Cities Of Joy
Mixed land use makes for spatial, economic sense
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 responsibility 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.


URL :
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDA2LzA5LzI4I0FyMDE4MDA=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom