Cities create their futures
Sohail Inayatullah
“Cities to play a major role in
global governance, in a reformed United Nations”
“Digitalization, aging,
globalization, global warming, new viruses, as well as expanded
expectations, all point to dramatic changes in the nature of Mayoral
Responsibilities”
“Nothing will change in my role as
Mayor in twenty years – just more of the same.”
These were some of the perspectives
articulated by 96
Mayors from around the Asia-Pacific Region at the October 20-22
Asia-Pacific Cities Summit 2003. Held in Brisbane, Queensland, Mayors and
civic leaders embarked on a foresight process to anticipate future problems,
develop scenarios of the future city, and articulate a preferred vision of
the “Future of the City”.
Along with plenary sessions with
world renowned speakers such as green architect Ken Yeang, Time Magazine
hero of the planet Vandana Shiva, “Alternative Nobel” Right Livelihood
winner Johan Galtung, Feminist Futurist Ivana Milojevic, City Planner Steven
Ames, Chairman of the Future 500 and former CEO of Mitsubishi Electric
America Tachi Kiuchi, Mayors met in a series of sessions to chart out the
direction of the future city. The sessions were facilitated by political
scientist and professor of futures studies and social sciences, Sohail
Inayatullah.
Familiar Ground
The first session was familiar
ground for Mayors as they identified current issues (solving problems is why
they were elected to their positions in the first place). Some of these
issues included population drift (rural to city, small to large cities),
traffic congestion, growth occurring faster than infrastructure development,
lack of partnership between city and business, loss of cultural heritage,
long term water supply, lack of skills of the workforce, lack of support of
central government to local government and lack of employment opportunities.
The main overall categories of current problems were: sustainability and the
challenges of increased growth; infrastructure decline and affordability;
governance, environmental protection and resource scarcity, and community
capacity.
Mayors,
of course, spoke from their personal experiences. Taipei Deputy Mayor
Chin-Der
Ou challenged Mayors to think not only of
SARS but of future viruses. Mayors from Fijian cities (Gani from Nadi,
Simmons from Labasa, Goundar from Lautoka) spoke of the challenges of a
central government that was not sympathetic to local issues. Mayor
Sirajuddin Haji Salleh of Ipoh commented that
globalization – in the form of increased travel and heightened information –
had raised the expectation of Ipoh citizens. They expected Ipoh to have the
same levels of “development” (services, for example) as an American or
European city, New York or London, for example.
From current issues, Mayors moved to
identifying future problems. To do so, Mayors were asked to identify drivers
that were pushing us into the future. The drivers selected included the
usual suspects: Population growth, Economic and Cultural Globalization, and
Environmental Changes.
Based on these drivers, Mayors
then focused on emerging issues. The purpose of this was so that they could
better anticipate the future and thus better meet the changing needs of
citizens (and new stakeholders – global corporations, global non-governmental
organizations,
global institutions). These issues included what could go wrong but also
opportunities for greater prosperity and democratization.
Along with the expected issue of the
increased income gap between the haves and have-nots being created by
globalization, Mayors saw that the future would make their roles more
complex. They would have to address issues such as the ethics associated
with medical and technological advancements, e-governance, as well
as the broader issue of the role of the civic leader in a
digitalized e-city. And along with a squeeze from the Central Government –
in terms of less funds but more responsibilities – Mayors would be caught in
a squeeze from nature, with extensive competition for water and other
natural resources. Aging as well would change the nature of the city,
leading some cities to becoming
increasingly dysfunctional and others becoming retirement centers. Along
with the demographic shift of aging, immigration, especially the new wave of
global knowledge workers (and refugees),
would change the face of the city.
But through all the changes, the
Mayors were clear that their role would be to ensure that communities stayed
connected. It was creating strong and healthy communities that was central,
focusing on relationship building. This was a central
point made by Caboolture Mayor Joy Leishman. Without a
leadership role – developing a vision of the future and creating structures
and processes that could deliver that future – cities would find
themselves swamped by rapidly transforming global, regional and local
worlds.
Scenarios
From these issues, four scenarios
emerged.
The first was a warning of what
could go wrong if technocratism overwhelmed governance. This was
High-Tech Anomie, with technologization leading not to greater community
building but to further alienation. In this future, the internet would
become a site of fragmentation and crime, drug shopping, for example.
Improvements in genetics would only benefit the rich, creating cities
divided by class.
The second was a future where Mayors
were unable to meet the changing expectations of citizens.
Democratization, globalization, a highly educated, technology savvy
population demanding instant response from cities would lead to a condition
of permanent crisis. Leadership would succumb to these pressures and
citizens would resort to undemocratic expressions to get their needs met.
The third future was one where
Mayors spent most of their time and resources on disaster management.
Whether it was SARS (and future diseases from genetic errors) or HIV or the
global water crisis, cities should expect a difficult and bleak future,
where survival was of primary importance.
The fourth future was far more
hopeful. Mayors argued that with a highly educated and informed populace,
their jobs would become that of the facilitator. Their role would be focused
on the capacity building of city employees and citizens. Creating
learning organizations and communities would become the vehicle wherein
citizens took far more responsibility
for the future of their city. Part of being a learning
community was to embed in the city, processes of conflict resolution -
mediation and arbitration - within their communities,
so
that the rights of individuals and groups and the pressure of social
advancement could be negotiated.
The first three scenarios required
leadership to ensure that the trends were managed or that they did not occur,
while the last was focused on what could be done to anticipate and
accommodate any future.
Fishbowl scenarios
The next session was a plenary
fishbowl wherein these scenarios were tested.. Along with speakers Johan
Galtung, Vandana Shiva, and Tachi Kiuchi, were Mayors Tim Quinn of Brisbane,
Mayor Sirajuddin Haji Salleh
of
Ipoh, Mayor Ho Pin Teo of North West District of Singapore, and Mayor Robert
Bell of Gosford. In an interactive session, led by Inayatullah, these
futures were refined.
Galtung evoked the rainforest to
imagine the future of the city. As Ken Yeang had argued earlier, the built
environment should be, and could be, integrated into the natural
environment. Not only would cost savings result– energy bills, health costs,
– but the beauty of the city would be restored.
Green could become gold. Vandana Shiva reminded participants that for cities
to create the futures they wanted they had to challenge the strategies and
tactics of large private corporations, particularly in the areas of water
management.
Water, she asserted, must remain a public resource,
and,
as much as possible, cities needed to ensure that globalization did not
erode democratic decision-making processes. Tachi
Kiuchi,
as well,
focused on the Rainforest as the guiding image of the future. City design
and planning had to be based on different principles – cooperative evolution
between nature and city, technology and community, for example. Mayor Ho Pin
Teo brought out practical examples of how Singapore was becoming more green
and healthy while retaining its business focus.
However, not all in the audience
were impressed. The city as international
and
,
prosperous, focused on economic development, attracting large projects
(theme parks, for example) this Big International City outlook was brought
up
as a counter image – indeed, as the only realistic future. The
Mayor of Cairns, Kevin Byrne, in particular,
argued that the Rainforest as guiding metaphor for the city was
inappropriate. Mayor Wang Hong Ju of Chongqing,
as well,
saw prosperity and internationalization as primary.
However, fish bowl participants saw
the Big City scenario
only as a continuation of the present. Current trends would
lead to expected outcomes:
1.
A divided city, with a number of
fault lines: between (A)
the winners and losers of globalization, (B) the young and old, (C) local
residents and new migrants, and (D) the on-line and the off-line.
2.
Urban sprawl would exacerbate loss
of green areas, destroy livable communities by continuing the
car-highway-oil paradigm of the future.
3.
Also
in the current model, pollution
and traffic jams would worsen,
more
development would only lead to more buildings, and not
only increased costs (The World Bank estimates that the cost to the world
of $500
billion a year is lost on deaths and
injuries plus congestion, sprawl, noise loss of forests and farms, and
carbon emissions)
but cities would miss the financial, social and cultural benefits of
creating green and healthy cities.
4.
Furthermore, the current model
would reduce democratization, reduce the capacity of local people to save
community and public spaces and make decisions as to their own futures.
5.
Finally the Big
City model was being discarded by most Western cities, as they
searched for new visions to lead them forward. Copying a used-future was
unlikely to lead to prosperity, rather the same old mistakes would be
committed again.
