The Planet of Cities: The beginning of the end of the urban century?
-
Email
-
Facebook
-
Linkedin
-
Twitter
-
Whatsapp
05 June 2020
As the Covid-19 crisis has played out, the chorus of voices prophesying a new great moment of de-urbanisation has grown. Those able to leave the world’s major cities without compromising their employment status temporarily appear to be doing so in significant numbers.. The professional class is capitalising on newly won, digitally enabled freedom of movement to escape the threat of contagion posed by high proximity urban life.
People are swapping the freneticism of the megacity for the relative calm of small-town America, England’s rural idyll, or the French riviera. Exiles from New York, London and Paris are pitching up in Madison, Wisconsin, the Cotswolds, and Nice in their droves. This migration has been prompted by the current crisis. The twin prospect of future pandemics, and accelerated digitisation of knowledge jobs, will determine if it is to be a lasting trend. Large cities are uniquely vulnerable to public health crises – the experience of the previous few months has demonstrated as much.
So goes the theory, at least. But is it right? Is this the correct way to interpret the current movements of people? And are we really living in the end days of the urban epoch?
I think not.
For one thing, Covid-19 has only added an additional increment to the range of pre-existing push factors that have, for decades, caused certain people to leave cities. The financial, social and environmental pressures of urban life are not new. They have generally been counterbalanced by an opposite, and often stronger, set of pull factors, including access to jobs, services, amenities, convenience, and entertainment. For every person grown weary of city life, one can usually find two eager to sample its myriad delights. The lockdown may have served to put a stop on such attractions, but we can be reasonably confident that it is a temporary pause.
Greg Clark
“Covid-19 has added to the range of push factors that cause people to leave cities. They are counterbalanced by an equal, often stronger, set of pull factors. For every person grown weary of city life, one can usually find two eager to sample its myriad delights. ”
The question is not about whether we want to have cities, but about how we want to use them. The balance of options and incentives has been shifted by digitisation. Many people can now choose how to have their city. Live downtown and be close to the action. Stay within the city limits and make a daily commute. Opt for a new district or suburb. Move further out, to a nearby town or smaller or city. Stretch further to live in a place where a once-weekly journey into the city is more feasible. Some people can combine the above options, mixing remote and face to face working as it suits them.
Many of the amenities of the central city, be they cultural, educational or social, can now be consumed from a distance. Those amenities can be clustered in multiple centres, not just one. While this was true in the pre-Covid-19 world, it has been accelerated by the events of the year so far. This is crucial.
Since the beginning of our urban century (c. 1980), we have seen a growth in polycentric metropoles. London’s economic engine room was once the West End and The City – neighbouring quarters in the dead centre of the map. In the last 20 years we’ve seen, first, the development of Canary Wharf (from reclaimed post-industrial wastelands), and latterly, Stratford (East), Hammersmith (West) and Croydon (South). Each district has its own identity; each makes a growing contribution to the UK capital’s overall prosperity.
Over that the same time, we’ve also seen the rise of the multi-clustered region – the super-connected central Holland metropole of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht and Den Haag being a perfect example. Similarly, the linear city, e.g.: the Boston-New York- Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington DC super-region commonly known as the ‘North East Corridor’. And we’ve also observed the emergence of cross border regions such as the Greater Bay Area, The Baltic Sea Region, and the Central Danube Area, linking Vienna, Budapest and Bratislava.
Each of these is a different manifestation of the same phenomenon: distributed urbanisation.
The geography of urbanisation is no longer defined solely by physical connectivity or contiguous areas. We have long known that enhanced digital connectivity enlarges the footprint of the city. It is, and has been for some time, possible to live in Phoenix Arizona, and work in Los Angeles or to live in Suzhou and work in Shanghai. This is why I introduced the concept of the blended city in our last column. Cities increasingly have two populations: a resident population and a virtual population – and have an equal, but distinct, obligation to each.
This is not de-urbanisation, but a redistribution of places of work and places of habitat, both within and between cities. One consequence of this may be that we make some improvements to the affordability of urban housing, reduce congestion and emissions, and improve the inter-regional distribution of jobs.
“The geography of urbanisation is no longer defined solely by physical connectivity or contiguous areas. Cities increasingly have two populations: a resident population and a virtual population – and have an equal, but distinct, obligation to each. ”
But we also run the risk of creating an increasingly segregated urban landscape. Those whose jobs allow for remote working could become further removed from those whose jobs do not. The underlying dividing lines will be those of income, race, and age. Cities will continue to house the poor and provide congregational attractions for young professionals who want to enjoy workplace amenities. Unless we also manage to retain a wider set of professional workers within our cities, the effect on civil cohesion could be negative.
If the blended city evolves as described – a network of ‘satellites’ orbiting a single, or several dominant, urban centres – we will need to rethink what constitutes a region. Many of these new regions will be larger than nations. Blended cities will give rise to blended regions. The workplace commute will likely become a longer distance but less frequent ordeal for some, and a brisk walk for others.
The changed demand profile of mass transit systems will have consequences for how such systems evolve in the future. The ways in which we fund, operate and maintain public transport will have to change. Transport terminals will need to diversify their real estate offering if they are to remain viable.
Long before this pandemic necessitated the practice of social distancing, the process of urban distancing began. The Covid-19 pandemic hasn’t changed the course of our urban journey. The direction of travel is long established; it is only the speed of travel that has changed. Far from witnessing the end of the urban century, we are watching it take its true form. Connectivity remains central to our shared prosperity; only the means by which we connect are changing.
“The geography of urbanisation is no longer defined solely by physical connectivity or contiguous areas. Cities increasingly have two populations: a resident population and a virtual population – and have an equal, but distinct, obligation to each.”
But we also run the risk of creating an increasingly segregated urban landscape. Those whose jobs allow for remote working could become further removed from those whose jobs do not. The underlying dividing lines will be those of income, race, and age. Cities will continue to house the poor and provide congregational attractions for young professionals who want to enjoy workplace amenities. Unless we also manage to retain a wider set of professional workers within our cities, the effect on civil cohesion could be negative.
If the blended city evolves as described – a network of ‘satellites’ orbiting a single, or several dominant, urban centres – we will need to rethink what constitutes a region. Many of these new regions will be larger than nations. Blended cities will give rise to blended regions. The workplace commute will likely become a longer distance but less frequent ordeal for some, and a brisk walk for others.
The changed demand profile of mass transit systems will have consequences for how such systems evolve in the future. The ways in which we fund, operate and maintain public transport will have to change. Transport terminals will need to diversify their real estate offering if they are to remain viable.
Long before this pandemic necessitated the practice of social distancing, the process of urban distancing began. The Covid-19 pandemic hasn’t changed the course of our urban journey. The direction of travel is long established; it is only the speed of travel that has changed. Far from witnessing the end of the urban century, we are watching it take its true form. Connectivity remains central to our shared prosperity; only the means by which we connect are changing.
