Sustainability of City or Local People?

The best indicator of gauging the sustainability of a city is to ask the people whelther they are happy or not? This question was raised by me towards the speaker in the Seminar entitled Developing London: Up or Out last two day. Obviously, Londoners are facing a big dilemma now. While internationalisation has spurred the economic growth in London, the influx of foreigners has affected the affordability of local to own houses, the opportunity for economic activities and jobs. Planning and managing a city is about making people happy with their living environment. If the beneficiaries of the plan are not happy with what in store for them, then the planning is planning to fail. So, when we talk about sustainability, we should qualify by saying whelther we are talking about sustainability of the city or sustainability of the people. Nowasday we always talk about the competitiveness of the city and if a city loss her competitiveness, the sustainability of the city will be gone as well. This, perhaps refer to the economic growth dimension of sustainability. However, is there fair of saying that a sustainable city with high achievement on economic is also a sustainable city for the people. We see many local people who has been displaced by the externality. The high price of houses because of international investment for example made many local people cannot afford to own a house. Many young generation has no choice but move further out from the inner city. The displacement of local people and replaced by the outside has further diluted the spirit of neighbourhood area and also local social amenities and community development were affected. Community spirit cannot be inculcated over night and need a lot of time, mutual understanding, tolerence amongst different segment of people. However, the outsiders who come to a new area will not be able to integrate with the existing community, and at time social tension did arise due to differences in culture, religions and social status. More so, some dwelling units remain unoccupied due to investment purpose will further dilute the liveability of a neighbourhood area. If this is what happened, then sustainability is obviously did not take place and fail even though the economic sustainability is very high and vibrant. For planners, how to narrow this gap is becoming very critical, ensuing the competitiveness of city, liveability of local people and sustainability ecologically.

Need Limit

Need should be quantified and within a set limit. Need cannot be provided unlimited. For example, when we talk about basic need such as water consumption of 165 liter/person/day, we are talking about the habit of average person in the World to fulfill their daily routine include some luxury habits or items. However, if we go about fulfilling biological need for water, it might be able to reduce and below that figure. In Singapore, for instance the average consumption is 156 liter/person/day and nobody claims that their quality of living has been affected. Thereby, need should be quantified and limited under local circumstances. A city pursuing for sustainability should set the need limit in parallel with the sustainability principles and bottom lines. No point of talking about sustainability on social dimension such as political, economy and cultural as highlighted in the Circles of Sustainability under the Global Compact Cities Programmes but sidelined the ecological aspect. As Gandhi once said, the World can fulfill the need of everyone but the not greed of people. A balancing act must be done, and it is long way to go, I believe.

Market for Planning

Planners always believe that planning is important to make sure that the human settlement is well planned and conducive for staying. In other words, without proper planning, the city development might not be systematic and in good order. However, in reality the city is planned and developed by the market. It is market demand and need that spur the direction and magnitude of development, in which planning is mere a tool to steer and guide this demand. For example, the demand for living in city centre and close to the work place has requested the development of apartment in the inner city centre area. The planning, has subsequently come out with the guidelines on service apartment development. We can plan, but if the market is not response well to the planning, then it will end up of failure of planning. Cases like industrial and commercial zones reserved in the new township development without takers are classic example. Although the authorities can plan and to push up the implementation of plan by providing incentives, the success of the plan is still very much depended on the market, I believe.

Circles of Sustainability

Circles of sustainability taking into account the dimensions of ecology, economy, political and cultural. It is arguing that all except ecology, should be place under the dimension of social since these are about human being. Sustainability is not about well being of the people only, it is also about carrying capacity of the ecological system in harmony with fulfilling the need of the people. However, when it comes to making a choice between liveability and sustainability, people tend to place importance onto the well being instead of the environment. Hence, it is not surprisingly to note that some most liveable cities in the World today, are not ecologically sustainable. For example, the consumption of electricity and water is higher in these cities because people would like to have high end of life style. Thereby, it is arguable to examine exactly how sustainable a city is even though it is liveable. Most of the time since the inception of sustainable development concept and principles, we spoke about integrating and balancing the dimensions of social, environment and economy. However, the paradox is always how to make sure economical growth can be ensured and it possible to grow within the limit of the ecological system, and if not in which it happen most of the time, is to remedy it. That's why Kyoto Protocol was reached to reduce the carbon emission and was in relation to the GDP intensity. In this respect, we are merely talking about solutions of making our unsustainable urban development more sustainable.

Public Reserved Land for Private Use

Is privately owned social facilities considered as part of the public facilities that are required to be provided for in any property development projects? For example, is the privately managed but Government accredited primary school be counted? While the need for education demand is fulfilled, the school is not opened and accessible to general public, especially if you cannot afford to pay the fees. Similarly, how about the postal service? Since postal service has been privatised and the post offices are establishing in the commercial premises, thus the question is wheather the reserve land for postal service is still required or the agency can have their own property portfolio. It is difficult now to demarcate clearly on the status of facilities or utilities. The reserve of land has to be done based on usage of facilities and not the ownership. If a piece of land has been demarcated for public use, then rightly so the land should be returned to public domain if the land is no more needed for public use. The question of utilities agencies, for example converting their land for other profitable use after discovering that the reserve land is not required any more. For example, the availability of extra land because of building a mechanical sewerage treatment plant in place of oxsidation pond which occupy bigger piece of land.

Future Cities

I attended the Expert Talk entitled The Future Cities last week. Future Cities are the cities people would like to stay and everyone will have their own vitality. The concept of Future Cities arises because it is projected that more than 70% of World population will be living in the urban area by year 2050. Hence, cities that conducive for living is crucial to accommodate to the need of these people. Rightly so, as city without a good living environment and opportunities will loss out to other cities offering better condition, and thus loss the competitiveness and vibrancy. My question however, is that what happen to the 30% people who are living in the so called "rural" area? Are we saying that the living environment in the "rural" area is so futuristic that no further action is required? Or are we saying that these people have no future since they are no staying in any of the future cities? Then again, future cities must be resilient on overcoming environmental degradation, emerging of aging society, challenges from the globalisation and also capitalising on local competencies. While aging and globalisation is unavoidable and progressively happen over time and in fast pace in which most of the time beyond control and influence, local competencies are something that any city managers and stakeholders should explore further. A city with future vision must explore their advantages and transform it effectively or else the competitive edge of the city will be diminished.

Cumulative of "Wrongdoings"

When it comes to using public space for own benefit, most of the people will say nothing wrong and presumbly they deserve it. This is rampant in especially house owners turf the road reserve in front of their house for parking their cars or for planting. Some even having the structure or concrete slab over the open drain. It looks like acceptable to the society norm for encroaching onto public space in front of our house or building premises. It is also commonly seen that tyres, drums, chairs or any objects be placed onto the car parking lot in front of shops as a sign of pre-booking of the public facilities, and without any payment. No businessman felt ashame for their doing which is morally wrong. There are business operators placing their products and goods on the corridor and some even blocking the passage. Some traders conducting their business on open space and some pour the waste water or kitchen waste into the drain like what many have done for their house backyard. Many people nail the signboard on trees, hang the poster on lamp post or plant the billboard on any where they like without feeling sorry to the mother earth. All these look like acceptable and can be tolerated. Are not these disconnects with liveable city cumulative negative effects to the discontent of city dwellers? Why are we so angry towards development projects and objecting emotionally? Isn't it good to treat all "wrongdoing" equally?