Megacities

Towards the Megacities Solution
report of the proceedings of the Jubilee Congress Megacities Foundation
27 & 28 November 2008

The first day of the Megacities Foundation Jubilee Congress, with sustainability as its central theme, was considered to be the University Day. Researchers presented their studies upon different facets of the phenomenon of megacities. In the evening landscape architect Adriaan Geuze delivered the tenth Megacities Lecture. The second day (Congress Day) was devoted to the lectures of three keynote speakers, who presented their more comprehensive views upon the phenomenon of megacities.

The congress started with a word of welcome by professor Jan Rots, dean of the Faculty of Architecture of the Delft University of Technology that hosted the congress. It was followed by an introduction by the moderator: Aaron Betsky, director of the Cincinnati Art Museum and curator of the 11th Venice Architecture Biennale 2008.

Mr. Betsky introduced the theme of the congress by posing the question what megacities are. The usual view of a city with a dense core and suburban surroundings does not apply anymore. Instead, megacities should be seen as carpets of urbanization with moments of density and intensity. They show the symptoms of the overall dissolution of fixed forms that can be seen in a much wider field. As the familiar planning instruments are hardly usable any more, new regional planning methods are needed. These should be based upon democratic decision processes and the prevention of social exclusion.

Urban researcher Arjen van Susteren once more posed the question about the nature of the metropolis. He showed parts of his Metropolitan World Atlas (2005), in which he presents an overview of 101 world metropolises. To enable comparisons these metropolises are represented on the same scale, with data on among other things population, density and travel time. According to Mr. Van Susteren the essential feature of a metropolis is its connection to three major networks: sea, air and data traffic. In all these networks the Randstad performs very well. In Mr. Van Susteren’s view the analysis of metropolises must account of the interaction between ‘performance’ (its effects), ‘operation’ (how it works) and ‘configuration’ (what it looks like).

Iain Reid presented some of the results of his research on ‘design led urban regeneration’ in Glasgow and Stoke onTrent. Both British cities suffer from physical deterioration, social problems and economic decline. One of Mr. Reid’s conclusions is that means to make cities more attractive – such as hosting the National Garden Festival or the gentrification of neighbourhoods – do not automatically lead to social improvements. He pleaded for a more holistic, design led approach that includes the tackling of social issues.

Two presentations: ‘DeltaCompetition 2008’ and ‘Planning through projects’

Mrs. Berte Simons presented the results of the Delta Competition 2008. In this competition, organized by Royal Haskoning, students from all over the world had been invited to develop sustainable solutions for the future of populated delta areas. This second Delta Competition had attracted more participants from outside the Netherlands. Furthermore, the proposals had widened their scopes: not only technical, but also social and economical issues had been met.

Next, Mrs. Marisa Carmona introduced Planning through projects. This programme embraces an inventory of many different cities in relation to their transformation and modernization and to the forces of globalization.

In Professor Joost Schrijnen’s view planning of the Randstad fails. Since the grip of planning is restricted to small processes, it fails to address structures of a larger scale. This is, among other things, due to the fact that the power of the separate cities that constitute the Randstad overshadows the power of the state. Moreover, the new urban forms and scales that have developed in the Randstad are hardly recognized. The mental map is still based upon the situation in the 1950s, when cities were still surrounded by the green landscape. But since then the space in between has become metropolitan as well. Consequently, the greenhouses of the Westland should be considered an industrial zone, while the green space of Midden-Delfland is in fact a metropolitan park.

‘Urban planning is dead. The landscape architects have taken over.’ That’s how Aaron Betsky introduced the keynote speaker of the evening, landscape architect Adriaan Geuze. Professor Geuze’s lecture was a plea to recognize and understand the beauty of the Dutch landscape and its potential to create new horizons and opportunities. With this the Dutch history of landmaking should play a major role. An important occurrence in this history was the invention of the rotating windmill centuries ago, by Simon Stevin, which enabled the Dutch to create much deeper polders. That this was something to be enjoyed, was demonstrated by the painters who left their studios to picture this new and exciting landscape with those brand new windmills. Professor Geuze continued his historical survey via the large land reclamations of the 19th and 20th century towards the Delta works that protect the lowlying lands against the power of the sea. Things went wrong from the 1970s, with the introduction of the Wet op de ruimtelijke ordening (Spatial Arrangement Act). It ignored the precious tradition and reduced planning to a mere set of policies and procedures. Consequently, masterplanning was more or less brought to a standstill and replaced by abstract maps. The effects on the landscape were devastating. This was especially true for the Zuidvleugel (South wing) of the Randstad, which turned into some kind of Los Angeles. The so called protection of the Green Heart appeared to be impotent. Fortunately, there is proof that different approaches are conceivable. The city of Amsterdam is now effectively protecting the surrounding landscape, simply by defining the borders of the city – and holding on to it.

