Cities of Joy

Published September 27,  2006 by The India Times
By DINESH MOHAN

At
about the same time professionals in Delhi were finalising the First Master Plan
for the city in the early 1960s, Jane Jacobs published her book, The Death and
Life of Great American Cities.

More than 40 years later,
while the Delhi Urban Arts Commission was holding discussions on the future of
Delhi and bulldozers were demolishing slums and destroying unauthorised
structures, Jane Jacobs passed away in Toronto in April 2006.

Her death went almost
unnoticed in India, though her scathing critiques of expressways in cities and
strict zoning laws have strongly influenced the thinking of urban planners all
over the world for more than a generation.

The Death and Life of Great
American Cities questioned the concept of sprawling suburbs, which she showed
killed inner cities and discouraged the growth of safe and economically active
neighbourhoods that develop organically.

A strong proponent of mixed
land use, she further explored these ideas in books such as The Economy of
Cities and Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Her ideas have strong supporters
around the world, and cities that are admired today incorporate most if not all
of her prescriptions.

In North
America, these cities would include Portland (Oregon) and Vancouver (Canada)
that have discouraged building of fast highways inside the city, put constraints
on vehicular traffic, and encourage local small businesses and public markets.

In South America, the most
talked about cities are Curitiba and Bogota, that rejected plans for building a
metro years ago and introduced the concept of bus rapid transit which is being
emulated by dozens of cities the world over.

Bogota has also built over a
hundred kilometres of bicycle tracks and provided air-conditioned libraries for
young people in poor neighbourhoods and parks and public facilities all over.

Some analysts point to these
developments as being responsible for reducing crime rates in the city. In
Europe, Barcelona and Copenhagen have provided citywide bicycle networks,
reduced space for cars on roads, revitalised city squares, pedestrianised large
sections and encouraged local restaurants.

In Melbourne, Australia, a new
heart was created for the city by increasing housing in the city centre, moving
university faculties to attract young people to the centre, and adding and
improving public spaces. Where does this lead us?

Certainly not to slum
demolition, sealing of businesses and into the jaws of bulldozers. We have to
realise that concepts of garden city and strict zoning have proved
counterproductive and unenforceable.

Cities are living organisms,
and like all living organisms thrive on plurality of experience, self-organising
structures and innovation.

Monoculture, artificial drugs,
stress on a few organs and favouring one limb over another leads to disease and
cancer.

How do we translate
these thoughts to promotion of vibrant cities? People of all incomes have to be
brought centrestage in the concept of mixed land use.

It is only when rich and poor
neighbourhoods are placed cheek-by-jowl that we encourage efficiency in job
opportunities, transport management, energy conservation, pollution abatement
and crime reduction.

With
this kind of land use all members of a poor family can walk or cycle to work and
maximise employment opportunities in richer people’s homes and offices.

This reduces demand for
motorised travel with all its beneficial consequences. When more adults are
employed and spend less money and time on travel they give more attention and
facilities to their children.

A sure prescription for a
happier and better educated youth. Demolishing slums and sending poor people to
the periphery of the city can only have exactly the opposite results and
encourage formation of criminal gangs among disaffected teenagers.

Optimal policies for mixed
land use cannot come with detailed prescriptions for what people can do behind
four walls of their properties, and where.

This just promotes inspector
raj accompanied with all its externalities. Monitoring should be continuous and
out in the open.

This is
possible if we make laws about how activity inside a building affects neighbours
outside. We should not really care about what someone does inside –
whether he runs an office, shop, restaurant or a banquet hall.

In any case, this can be
hidden. However, if we have stringent laws to control the effect of these
activities on the neighbourhood, then we might get an efficient self-organising
system.

We have to set
standards for parking on streets, price it and make arrangements for punishing
defaulters. Scientific methods can be put in place to measure pollution and
noise on the streets, and res-ponsibility for surveillance given to RWAs,
contractors or NGOs with suitable safeguards.

Traffic-calming methods to
reduce speeds can be introduced in all neighbourhoods to promote safety of
children. If we bring regulation out in the open it can be enforced in a
transparent manner.

Owners of
businesses and offices will locate themselves in areas where they can easily and
profitably conduct their trade.

Visitors to a wedding in a
banquet hall located in a residential area will arrive in buses or taxis and
have a quiet ceremony.

Small
neighbourhood restaurants that do not pollute, make noise, or need parking will
make our lives more colourful and fulfilling.

It is time to move away from
use restrictions to performance
criteria.

The
writer is with IIT Delhi.