Reimagining our big cities

Reimagining our big cities

One of the reasons big cities are earning a bad name is their inability to mobilise money for infrastructure development...

Many of us would have seen a sticker — usually stuck on the back of a small car — that cheekily proclaims: “When I grow up, I want to be a Mercedes.” If Chennai were a car, maybe it would have said, “When I grow up, I want to be like London or New York.”

Cities across the world have been pushing themselves hard to be the next London or New York. The reasons are not hard to seek: over several decades now economists have been celebrating cities not just as a magic pill to get the world rid of poverty but as a turbo-charged engine that can transport people to a land of eternal prosperity. In fact, a UN Habitat report calls cities “the highest pinnacles of human creation”. The same report also says that by 2050, two-thirds of the global population will be living in urban areas; the World Bank estimates that the developing world will account for over 90 per cent of urban growth. Now the question is: do the developing countries really understand the rules of the game they are so keen on playing?

Vasanth Srinivasan As the recent deluge in Chennai indicates, the “urban growth at any cost” strategy seems to be coming home to roost. Not that nobody saw it coming: a 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group report says emerging global climate risks are concentrated in urban sprawls.
So is urbanisation with big urban agglomerations a flawed model? In other words, does the future belong to smaller but easily manageable cities? Expert opinion seems mixed.

Durganand Balsavar, principal architect, Artes — Human Settlement Development Collaborative, says a network of smaller urban centres is a better alternative. “A large urban agglomeration cannot be made the norm. The location of the city, environmental conditions, resources have to be considered.” Some experts say the opposite is true: big cities, given their density and spread, are capable of bringing in transformative changes with long-term sustainable benefits. Says Raj Cherubal, director, Chennai City Connect, an organisation that collaborates with the government on urban planning and governance: “What we should address is mindless growth. Small or big does not matter.”

Defining cities

If we are talking planned growth, then, as Mr. Cherubal asks, “What and where is the city? In Chennai, for example, the lakes are the responsibility of the Public Works Department, the suburban train is with the Central government, the Mass Rapid Transport System is Centre plus State, the Metro is State, some roads are with the National Highways Authority of India. This is not what you would see in cities such as Paris or London where all the functions are with the city.”

Assuming big cities are beasts that can be tamed, what route does one take? Transit-oriented development (TOD) — a high-density commercial-cum-residential area situated within a radius of 1 km from a transit station (could be a metro, train or bus stop) — is what he prescribes.

While Hong Kong, which is comparable with Chennai in terms of area and population, is a good example of a successful TOD model, the Houston or Atlanta model — with people spreading out farther and farther away from the core city — is being cited as a bad growth template. “The inner core cities should have a big tax base for supporting its own infrastructure too,” explains Mr. Cherubal.

Raising resources

One of the reasons big cities are earning a bad name is their inability to mobilise money for infrastructure development and upkeep, a universal problem that is more acute in India given our dismal track record in decentralisation.

The noble intention behind the Nagarpalika Act (that aims to empower urban local bodies) brought through the 74th Constitutional Amendment often does not get translated into action, as local bodies wait for the State or Centre’s nod for many things, particularly fund mobilisation.

This is also where the concept of “land value capture” that works in consonance with TOD assumes importance. A public financing model, it is designed to recover some or all of the money spent on public infrastructure by extracting the value that such an infrastructure has created for private landowners (in terms of appreciation in the value of the property). It usually takes the form of an ad valorem property tax.

The two capitals model

The problems faced by big cities have also rekindled the “two capitals” debate. However, M.G. Devasahayam, a former IAS officer and an expert in urban development and governance, says the idea is outdated. “If you find Chennai crowded today, it is not because it is the seat of government. Commercial activities need not be concentrated in Chennai. Places such as Coimbatore and Tiruchi have a good industrial base. We should develop these places.”

As Mr. Balsavar says, devolution needs to go hand in hand with capacity-building and awareness at the ward level. Adds Mr. Devasahayam: “Go for regional administrators, vest them with power and make four-five collectors report to him. Make a visit to the capital redundant.”

But administrative decentralisation without empowering people is a road to nowhere. As policymakers reimagine the concept of the “big city”, they need to address the sense of alienation that rapid urbanisation brings with it. As Ceasar McDowell, professor of the Practice of Community Development at Massachusetts Institute of Technology points out, “What we understand about democracy is that most people have opted out. So, you have to ask people in the form they’re used to having conversations in, and you have to show up where they are.”

This is where implementing the 74th Amendment in letter and spirit could make a “big” difference.

67 people reached