CityReads│Rights and Wrongs of the Urban Age

142

Rights and Wrongs of the Urban Age

Conflicts of an Urban Age, organized by LSE Cities and exhibited in Berlin from 21 June to 29 July 2017, highlighted the spatial and social consequences of dramatic urban growth in seven cities, Addis Ababa, Berlin, Istanbul, London, Mexico City, Mumbai and Shanghai, between 1990 and 2015, and showed the rights and wrongs of an urban age.

Peter Griffiths, Aron Bohmann and Ricky Burdett, Conflicts of an Urban Age, BOX Freiraum, Berlin, 21 June–29 July 2017

Source: https://urbanage.lsecities.net/events/conflicts-of-an-urban-age-berlin

In the short time span of 25 years, cities have grown larger and more quickly than ever before. Fishing villages have been transformed into megacities and deserts have become urban playgrounds. The speed and scale of this transformation is unprecedented. By the middle of this century, 75% of the world’s population will be living in cities. One billion people will be added in the next 15 years, with more than 50 new residents every hour in developing world cities like Kinshasa, Delhi and Dhaka. At the same time, many cities of the developed world are adapting to economic restructuring, ageing populations and new dynamics of migration.

Cities occupy less than 1% of global land, but generate over two-thirds of the world’s economic output. They are the stage-sets for social opportunity and social inequality. While some cities are pioneering sustainable and imaginative solutions, many are not. New city forms are also emerging, with profound social and environmental consequences for billions of urban dwellers.

Conflicts of an Urban Age, organized by LSE Cities and exhibited in Berlin from 21 June to 29 July 2017, highlighted the spatial and social consequences of dramatic urban growth in seven cities, Addis Ababa, Berlin, Istanbul, London, Mexico City, Mumbai and Shanghai, between 1990 and 2015, and showed the rights and wrongs of an urban age.

Dynamics of urban growth

The world’s urban population is unevenly distributed. African and Asian cities are growing faster than ever before; Latin America has slowed, while Europe and North America have peaked. Research in 186 cities shows that in just 25 years their populations have more than doubled, but their footprints have increased almost five-fold. Density has dropped and public space reduced. 

Where people live 

The UN predicts that while there will be more megacities of over ten million people by 2030, most growth will take place in smaller cities of fewer than 300,000 people. Nearly 40% of urban dwellers will be living in informal slums without access to basic services. 

A combination of birth rates and national and international migration contributes to vastly different speeds and scales of urbanization in cities across the world. While in some cities urban growth remains tightly constrained by natural boundaries and historical traditions, others have sprawled unabated, exacerbating their social, economic and environmental impacts.

Five billion people will be living in cities by 2030. How they are planned will determine how they grow. Los Angeles consumes 14 times more space per person than Hong Kong. Accommodating the world’s urban growth by 2030 at Los Angeles’ density levels would cover almost half of the European Union. At Hong Kong’s density, the global urban population could fit into the northern half of Italy. 

URBAN FOOTPRINT, HONG KONG, 2016, Hong Kong population density: 46,700 people/km2

GLOBAL POPULATION AT HONG KONG'S DENSITY: If the world’s 2030 urban population were to be accommodated at the same density as Hong Kong, it would cover a footprint of this extent.

URBAN FOOTPRINT, LOS ANGELES: Los Angeles population density: 3,300 people/km2

If the world’s 2030 urban population were to be accommodated at the same density as Los Angeles, it would cover a footprint of this extent. 

URBAN FOOTPRINT, LOS ANGELES: Los Angeles population density: 3,300 people/km2

If the world’s 2030 urban population were to be accommodated at the same density as Los Angeles, it would cover a footprint of this extent.

Shanghai’s population has tripled in the space of 25 years, a 566km metro network has been constructed from scratch and more than 35,000 towers over eight storeys have been built.

Since 1990, its capital’s population has grown by 80% but its footprint has doubled. The city is both investing in its centre and opening up land to the east for new development. The EU-funded and Chinese-built light rail transit, raised on stilts, improves connections across the city.

Unlike other cities in Europe, London’s population has grown by nearly a third since 1990, with increased migration and higher birth rates taking it to over ten million people. Its fragmented urban structure has absorbed growth within the city limits, especially in the more deprived eastern fringes. The city has become denser and better connected, but remains deeply divided, with a housing and affordability crisis affecting its younger population. New high-speed rail links across the city and the UK will provide opportunities for dense clusters near public transport hubs which are at the heart of the plan to accommodate projected growth to 2030.

