DEFINING BETTER CITIES
In 1997, when I was still a UC Berkeley student, I was undertaking research for my Master’s thesis in Portland, Oregon. The Portland case offers several policy insights and real-life examples to conceptualize what may possibly make a better city, although every city could be a better city in its own right. I felt that Portland’s case is relevant here, as it is also a valley having similar setting as the Kathmandu valley.
Although bigger in size, it is quite similar from a geographic and administrative perspective. Thus, it will be easier to draw comparisons in terms of how we are doing and what we could do. By doing so, my idea here is to come to define what a better city could possibly be.
Among some initiatives of Portland that I observed, the first was an enforcement of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This is an imaginary line drawn on the map, which separates urban and rural areas. By doing so, the Metropolitan Authority had achieved several objectives, one being that it had clearly identified spaces where the city should grow. Beyond the line, the designated rural area comprised of natural resource areas such as agricultural land.
Consequently, miles of buffer space of agricultural land—essentially a green belt—was created encircling the metropolitan area, but this vital tract of land also produced food and vegetables for the city. As a result, in Portland, the UGB formed an important basis—or one may say an overarching policy initiative that would direct or coordinate all other policy interventions. With the regional UGB policy enforcement in place, Portland had decided to grow collectively rather than individually and in a fragmented manner. Urban growth and the UGB were managed by the elected regional planning authority, which coordinated several local governments and utility boundaries.
The second was the prescient laying down of miles of Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the barren peripheral areas inside the urban growth boundary. I found this very impressive. This was baffling to me then as there were no settlements beside or at proximity to the light rail stations. As I later found out, the light rail was being laid to guide the future population growth of the city around the stations of the LRT corridor. With UGB disallowing the outward city expansion to the agricultural land, the private land market processes were essentially directed toward the LRT corridor and to the central city.
The third was an enforcement of a car-free zone in the central city. In lieu, not only had they promoted a decent pedestrian environment but they had also provided an efficient public transportation service in the form of LRT and buses with a dedicated bus lane. This was a part of the Central City Revitalization Plan that Portland had adopted to promote business with as much people as possible on foot. This has also made the core of the city as lively and prosperous as the peripheral business centers.
The fourth was the promotion of infill-development comprising of high-density apartments and condominiums in the central city, all of which boasted decent living conditions. The city was intending to grow compact rather than become loose and scattered—having an assortment of mixed settings filled with facilities and amenities.
The fifth was increasing external investment comprising of multinational firms and creation of jobs.
The above case provides several important insights and lessons. Better cities evolve with better foresight and vision. Visionary political leadership and pertinacious commitment is an impeccable attribute required in this pursuit. The case also reveals that a sustainable goal, which emphasizes a judicious balance between a city and nature, is critical. This balance may further be achieved by coordinating elements of infrastructure, housing, land use and transportation. Also, urban governance is a pivotal element in the realization of these features, which includes collective planning while respecting local empowerment and decentralization.
As opposed to the above state, the cities in the developing countries are increasingly plagued by poor governance unable to cope with the pressure of urbanization. Lagging infrastructure services, environmental degradation and urban poverty are becoming common features. Cities are becoming divided between the affluent and the deprived. Whether it is sukumbasi bustees in Kathmandu, jhuggi-jhopris in Mumbai, favelas in Rio de Janeiro—all these tend to reveal growing deprivation, exclusion and segregation in the cities. This penury may have stemmed from racial or ethnic discrimination, lagging individual entitlements or the consequent inaccessibility to housing amenities. The populations of such groups are the most vulnerable, often bearing the brunt of the impact of hazards, market failures and fear of state intervention. In spite of this, they are also the most voiceless, and widely neglected in the development process despite their significant contribution through informal sector economy.
The concern, however, is that this condition of deprivation and exclusion when neglected for long often fuels animosity against the wealthy, social strife and conflict. The fight against this threatening plight is a challenge that the cities in Nepal are confronting today. The growth in the number of squatter settlements from about a dozen in 1985 to a projected six times that number by 2010 in the Kathmandu valley alone is a testimony to this growing threat and inadequacies of our policies. Already, it is being reported that the incidence of inequality is highest in Nepal among the South Asian countries. Similarly, the continuous report of the migration of youth from the towns and cities of Nepal to other parts of world is another disturbing indicator of the economic health of our cities.
Given a fragmented institutional arrangement in the context of urban planning and implementation, and a deeply-rooted skepticism toward collective planning, effective urban governance is still a difficult proposition that will require determined political leadership to bring it to fruition.
This contrast between Kathmandu and Portland further reveals that social equity and inclusion are fundamental dimensions of city planning and development. A city may be better-off in terms of physical facilities and amenities. However, unless these facilities and amenities or its benefits are distributed in an equitable manner, the deprived denizens may not enjoy life and have pride in their homes and identity. Only an inclusive city offers a prospect for better life. Therefore, generically, a better city may mean an urban concentration: One which maintains a balance between environment, equity, and economy where every citizen enjoys fairly good living conditions and ubiquitous basic facilities and amenities including income opportunities.
MEETING THE CHALLENGES
Ensuing policy and plan interventions have to focus increasingly on urban poverty and the plight of the slums and the squatters. Economic growth is imperative for reducing poverty. For example, China’s spectacular economic growth is the reason behind reduction of poverty. In fact, the government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper in 2002 has already laid out numerous strategies to deal with poverty. These strategies include multi-sectoral economic growth, investment for critical infrastructures, targeted interventions for deprived and poor and good governance. These strategies are inter-connected in a manner that non-performance of any one of these four strategies will have ramifications on the rest. However, given the slow pace of our national economy and little sign of improvement, it is unlikely that factors related to poverty shall disappear anytime soon.
Similarly, the government efforts thus far with regards to localizing and internalizing Agenda 21 – the Rio Declaration of 1992 on Environment and Development – and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially connected to improving shelter provisions and reducing slum dwellers, remain inadequate. It is necessary that national targets and indicators for urban slum improvement are set without delay. At present, a prepared policy for the rehabilitation of genuine squatters from the flood plains of the Kathmandu valley, which has been on the table for quite some time, is in dire need of an early government approval. Only actions will show Nepal’s adherence to international commitments.
Similarly, the National Urban Policy (2007) undergoing implementation is also in a nascent stage. The implementation of the policy is expected to reduce regional disparity as well as improve urban prosperity and management. Its internalization process at both the national level and local level is in progress, and its dividends are likely to be seen only after some time. The efforts of Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DUDBC) in the past few years – with the support of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) – in improving urban environment improvement in several municipalities of the country have been well-directed. Especially the development and provision of sewer, drainage, sanitation, water supply systems and now landfill sites, which are associated with improving conditions of public health, is laudable. This is expected to help the poor as well. However, as we move forward, we have to critically examine to what an extent our current efforts are helpful to the cause of the urban poor.
The current departmental effort to enhance municipal capacity is also important. In fact, this is a pre-condition for improved urban governance. Our persistent work in helping municipalities to prepare their periodic plans is yielding results. Not only has this brought municipalities within a plan framework, the entire planning process has also provided the municipal denizens an important forum to have their voices heard in municipal decision-making and development process. This has a special significance, especially when there are still no elected representatives in the local bodies. Despite this, there are still areas in both content and process that need simplification in municipal periodic planning. However, the implementation of municipal periodic plans remains a formidable challenge. More sustainable ways to improving municipal revenue must be found and implemented. Similarly, the challenge of establishing greater municipal transparency and accountability remain, especially in regards to municipal spending.
Given a fragmented institutional arrangement in the context of urban planning and implementation, and a deeply-rooted skepticism toward collective planning, effective urban governance is still a difficult proposition that will require determined political leadership to bring it to fruition.
Writer is Deputy Director General, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction
msubba@wlink.com.np
Related story
Prime Life, Union Life and Gurans Life ink a merger agreement