The debate was not resolved,
however, with some considering these costs as externalities, part of the
price for progress.
What is clear that the future should
not be seen in simplistic terms. Rather, creating a clean, healthy, urban
village, public and community space focused city, where people (social,
environmental, and cultural capital was foundational) were the true
landmarks, and not the tallest buildings, would lead to increased prosperity
for all. It was not the single bottom line of the developer or the radical
green activist that was being called for but the triple bottom line of
prosperity, social justice and environmentalism.
Not polluting – and ensuring that
this did not happen via persuasion, fines and incentives – would enhance the
desirability of the city. Traditional notions of desirability were about
size, grandness – the modern city – however, new notions are focused on
individual health, community capacity building, well being and quality of
life. Case studies on the steps required to realize this future were
presented by Prasit Pongbhaesat
,
the Deputy-Director General of Policy and Planning for Bangkok
Metropolitan Administration (the healthy cities project) and by Deputy Mayor
Chin-Der Oh of Taipei (the cities acclaimed recycling project)
VISION
The final session was focused on the
preferred future. What type of city did Mayors desire? And how could cities
work together to create a shared future? As expected there was not full
agreement. Representatives were from a variety of cities, some with
populations in the millions, others in the thousands, some the economic size
of nations, others without a true middle class, however, general points were
agreed upon.
1.
The city needs to be clean
and green.
2.
The city must focus on creativity
and innovation, instead of traditional models and knowledge structures. This
was the best way to become prosperous.
3.
The city must be an inclusive
place of opportunity, offering equity of access to citizens
4.
The city must balance the
immediacy of growth with protection of the environment, of people’s culture
and traditions in the wake of globalisation.
5.
The city of the future needs to be
a city where opportunities are available to all its citizens,
meaningful work, education, empowerment and self worth – that is survival,
well-being, identity and freedom needs must be met.
6.
Cities must remain people friendly
– true communities – and ensure that their decisions today did not foreclose
the options of future generations.
While there was general agreement,
the debate between the large international city and the green clean and
healthy image was not resolved.
However, clear steps were formulated
so that cities could create their desired futures.
Vision 2020 / Summit City
Commitments
A.
Enhance city
relationship
- In the short term, foster
information sharing between local governments through a range of expanded
exchange programs.
- In the medium term, strengthen
the role and outcomes of Sister City relationships, to include technology,
resource exchanges and capacity development.
- In the long run, creating a
global association of local governments, to move towards cities as central
to Global Governance, making the first steps towards a House of Cities.
B.
Enhance the green city
4. Focus
on environmental education for young people, with a view to protecting the
environment of the future.
- Building consensus between all
levels of government on key issues of environmental protection and the
health of cities.
C.
Enhance capacity
- Actively engage young people in
the Summit process, with delegates bringing one young person from their
city to the next meeting, to ensure that their views are heard and acted
upon, especially as their experiences are being formed by different
drivers for change.
- Enhance volunteer participation
in community capacity building in cities, in particular through local
government workforces.
- Investigate new ways to use
technology to encourage participation of all citizens in local government
decision making. For example, chat rooms, SMS messaging on the future
vision for cities, e-democracy and so on.
D.
Ensure Future-Orientation
- Evaluate these issues on an
ongoing basis at future
Summits, in particular the Summit of 2023, seeing visioning
the future as an ongoing process.
- Continue to measure the
performance and outcomes of Asia Pacific Summits, to determine the most
viable model for future city interactions.
Finally, a conclusion of the Summit
was that a full record of the proceedings of the Summit and the outcomes
agreed by Mayors should be placed in a time capsule, to be opened and
presented to the Asia Pacific Summit of 2023, to determine progress on the
Summit City Vision.
As a city planner of sorts, Lao-Tsu
once said: “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step”.
Urban sprawl is also directly related to water issues. For example, we
now know that suburban sprawl - strip malls, office buildings and other
paved areas - have worsened the drought covering half the United States
by blocking billions of gallons of rainwater from seeping through the
soil to replenish ground water. Tom Dogget, “Suburban Sprawl Blocks
Water, Worsens U.S. Drought,” Science - Reuters. 28/8/2003
