A recent post replying to the futurist The magazine’s “Outlook 2010” asks the question ‘What’s next for 21st century cities?’ While some points are strong, and the importance of raising and continuing debate and discussion cannot be overstated, there are some comments that are oversimplified and somewhat narrow-minded.
Take, for example, the initial claim that “cities are just more complicated now.” I presume that the inhabitants of Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece might be offended by such a thought. Everything is relative, and living in and through any contemporary society certainly has its complications. After all, past generations might see a world filled with ATMs, telephones, and indoor plumbing as simplified.
the futurist makes ten forecasts that will “shape cities”, separating them into Environment, Government and Information Society sections. Under the Environmental heading are Colorful Solar Power and Flooded Coastal Cities. Citing MIT’s thin solar film that can “do double duty as tinted windows” is an interesting technological innovation, but it does little to address the core issues behind alternative energy, which are the need for higher reliability, higher efficiency, and higher costs. reduced to make this a credible alternative on a large scale. Additionally, placing solar film on vertical surfaces limits daily sun exposure, especially on cavernous city streets, much less creates a clear conflict with more standard and passive measures, such as eaves and overhangs, that help prevent gain of solar heat. So while the technology is interesting, promises to reshape cities based on that technology are flawed.
Second, under Environmental, is the notion that fourteen degree Celsius warming would raise the oceans seventy-five meters and put all coastal cities at risk of flooding. These are certainly frightening numbers, but the global warming debate continues with difficulty pinpointing precisely where the planet is headed in terms of actual warming and subsequent sea level rise. Although some warming and subsequent sea level rise appears legitimate, judgment is withheld here due to a lack of confidence in the hard data.
Continuing with the Government’s forecasts, local fragmentation is identified, so that local governments “will have more influence than national governments.” Although it is difficult to make a generalization as broad as this, would you prefer an untold number of local armies or a centralized US military? – it makes sense to ask that city building measures be handled on a more local scale. But I would improve it from localism and ask for greater regionalism. With the ever-increasing reliance on transportation networks, technology, and trade, it would be irresponsible to promote localism at the expense of regionalism.
Also as part of the Government category are Sensors and Nanotechnology, so that monitoring, diagnosis and health procedures will be carried out increasingly virtually. Personally, I hate the day a robot or a computer provides medical care, instead of the human presence of a doctor or nurse. As with global warming, the health care debate continues. I can’t begin to predict where it will end up, but I sure hope the human touch remains a part of medicine, as I imagine it always will be.
Finally, the futurist identifies Augmented Reality and Telecommuting as elements that will reshape cities in our “Information Society”. Telecommuting is expected to increase (if only there were more jobs to telecommute to), but the resulting reduction in road infrastructure is questionable. Roads and transportation still depend on where we choose to live, and there will always be some people who choose an urban lifestyle, a suburban lifestyle, a rural lifestyle, and everything in between. While vehicle miles traveled (VMT) may decrease for some people as a result of telecommuting, people still crave social interaction, whether it’s at the office water cooler or the neighborhood Starbucks. VMT may decrease and time spent in cars may decrease, but roads will still be needed to get growing populations to their destinations. And besides, what does an increase in telecommuting mean for transit? Taken to the extreme, fewer commuters may equal fewer drivers, but also fewer public transport passengers. And, if roads appear less congested, some transit riders may be forced to return to their cars. Fewer public transit riders mean reduced revenue, which could mean cuts in service. And the downward spiral continues. Once again, we return to the question of the true scope of teleworking, but the debate is important nonetheless.
Next, Augmented Reality talks about “sensors, digital maps and real-time data to enrich our experience of cities”. As an urban planner and promoter of cities, this is what bothers me the most. The beauty of cities, and one of the many attributes that make cities organic and exciting, is the joy of discovery, chance encounters and diversity. What happens when the discovery is removed? Once expectations are set every step of the way, environments are controlled, and like-minded people are herded into designated parts of a city, we have truly created a mall out of our urban centers. True, this is taking the view to the extreme; and yes, a certain level of banality has already crept into parts of our cities; and of course some neighborhoods are clearly avoided by some people, but the idea of fostering and promoting this should not be encouraged.
My disagreements on some of these topics are intended solely to stimulate debate and conversation. The issues raised are important, as is the need for dialogue. Cities are incredibly complex and always have been. Changes, large or small, trigger a series of events with implications far beyond what can reasonably be expected. However, as an urbanist, my premise is that cities are exciting and should be experienced en masse, and that social interaction drives global society forward. After all, isolation in one’s cocoon does little to improve oneself or society.