I had always thought that cities came about out of the basic human needs for protection (survival) & socialization, hence agglomeration. I was familiar with the fact that the first hint of urbanization appeared when Homo sapiens shifted from their nomadic lifestyle to permanent settlements. What I had never considered were the reasons that caused them to shift to permanent settlements: they understood the benefits of a network of people sharing a common outcome (that of survival & progress) through a division of labor. Unconsciously, they were tapping into advantages of scale & density. Similarly, today the concentration of population in urban areas greatly facilitates the provision of general infrastructures. Research demonstrates how denser (not necessarily high rise) cities are more efficient in terms of the unit costs of providing good quality water supplies and good quality provision for sanitation, health care, schools and other services.

What make cities grow?

In the past lecture we looked at the economic benefits of agglomeration and how firms can capitalize on agglomeration for more effective businesses. We showed that there are certain prime areas that would be much more profitable for firms (usually at the city core). We assumed that if we provide firms with the best opportunities to thrive, the city is most likely to grow with a thriving economy. The question now is, to what extent cities can afford to allocate such prime spots to firms/industries. It is to be noted that, cities whose growth has been driven by such economic/political considerations are struggling today. The end result is a city core devoted to commercial/industry oriented activities that is dull & without life.

What is bad about growth?

All trends show that urban growth is impossible & not economically feasible to counter. Cities are drivers of economic growth producing a major percentage of a country’s wealth. People are drawn to these new economic & social opportunities. Many important issues have been raised in the above posts regarding rapidly growing cities. A question we should also ask: Does this mean we have to stop urbanization and move to rural settlements? Going back to the simple model exposed in class, we understood that sprawl is not the solution to the growth of cities. Moving to local economies is not viable; globalisation will move on, we are moving towards global economic development.

How do we minimize the negative aspects linked to urban growth?

What is bad about cities is not the fact that they grow, it is how they grow. The growth of cities poses issues when it is driven by economics alone, ignoring equally important aspects such as the community and the environment. This does not mean that economic growth has to stop. A successful city is one that pushes for economic growth that will enhance/improve the community & the environmental quality at the same time. An example of that is Bogota, Colombia: a city that has left the third world through sustainable smart planning where economics, sociologists & environmentalists worked together to ensure growth in every aspect at the same time. The result is an economically successful city where people are proud to live in.

Cities face economic decisions every day; decisions that may be potential tipping points for their future. Consider Singapore, where population growth is an economic necessity. The true success of influx of foreign labour will depend on how Singapore leverages on this economically driven decision to enhance the overall community living experience & the environment. Here, the lack of land is a blessing in disguise. It excludes sprawl as an option and forces planners to think of innovative ways of creating a denser city that is economically, socially & environmentally sustainable. A successful city is one that enhances its quality of life through smart choices for economic growth. Follow the discussion here…