eroding economic and tax bases, in addition to limited resources and capacity to address deep inequalities, chronic poverty and inadequate infrastructure, let alone unforeseen impacts such as extreme weather events and the COVID-19 pandemic. In these contexts, broadening the base of the economy while simultaneously protecting and rebuilding vulnerable ecosystem services and natural resources and habitats presents a major challenge (Pieterse 2011; Swilling and Annecke 2012).
Environmentally unsustainable economic drivers are compounded by the power relationships that vary by local context but tend to reinforce inequalities within cities. Despite often being the product of long-standing historical relationships, such power structures often still shape the access to, and control over, resources of urban communities. This is true of material resources such as land and housing, as well as intangible resources such as “the right to the city”, livelihood opportunities or education. Crucially, these embedded power structures are a key determinant of the ability to participate in, and influence fundamental decision-making processes pertaining to a just distribution of goods, services and opportunities in urban areas (Agyeman, Bullard and Evans 2003; Levy et al. 2017). The exclusion of large segments of urban populations from these decision-making platforms can shape the contours and possibilities for change and represents a major lock-in that helps maintain the status quo.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted on many of these deeply rooted conditions of urban inequality. All across the globe, ethnic minority groups, indigenous populations, women, the elderly, young people, the homeless and the unemployed, as well as informal workers have suffered disproportionately from its effects. The same inequality is reinforced by policy responses such as ‘social distancing’ and ‘work from home’ requirements. (Aldridge et al. 2020; United Nations 2020; United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women [UN-Women] 2020; Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing 2020; Turok and Visagie 2021). Commentators have been quick to point out how these disproportionate effects are linked to pre-existing inequalities when it comes to housing, access to services (including water, sanitation and health), job types and exposure to pollution. These factors are all material manifestations of unequal social relations in cities. Strikingly, they are the very same markers of vulnerability to “everyday” disaster risks, whose extent and ramifications are being amplified by the effects of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution (Bull-Kamanga et al. 2003; Satterthwaite and Bartlett 2017; Bahn et al. 2020; see also chapter 3).
However, the response to the pandemic has yet to take into account these inequalities. In particular, calls to “build back better” have not seen calls from organized community groups to “building back fairer” (Pérez and Mannan 2020), a call that is closely related to racial justice and equity in many parts of the world. From past experience, existing power structures have proven particularly resistant to change, and have the support of many social institutions, such as education systems. The media, social media and significant
28 GEO for Cities
parts of cultural life (pop culture, film and television) have often sustained unequal and unsustainable urban systems through the promotion of highly consumerist aspirations and general adherence to the status quo. In the political sphere, recent populist movements across the globe seem to be reinforcing long-standing policy paradigms and, in many places, indigenous populations and environmental protectors are seeing their very existence challenged (Greenfield and Watts 2020). The parallel rise of small but vocal “radical” movements in favour of climate action – in some cases articulating a link to major agendas for socioeconomic transformation – appear to support different visions of shared urban futures. However, it is still too early to assess their long-term impact on shifting the political economy within cities.
In the meantime, the deeply rooted structural forces outlined above manifest in urban planning visions and practices that tend to perpetuate business-as-usual practices and behaviours that operate, consciously or unconsciously, in the interests of certain well connected urban and global actors, at the expense of environmentally sustainable urban approaches.
2.3.2 Business-as-usual visions and practices in urban planning
Addressing the deep-seated social and environmental challenges and tensions linked to urbanization requires considering the interconnected nature of the built form, culture, ecosystems, and natural habitats of cities (Chimhowua, Hulmeb and Munroc 2019; United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific [UNESCAP] 2019). In practice, however, urban planning priorities are influenced by complex and conflicting trade- offs. In such instances, the political economy of cities, combined with inertia, often act as barriers to planning’s transformative potential.
Urban planning visions Moving cities towards resilient, socially just, zero-carbon and nature-positive pathways partly relies on visions of urban futures that put environmental and socio-economic sustainability at their core. Yet the process that enables the shift from mainstream urban planning visions to those outlined in chapter 4 remains elusive in practice.
Many cities of the twenty-first century are produced and reproduced through urban visions centred on competitiveness, growth and order as key aspirations. Only passing reference is made to environmental sustainability and equity considerations. The imagery of “global” and “world- class” cities, in particular, still drives many cities worldwide, encouraged by international rankings and the aesthetic skylines of cities like Dubai and Singapore (Roy and Ong 2011). Similarly, modernist city visions remain widespread, even though they are often very different from urban realities, where large numbers of inhabitants live, work and access urban services through informal or self-help processes (Watson 2014). In other contexts, urban planning visions based on ideas of maintaining order are invoked to favour dominant racial, cultural or religious identities under the guise
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146
