Informal Cities

Swiped from the Africa Unchained blog:

An excerpt from Robert Neuwirth's Lecture 'The Extroverted City of System D' a contribution to the book Open City:

In Lagos, everything is informal. The bus system is informal—the government got out of mass transit business decades ago (though it has recently stepped back into public transport with a bus rapid transit line) and the system that includes more than 75,000 danfos was held together informally by the National Union of Road Transport Workers as one-part mass transit and one-part Ponzi scheme. One of the largest formal supermarkets in Lagos buys most of its product from informal wholesalers. Some major multinationals here distribute their products through informal networks. And informal merchants invest in the formal world.

Authorities in the city acknowledge that as much as 80 percent of the work force—and Lagos has between nine and 17 million inhabitants, depending on where you draw the boundaries and who’s doing the counting—is involved in the informal sector. The federal government also suggests that somewhere around 60 to 70 percent of the country’s economic activity derives in some way from the informal sector—and this means that, in aggregate, merchants like Prince Chidi Onyeyirim and Fatai Agbalaya are more important to Nigeria’s future than Shell, Mobil, and Chevron, the multinational oil giants that pump sweet crude from the Niger River Delta.

As Mega-Cities continue to explode in population around the world (particularly in Africa) they continue to stretch the conceptual frameworks of what cities were meant to be and how they are organized. Most modern cities may appear to chaotic but when examined closely, they are heavily structured and organized systems that control and dictate the flow of traffic, development, water, sewage, air and open space. The lack of those uniform structural systems in dense urban places creates chaos and challenges the belief of whether that urban place is truly a defined city jurisdiction with a definitive boundaries to the city's power of influence and control. The uninformed mega-cities of today have no beginnings and endings to the jurisdiction's scope of power.

Will Africa soon become an Urban Continent?

According to the Economist, maybe so...

"…Africa is still something of a demographic outlier compared with the rest of the developing world. Long berated (or loved) as the sleepiest continent, it has now become the fastest-growing and fastest-urbanising one. Its population has grown from 110m in 1850 to 1 billion today. Its fertility rate is still high: the average woman born today can expect to have five children in her child-bearing years, compared with just 1.7 in East Asia. Barring catastrophe, Africa’s population will reach 2 billion by 2050. To get a sense of this kind of increase, consider that in 1950 there were two Europeans for every African; by 2050, on present trends, there will be two Africans for every European (see chart 1).

…One African in two is a child. The numbers are such that traditional ways of caring for children in extended families and communities are breaking down…

…Africa’s rate of urbanisation is the fastest the world has ever seen, says Anna Tibaijuka, the head of Habitat, the UN agency responsible for urban development. In 1950 only Alexandria and Cairo exceeded 1m people. When the city rush is done, Africa may have 80 cities with more than 1m people, plus a cluster of megacities headed by Kinshasa, Lagos and Cairo—none of which show signs of mass starvation. Intermediary towns of 50,000-100,000 people will soak up most of those coming from the countryside. Urbanisation is part of the solution to Africa’s demographic problems, not a manifestation of them."

The biggest question I have is whether African cities will adopt city planning methods to strategically plan and control growth and not let new development grow haphazardly as seen in other developing nations. There are several urban locales in South and Southeast Asia that have dense populations of 1 million people or more but they hard to define as cities. They appear to be more of a collection of dense high rise developments or communities that all function independently of each other. The same can be said of many current African cities today. Hopefully small African cities now that are expected to explode in population can implement plans now before they become overrun with major developments.

Another question I have for anyone to answer is how will Africa becoming a more urban continent change your perception of the continent?

The World's Next Mega City: Lagos, Nigeria

Lagos, Nigeria is experiencing unprecedented growth which is triggering a whole host of problems for the city and the region. Some of the problems are normal for a rapidly expanding city but unlike other mega cities, Lagos is almost devoid of any master-planned infrastructure. For a city of 12-18 million which continues to grow (estimates indicate if will be the 3rd largest city in the world by 2020), resources such as clean water, garbage disposal and running electricity continue to frustrate residents.

Not to paint a picture of Lagos as a an overcrowded slum or shantytown but it is a city of contrasts. The city is also a city of massive wealth that is currenly constructing multiple billion dollar developments to suite the needs of it's rising middle class and wealthy residents. At the same time many wonder whether these new developments will still be plagued with the old problems of running electricity and proper drainage.

To give you and idea about how fast this city has grown, the city of Lagos only had 300,000 residents in 1950. In 2020, it is predicted to have over 23 million people within the city. Imagine Toledo, Ohio blossoming into New York City in a span of fifty years.

But the reason that I am posting about Lagos is because I am interested in how developers and government plan developments for a mega-city. Recently Slate Magazine ran a 5 article piece about Lagos about Growth with or without planning. In the article, I found these quotes about planning very interesting,

"Most places do planning before development," said Moses Ogun of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners. "Here they do development and building before they've done the planning. I call it disjointed incrementalism."

