defn: areas of crowding, run-down housing, poverty, and social disorganization). Each city has its own unique characteristics of course but the general trend I describe above is there. Increased affluence for those that apparently succeeded in the economic system led to a desire for more space and privacy – a sign of a higher standard of living.
Many of the largest cities have now become Megalopolises where city and what were individual neighboring towns and villages are absorbed by the expanding city suburbs to be new suburbs. When I explain this to a class about the mostly open country front-range area of Colorado, I show a modified map and describe the potential megalopolis of Chedenlo – a solid city environment that stretches over 215 miles from Cheyenne through Denver to Pueblo. Quite sobering when one looks at London, Shanghai, and Tokyo today as typical examples of modern megalopolises. Problems with sprawl abound such as an inability to deal with transportation, pollution, reduced health from a necessary sedentary lifestyle (needing to drive more to places), increased land use as more land is developed and less is left as forests, fields, farmland, or ranchland. By necessity of this kind of sprawl, a more centralized system is required with the economics focused upon funneling more and more tax dollars into infrastructure (e.g., roads and shopping centers) for more new development.
One of the oddest results of all this sprawl (as indicated by health problems in the last paragraph) is that zoning became the norm – this is the practice of classifying areas for different types of development and land use in different parts of the city. (For example, zoning restricts areas to either one main use (e.g. industry or residential) or allows a mix of compatible uses (e.g., residential and commercial). Curiously, this represents a centralized top-down constraint on personal property rights.
In an effort to decreased sprawl and help inner-city decay, many cities adopted Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) or something similar, where a line has been drawn around the city to limits its growth, forcing developers to develop the slumlands and brownfield areas (defn: a tract of land that has been developed for industrial purposes, polluted, and then abandoned). A minor drawback of this approach is that while UGBs maintain rural and natural areas, and appear to reduce infrastructure costs, they seem to also increase the price of desired new gentrified developments within their boundaries. They also allow the continuing centralized control of cities for primarily economic development thereby perpetuating the problems of cities.
Fortunately, there are other models out there that do work to reduce sprawl and at the same time increase the livability of urbanized environments. At this time most still work on a centralized control system (e.g. city council government) but the results are encouraging. These models come under different heading such as New Urbanism, Smart Growth, Urban Ecology, Transition Towns and Villages, and Relocalization. So, lets’ get down to what a future sustainable living system might look like and how governance might look to maintain such communities. For sure what we have isn’t working well and it isn’t going to get any better, despite the improvements that have occurred, without a major, perhaps a radical, overhaul. We can make a plan with choices or we can just let it happen when chaos occurs. As I have said often, it will not be a template so much as a set of guidelines since every area will be unique. To be continued……
0 Comments