Urban Planning Blog

WorldChanging rightly points out that, we need to be building better cities, but since we can’t build what we can’t imagine, the first thing we need to be doing is imagining and portraying better cities. Often artistic ability or capacity limited thinkers from expressing their ideas for a better city. City planners like Ebenezer and Corbusier were few of those who transcended their abilities and managed to translate their visions into reality.

We shall not engage in a debate on the relevance of their thoughts but rather marvel at the availability of technology to do so in a better fashion. Graphic simulation and virtual walkthroughs have made expression of thoughts to the layperson far easier and lucid. Video games that incorporate such walkthroughs or even more relevant games like SimCity revealed how such translation of thought into actual realities was easy. Now only, if we could come up with a technological solution that would incorporate weather, demographic, traffic, and other infrastructural data into the model then implementation or at least visualization would be a cake walk. Geoff Manaugh writes on the use of cinematic expression i.e. “using short films as means to communicate ideas about urban design and architecture.” These can later be edited to add your visions and thoughts enhanced with even music and voice0vers to make excellent promotional material for your city.

In our Planning Theory and History class last semester, we were asked to write about our ideal city in generic terms and ideologies. I penned down my thoughts on a green and sustainable city that could be home to like-minded people with a conservation bent in the short term and almost everyone in the long term. I’ll post that essay on here sometime.

The common rant against compact or dense living is that it is not what people want. People rather prefer one-acre lots that have ample backyard space for their children to play and two-car garages to park their sedan and minivan/SUV/truck respectively. Every individual in the family needs his or her private space and in turn each family needs a large amount of private space that they chose to call home. The result – families are getting smaller and their homes are getting larger. And we believe that this is exactly what they – the consumers – wants? Or is it possible, like how I think, is this what they think they want because they have no other option or have not been offered any alternative. Before sounding to condescending regarding dictating to the common folk about how they should or should not live, I will simply argue that consumers of the real estate market or the housing market have been offered a limited set of choices for long and have been sold on the typical ‘American dream’ choice of a single-family home. Probably that worked for most part of the previous half-century but with the changing demographics and increasing need to living sustainably, we probably need more choices than we are offered right now.

Compact or dense living in condos or townhomes carry a stigma of being homes for middle and lower income but at the same time, high priced condos in most of the mega-cities cost far more than those single-family homes in the suburbs and the demand for them is no less. Single-family homes received a fillip from the government through incentives like the mortgage interest deduction or through veterans affairs or even as an indirect benefit from the construction of the inter-state system. People could afford home because they received magnanimous exemptions on their mortgages or they could commute easily to distant places thanks to the inter-states; so in fact the free-market isn’t entirely responsible for the inculcation of the American dream. The single-family homes sit on large lots away from the city mostly on cheap lands that are supported on city infrastructure and public subsidies. Fewer developers with the exception of high-growth Florida have chosen to develop subdivision if they were burdened with providing the underlying infrastructure of water, power, and sewage connections to these distant properties.

Density living, on the other hand occupy more people leaving more room for open and green space and significantly reduces dependence on automobiles. Provision of smaller parks for groups of apartments or town homes can easily fulfill the need for open space for children. This will not only further social communication but also encourage sharing of spaces that renders most backyards redundant (because children tend to play in groups in a common area as opposed to on their own in their own backyard). Compact living also makes it possible to walk down to such social spaces such as parks, neighborhood shopping, restaurants, or even hospitals. Retired folks and empty nesters (couples whose children have moved out) are already moving back into downtown to enjoy easier proximity to restaurants, night life, cultural districts, hospitals, and drug stores. They are choosing not to drive if they can help it.

