This post was originally published on 15 Minutes City
Rome in 1890 | Library of Congress
Governments around the world are grappling with how to “build back better” while economies are still sputtering and tax revenue is down from pre-pandemic levels. As we rethink our cities for a post-pandemic future — or adapt to the new normal — it’s worth reflecting on the relationship between money, wealth, and great cities.
Old vs. new cities
What cities and neighborhoods do residents, planners, and tourists point to as paragons of good urbanism? The canals and cobbled streets of central Amsterdam, the piazzas of Rome, and the compact, walkable downtowns of hundreds of small towns in the United States all come to mind. All of these amazing places were built long ago, when average incomes were far lower than they are today. The Netherlands in the 18th century — when much of Amsterdam’s canal houses were built — was wealthy by the standards of its time, but per capita income was around US$4,000 (adjusted to today’s dollars), lower than current per capita income in Guatemala and Gabon. Many of the row houses in my own city of San Francisco were built cheaply as worker housing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Amsterdam | Dan Luscher
The peace and prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s led cities in North America and Europe to spread out. Wealth meant car ownership and a high tax base that supported extensive highway-building. American growth from 1950 to 1990 focused on low-density suburban development. Late in the 20th century, the shortcomings of this approach were becoming abundantly clear, from urban air pollution and road congestion to the emerging threat of climate change. When China’s wealth expanded in the 1990s, its city builders ignored these warning signs and built turbocharged versions of the sprawling, car-dependent cities other wealthy countries had built, sometimes layered over and around old, compact cities. This pattern was replicated elsewhere as well.
Beijing | Andrey Belenko, Creative Commons license
Time to rethink
The looming existential threat of climate change and worsening income inequality require us to urgently rethink our existing cities, and rapid urbanization makes it imperative that we create a new and better city-building template for cities to house future city dwellers. Much ink has been spilled about the cost of building better cities and housing the urban influx. Can we afford to do what needs to be done?
We must remember that the great cities of history were built by people with far fewer resources and much less access to technology than we have now. We need to rely as much as possible on the energy and resourcefulness of city dwellers themselves, who need the freedom to act and to innovate — to build accessory dwelling units and corner stores — as much as or even more than they need money. This is not to say that investment is not needed. It’s critical that cities invest in shared assets like green infrastructure, to ensure clean water and flood protection, and multimodal transportation.
San Francisco | Robin Galante in SFWeekly
Former Curitiba, Brazil mayor Jaime Lerner famously said: “If you want creativity, cut one zero from the budget. If you want sustainability, cut two zeros.” If the pandemic makes us less wealthy and makes governments poor, will we again make creative, sustainable cities?
0 Comments