The architects of the 1998 city master plan promised to develop 28 new districts in Lagos and ease congestion, but they didn't follow through, according to Ogun. Only 15 percent of the 1985 master plan was implemented.

I wonder if any idea of a master plan has to be thrown out the window without complete tear downs of certain parts of the city to install new infrastructure and better streets (sort of like what Paris and London did in the 17th centuries to clear out slums and create grand avenues). At this point the horse has been let out of the barn but some type of planning has to be put in place just for human health and environmental conditions alone. Any thoughts...how would you solve this conundrum?

Eko Atlantic - The New Lagos

An interesting video showing how planners and engineers are trying to save the Lagos waterfront from the Ocean while planning a new island of development that will be roughly the size of Manhatten.

Urbanizing Africa

A recent report in The Standard showed that African cities are now growing faster then their economies which is causing about whether current infrastructure in these cities can handle a booming population. The article reports:

"The State of African Cities 2008’, the African continent, which is the least urbanised region in the world with 39 per cent of its population living in the cities, is also reported to be the fastest urbanising region.

...Equally alarming is that not only is the African continent transforming into an urban majority, but urban life has become intertwined with a host of developmental challenges."

The urbanization of Africa could bring about a radical shift in the economies, culture and politic of many African nations. Unfortunately, just like many other parts of the world, new residents are now entering cities to enjoy urban living but rather out of survival. Like other parts of the world, farmers and agricultural societies can no longer support themselves on the yield of the land due to a host of economic and environmental factors. Many are moving to cities as the last resort, only to end up in an overcrowded slum or shanteytown.

Some experts predict that there are over 2 Billion people in the world living in slums today. Hopefully the urbanization of Africa won't add to that number and planners along with governments will learn from other countries problems. The report continues to state:

"To address traffic congestion, pollution and rising traffic fatalities, the report suggests that cities should consider options that reduce the reliance on private cars."

Maybe this is step in the right direction. Your thoughts?

Privatised cities

This is a very interesting documentary about Private contract cities in suburbab Atlanta and their secession from Fulton County.

The Clip's Bio:
When the government of the city of Sandy Springs in Georgia decided to bring in a multinational corporation to run all of the city's services - with the exception of police and firefighting - it effectively became the first fully privatized city in the world.

It's a trend that is already spreading fast, with four new cities launched in the last three years, all of them run by the same company, defence contractors CH2M Hill.

Rider Paradox: Surge in Mass, Drop in Transit

The New York Times recently ran an article called, Rider Paradox: Surge in Mass, Drop in Transit, detailing how many transit agencies have to drastically cut their budgets and workers despite an overall increase in ridership.

The article lays out the crux of the problem here:

"Their problem is that fare-box revenue accounts for only a fifth to a half of the operating revenue of most transit systems — and the sputtering economy has eroded the state and local tax collections that the systems depend on to keep running. “We’ve termed it the ‘transit paradox,’ ” said Clarence W. Marsella, general manager of Denver’s system, which is raising fares and cutting service to make up for the steep drop in local sales tax.

The billions of dollars that Congress plans to spend on mass transit as part of the stimulus bill will also do little to help these systems with their current problems. That is because the new federal money — $12 billion was included in the version passed last week by the House, while the Senate originally proposed less — is devoted to big capital projects, like buying train cars and buses and building or repairing tracks and stations."

Sadly now for decades many transit agencies are now solely dependent on government funding and not transit fares which have shrinking nationally for decades since the 1960's. Nationally only one transit system is actually producing a profit for transit fares, which is BART, the Bay Area Regional Transit which serves the San Francisco area. Even the New York City Metro which is the most used transit system and the lifeline to the city does not produce a profit.

“Public transportation ridership is surging across the country,” he wrote, “increasing 6.5 percent in the third quarter of 2008 — the largest quarterly increase in the past 25 years, but transit systems are cutting service, increasing fares and laying off employees as a result of increased transit fuel costs in the past year and declining state and local revenue sources that support transit.”

The cutting of public transit has a double whammy effect on the already struggling economy. Not only do transit jobs get lost but those that depend on public transit now after to find an alternate means to work. Assuming individuals who depend on travel could purchase a car, banks are now only lending to people with outstanding credit which eliminates a large segment of people, especially those who live in low income neighborhoods who would be affected the most.

Overall this is very grim news for those who live in cities and depend on transit. Major restructuring of transit agencies need to be done as well as upgrading the existing infrastructure. Since most transit agencies depend on federal funding and new infrastructure will be most likely paid by the Federal government, should the county consider nationalizing public transit?

What do you think?