In 25 years, the Turkish megacity has more than doubled its population, tripled the size of the municipality and halved its density. The challenges of severe earthquake risk and housing shortage have ushered in a wave of investment that is visibly transforming its fragile, historical urban structure. High land values and the market’s preference for over-scaled typologies are replacing the open porosity of streets with mono-functional megastructures that erode the potential for street-level interaction.

As the economic engine of the world’s soon-to-be most populous nation, Mumbai will be the largest city on Earth by 2050, with over 40 million residents. With more than 50 new residents arriving per hour, accommodating the pace of growth is putting pressure on a city with constrained land supply and soaring congestion. While Mumbai has expanded significantly, its density levels have barely dropped. In Mumbai, land is a scarce commodity; informal settlements are scattered across the city, often in valuable locations near open parks or the waterfront. Over half the population live in slums and the majority of daily trips are made on foot, bicycle or public transport. Over 90% of the population do not rely on cars for their livelihoods.

Mexico City continues to sprawl endlessly. Even though population growth rate has slowed, since 1990 its footprint has doubled and density has dropped by a quarter. Fragmented governance, weak land regulation and a predominance of single-family homes have resulted in a low-rise, lower-density city. Despite facing the longest daily commutes of any megacity of this size, more residents are buying cars to access increasingly far-away jobs and services, regardless of recent investment in public transport. Whether through government-planned projects or informal growth, Mexico City has expanded beyond city limits. The effects of low-density housing place a strain on all forms of infrastructure.

The number of new residents from Germany and abroad has nearly doubled over the past 25 years, attracted by its traditional housing stock, relative affordability, and growing digital economy, which generates one in eight new jobs in the city. The length of regional rail has doubled since 1990, walking and cycling has increased by 9% and private-vehicle use has dropped by 8%. Overall carbon emissions have fallen by 30% and green space has consistently increased. Improved quality of life and the environment have driven a rise in birth rate, making Berliners three years younger than the national average. Berlin’s baby boom contrasts with an ageing Germany, which has of the lowest birth rates in the world.

Economy

Cities contribute over 70% of global GDP. The efficiency of urban economies is maximized by high-density environments with extensive public transport networks that facilitate access to jobs.

New York has the highest peak employment density at 151,600 jobs per km2, while Hong Kong (120,200 jobs per km2, much closer to the residential density peak) and London (141,600 jobs per km2) are not far behind. This level of density requires an extensive public transport network to enable millions of employees to flow efficiently in and out of central business districts on a daily basis.

Rio de Janeiro: Employment density peak 76,700 jobs/km2

London: Employment density peak 141,600 jobs/km2

New York: Employment density peak 151,600 jobs/km2

Hong Kong: Employment density peak 120,200 jobs/km2

Bogotá: Employment density peak 61,550 jobs/km2

Urban issues in urban age

Where are traffic accidents (the world’s leading cause of accidental death) more deadly? Do big cities have more road fatalities?

Surely, where the streets are most congested? In fact, it’s just the opposite. Except for Mexico City, all the other cities, including London, Johannesburg, Berlin, Mumbai, and Shanghai, have lower road fatalities per 100,000 residents. Traffic accidents are least deadly in cities, where speeds are most restricted, roads are better designed, and emergency aid is closest at hand.

Do big cities have worse income inequality?

Cities are the engines of the global economy and contribute significantly to poverty alleviation. Yet deprivation is often unequally concentrated in urban spaces. Many cities are highly segregated, creating pockets of wealth and poverty. Comparison of the levels of Gini coefficient show that big cities tend to have higher Gini coefficient than the national average, thus higher level of income inequality (Berlin is the only exception).

Are big cities more dangerous?

In terms of the murder rate, it is a mixed story. Murders per 1,000 residents in London, Berlin and New York are all higher than the national average. But Rio, Johannesburg and Delhi is the opposite.

Do big cities have larger ecological footprints?

In absolute terms, true, but an absolute measure is seriously misleading.  The per capita footprint of a city dweller, all else equal, is smaller. To put it another way: a given number of people living at their country’s characteristic standard of living would consume a smaller quantity of resources if they lived in an urban (high-density) pattern than if they lived in a rural or suburban (dispersed, low-density) one. In terms of CO₂ emission per capita, all big cities are lower than the national average.

Do big cities have more polluted air?

Again, it is a mixed story. In terms of PM 2.5, London, Copenhagen, and Sao Paulo have more polluted air than their national average. Air qualities in Mumbai and Portland are better than their national average.

Related CityReads

（Click the title or enter our WeChat menu and reply number ）

CityReads ∣Notes On Cities

"CityReads", a subscription account on WeChat, 

posts our notes on city reads weekly. 

Please follow us by searching "CityReads"  

Or long press the QR code  above