Economically speaking, multifamily housing actually makes housing more affordable as infrastructural resources are shared and cost per unit is lot less than for single-family homes. The huge demand for housing is limited by scarcity of land in the suburbs which can develop only so much but by increasing the supply of land by minimizing the footprint and housing more people per footprint, real estate prices can actually decline. The city planning principle of developing several nodes in New Bombay (Navi Mumbai) has worked well in creating several foci instead of creating distinct zones for residential, commercial, or industrial that all people would have to flock to. Every sector or neighborhood is self-sufficient in its immediate needs and if you seek more, you can always travel to other nodes that have their own special attractions like movie theaters, stadiums, or transport terminals. But you may not need to use these public amenities everyday and hence reduce the daily commute by relying on facilities that your neighborhood provides. This is a proven fact by the traditional mohalla concept in Indian cities and has worked wonderfully over the ages.

Compact living has many other advantages over sprawling development, most of which cannot be packed into this short post. I’ll offer more arguments in the future. But respect for your environment is not a logical choice but in fact a moral and emotional choice, much like other choices you make in life. I wonder why this choice is always subjected to economic or logical conditions.

Otis White’s Urban Notebook informs us that public libraries are the hot social spots in a town or a city [in the United States]. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet may have instilled fears of book redundancy but we haven’t seen the decline in sales or presence of books. So why are libraries suddenly so hot? Well, people have always loved to meet even for work or academics related stuff and whether it is a startup company meeting its clients or teenagers getting together to discuss homework. The modern libraries are well-stocked and more importantly, well-connected to the Internet. More often than not, the connections are high-speed and the ease and convenience of assembling research material from online sources has to be experienced to be believed. The libraries are also offering audio-visual equipment or hook-ups that simply offer all you need for a complete study or a business session.

People aren’t simply using libraries for work. They are coming in to play as well. There are hazaar groups ranging from poetry reading to Adult Fans of Lego. I simply love such interactive public space that often people mold with their own connections. The best spaces whether indoor or outdoor come undefined and soon grow to acquire a sense of purpose and subsequently attract people. ‘Build it, and they will come’ funda often works in such cases. India unfortunately lacks such space like the libraries in the United States. At best, we have the mobile library or the library that an aunty runs from her home. There is hardly any scope to hang out in such cases. There are second-hand books that often function as libraries but their bottom line is also concerned with selling and not cultivating a social environment. Kids are forced to hang out at kattas, naakas, and now coffee shops. But most of such ‘hanging out’ is simply idling away time (not that it is a bad thing) but we seriously lack spaces to pursue professional, academic, or even hobby interests. Community halls in certain townships try to achieve that goal but more often than not, focus is on indoor sports and there is little scope for other activities.

Urban life in India would do great if we had similar ‘libraries’; not necessarily filled with books (I don’t mind if they were) but mostly spaces to encourage interaction and pursuit of ‘character-building’ activities.

Citizen participation has always been a much sought-after measure in urban planning. Arnstein (1969) describes the ‘ladder’ to explain different levels of citizen participation. Ranging from mere information-providing to the ultimate citizen-control processes, various strategies have been employed to include the residents in planning process. After all, why not include them; they are ultimately going to end up living and using the spaces they design. I was briefly involved in a grant that suggested using charettes in small towns to streamline the redevelopment process and was quite enthused by the scope and extent of such an endeavor. However, the limitation of ‘participation fatigue’ or plain apathy has always kept such methods from succeeding. The trouble of getting them down to the city hall and making them ask questions and offer creative suggestions for planning the space they live in is considered insurmountable. So why not reverse the process? Why not go to their homes instead of calling them elsewhere? Will that work?

Of course, ‘going into their homes’ in a figurative sense; I wouldn’t want to be chased down their driveway with bullets from their shotgun whizzing past my posterior – how’s that for payback for involving the citizens. Information technology and the Internet has taken social networking to a new surreal level and people who haven’t seen each other are becoming acquaintances, or good friends, or even getting married. We aren’t going that way but ultimately, what counts in a citizen participatory process is their inputs, however bizarre or irrelevant they might appear to be. IBM is offering us an opportunity to ‘jam’ with the citizens; taking town hall meetings and letters to city hall to a new virtual level.

“A jam is an Internet discussion, held for several days and focused on a major topic, usually with several subtopics. Anyone can log on and contribute, and the discussions are meant to be freewheeling. (Translation: people can say anything they want, from the inane to the inspired.) In most cases, there are some experts watching over the discussions and, where appropriate, offering facts and context.” [source: Otis White’s Notebook @ Governing.com]

The way it differs from an ordinary chat room is that the ‘jam session’ is conducted over a limited period of time; much like a town hall meeting or a forum. People rant, rave, offer suggestions, criticize, or simply sit back and observe over a short period of time that the jam session runs. IBM then steps in with its technology and sifts through the mountain of posted information and categorizes them into key themes and points of discussion for your leisurely perusal. In fact, IBM is doing a test run by organizing a Habitat Jam where experts, practioners, students, and residents join in to offer solutions for sustainability and share experiences of successful ventures in their respective countries. I am one of the 100,000 people who have signed up. Feel free to jump in but hurry, the jam session ends on Dec.5, 2005.

New Urbanism for New Orleans?

Ever wonder why organic cities like Bombay, Delhi, and Pune often make for fond memories and monotonously planned cityscapes like Chandigarh and Brasilia often conjure up images of dry, boring, and monotonous life? In part, America also suffers from the impersonal touch of its suburban life after the notable white flight from the inner cities in the 60s and 70s. The answer is simple: separation of living areas from social areas that are often connected to commercial businesses. Your local bania is probably located on the street level of the area you live in or maybe is just a walk away. Most of your daily needs like grocery shopping, hair salon, tea/coffee shop, eating joints, parks and playgrounds are merely within walking distance and you often tend to bump into your neighbors everyday. Atrios also ponders on this simple truth of city planning:

“What puzzles me is the fact that there are relatively minor changes to how we construct our suburbs which would both allow some people (not everyone probably) to reduce their degree of auto dependency while simultaneously adding a bit of nearby “small townness” for the rest of the nearby residents. One can transform an absolutely tiny piece of land into something more resembling a town — build a few blocks of mixed residential/commercial development with street level shops — without fundamentally transforming the way most people live….Many of the early suburbs already have this (and many such earlier suburbs tend to be incredibly pricey, and not just because of their proximity to the urban core) pattern of development, but it’s rarely replicated these days.”

Kevin Drum however blames the residents themselves who wish to isolate themselves in their areas of protective solitude (Crash, starring Sandra Bullock, Brendon Fraser, Don Cheadle, and others addresses this issue), away from the ills of the society. But I fail to see this problem in India where social ties are stronger although stratification by income and caste/religion aren’t uncommon. But in more cosmopolitan towns where often land is at a premium, convenience wins over social barriers.

For e.g. the housing society I used to live in Panvel, India was ironically called Middle Class Co-op Housing Society. Initially envisioned as a haven for middle-income (politically correct term now) people, it was hardly middle-class by the time a full-scale housing boom hit after the suburban train from Bombay arrived only a ten-minute walk away. Mostly planned on a plot allocation basis, the bigger thousand square meter plots were now valued at almost a crore. Subverting the society’s regulations, smart builders built apartment buildings which not only recovered their cost but also dramatically changed the social fabric of the microcosm. Although I haven’t been home in almost 3 years, I have heard of easily accessible retail stores and more families moving in (each plot now has eight families at least instead of only one few years back). The four-acre central open space now has a jogging track and an playing field with budding cricketers.

People would welcome a mixed development where possible because it not only makes daily services more accessible but also makes your living area more vibrant. More people in India in fact mean more security instead of the other way round in America. Senior citizens also don’t have to take pains to travel far for their minimal needs and in return are more comfortable in seeing people around. Help is only a shout away.

Things however are different in America. No wonder city planning is as contextual as it can get.