Urbanizing Dallas

The City of Dallas and it's city planners are looking to introduce a formal zoning code to try to curb unregulated sprawl and to increase development in downtown neighborhoods. For those of you that are unfamiliar with Texas and their land use laws, you should that Texans are fiercely pro-property rights and are against any government regulation. So much so, that it is against the law for a planning official to label a zoning map an official government document. Texas zoning or land use maps or more recommendations.

What does this mean when it comes to city development? It means that anyone can subdivide their land almost as many times as they want and construct a development as large as they desire...anywhere. No matter the scale or appropriateness of that development. This means that a 70 story skyscraper can be placed outside of a downtown next to a freeway exit with no other large office development nearby (Houston, Tx).

So what is the big deal of allowing the market to determine development, the last thing we need in this economy is for government to stifle growth of businesses and construction, right? Well the problem is that these cities are inefficient and non-sustainable and actually cost tax payers more money to provide services to sprawling developments then it would it city developments were dense and compact. Wherever development goes, infrastructure has to follow. That means, highways, roads, bridges, power, water, schools, police, fire, ambulance all have to provided for large developments no matter how far or inconvenient. All of these services are expensive and they tax the residents of existing development even more to pay up front for services to another development that they will most likely never use.

Besides the monetary expenses of development there are other consequences in allowing sprawl. One of the most harmful consequences is pollution. Houston is now one of the country's most polluted cities because of smog. Texas cities are dependent on freeways for travel. In Dallas,the mere mention of a subway system brings out strong protest. Other factors, are quality of life factors and having those that normally dependent on public transit forced to seek automobile transit some how, some way.

Despite all of the negative consequences, there are Texas planners that vehemently oppose zoning and hold up their cities as a model of success purely on the fact that their cities continue to grow while East coast cities (the cities with zoning codes) continue to shrink. While it is true that East coast zoning codes have become burdensome encyclopedia of regulations, allowing the market to dictate development is even more troubling. Remember parts of the code exist because the market had no problem cramming workers into dumbell tenement housing that lacked air, light, sewer and trash disposal.

In Dallas, the continued pattern of suburban growth and increased population has planners looking for better solutions. While Dallas planners are still not in favor of traditional zoning, which is based on prohibiting land uses, they are looking toward the new urbanist approach of "Form Based Zoning" which promotes land uses on coded streets that a community would to see. From a recent article:

"The solution most proposed was 'form-based zoning,' which encourages developers to purchase large tracts of land on which to develop dense urban areas near transit stations and along the Trinity River.

It’s kind of like college vs. the real world. In college, parties just sort of happen. As adults, parties come with the cumbersome trappings of invitations and phone calls, dates, times and places to meet up.

In districts with the proposed zoning ordinances, Dallas-ites can live and have fun in the same vicinity: they spend an evening wandering around, stumble upon a new coffee shop, see a movie, find a nice place to sit and talk, have a beer, run into friends, and walk home in a single night."

Hopefully Dallas Planners can convince it's council to implement a new urban zoning code. And hopefully other cities not just in Texas but in suburban locales all across this county can do the same. In an country that is 80% urbanized we can no longer continue are pattern of sub-urban growth. As a country we can not afford the infrastructure and as of last summer, we could not afford the gas for our commute. Our post World War II development patterns can no longer continue, we must create a new pattern of development for a new generation of people that is sustainable and not over extend our local governments like a proverbial credit card as they bank on future growth which may not happen.

Creating Public Works Jobs to Rebuild Cities

Today, the mayors of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami spoke at the Conference of Mayors om Washington today to lobby the Federal Government for what they call, "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects that would provide critical city improvements and jobs.

"Over the last eight years, there's been ... an absence of investment in cities, whether it's the infrastructure, public transportation, bridges, highways, schools, hospitals," Los Angeles, California, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said at a news conference on Capitol Hill. "We are here not for a bailout, but to present a recovery plan."

The news conference coincided with the Conference of Mayors' release of a list of 11,391 "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects that would cost $73.1 billion. The report surveyed 427 cities across the country and includes roads, bridges, schools, city halls and other public works projects. The report says that those projects would create 847,641 jobs.

To read more, click here.

As someone who lives on the east coast of the U.S., I am biased for the Feds to help cities "recover" the infrastructure funding. Anyone who lives in a city on eastern seaboard or in a rustbelt city can tell you that parts of the infrastructure in these cities are old and outdated and would cost billions of dollars to repair. Now I don't need to remind everybody of the calamity that could happen if these repairs don't happen like with the levy walls in New Orleans or the bridge collapse in Minneapolis but fixing these problems now will cost a lot cheap then waiting for the infrastructure to eventually fail.

If the Federal Government were to seriously fund public transportation upgrades and infrastructure it would not only help reduce sprawl and energy but also revitalize cities and create jobs as more people are now more willing to live in cities or closer to cities.