Erik Swyngedouw: ‘Politics’ should reclaim the megapolis from ‘policies’

The first keynote speaker of the second day was Professor Erik Swyngedouw. He focused on the urban field, where politics have been replaced by policies and governance has taken the place of government. He characterized the present era as postpolitical and postdemocratic, as governance has been put in the hands of institutions that are beyond the state. Urban policies are based upon risk calculation, accountancy and, above all, consensus. This may seem attractive, but on further consideration consensus implies the disavowal of the ‘violence’ that is immanent to the dialectics of urban life. Moreover, populism has become the dominant ideology, setting aside social and ideological differences. According to Professor Swyngedouw it is up to the excluded of this age, the immigrants who embody the global, to demand their political rights. In this context he referred to Étienne Balibar’s principle of égaliberté. Professor Swyngedouw concluded his lecture by advocating the reestablishment of the urban as a political field of dispute and disagreement. The intellectuals should take side and embrace a politics of inclusion, with concrete utopian visions that result in projects to celebrate heterogeneity and to accommodate differences and disorder.

To Professor Edward Soja the widespread addition of the adjective regional signifies the major shift in the urbanization process that takes place since the early 1970’s. The traditional view of cities that consist of two worlds a dense urban core versus a sprawling suburbia is no longer usable. While many inner cities get less dense, the differentiation in suburbia increases. As a result density gradients have flattened out and the contrast between inner and outer city has blurred. In the same period of the last three decades the notion of region has gained in significance considerably, although to many it is still unclear what it exactly means. In Professor Soja’s view the concept of regional applies to all scales between local and global. It is, in other words, the mode in which the antithesis of local and global is solved. This implies that regions are no longer restricted to one city or agglomeration. While considering the limits of the scale that we may call regional, Professor Soja included regions like the ‘Greater Shanghai megacity’, with 82 million people, and the EuroDelta with more than 50 million people. One of the great challenges is to develop governmental structures that are adapted to this regional scale, to maximize its positive powers and to control negative effects, such as deepening inequalities. The European Spatial Development Perspective has the potential to become a promising onset.

Could cities be less energy, resource and information intensive? John Thackara is convinced that ‘low entropy urbanism’ is conceivable and that design should play a major role in that. All design actions should be based upon the limits of the carrying capacity of the earth. To start with, the energy regime should be changed in order to improve the E.R.O.E.I. (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). Next we should consider the material intensity of products. Manufacturing a mobile phone that weighs 200 grams implies a material flow that totals up to 500 kilograms. Low entropy frameworks may include urban agriculture, closed loop water systems, a neighbourhood approach to renewable energy and the application of thing links to identify products. Building resilience can be stimulated by taking a look at the biology and its capacity to transition. An import role is to be played by grassroots organizations; www.wiserearth.org lists already more than 100.000 non-profit organizations in no less than 243 countries. Finally, new forms of governance are needed to implement processes of resilience and other measures to make cities and the world as a whole more sustainable.

As a kickoff to the final discussion, the agricultural scientist Peter Smeets commented on the three keynote speakers. He did this from the perspective of ‘metropolitan agriculture’. Mr. Smeets characterized Mr. Thackara’s lecture as rather eclectic and he said to fear that his ‘Malthusian’ approach would only benefit the happy few. He welcomed Professor Soja’s view on the fundamental and worldwide shift in urbanization processes and availed himself of the opportunity to add agriculture as a key element in this redefined metropolitan urbanity. To Professor Swyndegouw’s fierce criticism of the neoliberalism that dominated the cities during the past decades, Mr. Smeets reacted by posing that Mr. Swyngedouw underestimates the positive results of capitalism and of the middle class as the primary motor of development.

The three keynote speakers and Mr. Smeets participated in the short discussion that concluded the Megacities Foundation Jubilee Congress. In this debate Professor Swyngedouw characterized Mr. Smeets’ remarks as the classical technocratic answer: ‘science will solve all problems’. However, the social and the ecological are intertwined themes that should not be separated. The question what social and political space we want to live in is pre-eminently political, said Professor Swyngedouw.

Mr. Thackara responded that he did not recognize himself in Mr. Smeets’ criticism. As distinct from the ‘techno science mindset’ he looked upon himself as a common citizen who is convinced that there are no technical solutions for all problems of sustainability. When no solution is available, the only choice is to adapt to the reality.

Professor Soja said he had some problems with the title of the congress: Towards the Megacities Solution. ‘The’ solution does not exist. What we need most of all is a new understanding of processes. He agreed with Mr. Smeets that there are no more areas that are purely rural and that agriculture should be reintroduced in the megacity. Professor Soja showed himself to be sceptical about the debate on sustainability. He even pleaded to move sustainability off the agenda, because it bears the risk being restricted to isolated environmental solutions. Nature and environment should not be separated from the social and political realm.

The concluding words were by moderator Mr. Aaron Betsky, Mr. Henk Ovink, who stood in for the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, and Mrs. Elsbeth van Hijlckama Vlieg, president of the Megacities Foundation.

The Megacities Congress is sponsored by:
Provincie Noord Holland
Provincie Zuid Holland
Ymere
Royal Haskoning
TU Delft
Habiforum
Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur