Urban Growth: Old vs. New

By WXZ

If you had asked me yesterday whether I would elect to be on the Masdar project or the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City Project, I would have answered Tianjin without a second thought. However, as I sat in class thinking about the cities that I have read about recently, I realized that many of the cities that came to mind were created in the past few decades: Chongqing of China, Naypyidaw of Myanmar, Incheon of South Korea, Brasilia of Brazil, Singapore. Yes, they were always there, as pretty much most of the land where we inhabit have existed way before we evolved into humans. However, the formation of these places into our concept of modern cities is fairly new. I then had an epiphany that Masdar may enjoy more success and impact in the long-term because our assumption that urban growth happening mainly in established cities could be wrong.

Is it realistic to expect the increase of “three billion people in the next four decades” (HBS Case N9-213-095, page 2) in cities to all happen in existing cities? Is there really enough capacity in existing cities to contain this many people? I certainly hope no country planner will try to cram all the country’s urbanizing population into only existing cities. I would not want to live in those cities if that were the case, unless that country (or city-state) has no choice and its average birth rate falls below sustainable levels.

A quick search on Google yielded some promising results. In 2010, Forbes featured 12 brand new cities, of which three—Masdar, Tianjin, and King Abdullah–are discussed in our course (full list here: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/20/travel-vacation-songdo-technology-cities.html). The list contains a combination of attachments to existing cities like Tianjin and Songdo, and brand new ones like Madsdar and Dholera. While most of these cities are not yet completed, large numbers of residents have already moved into many of these cities, which is at least a sign of some success.

This is not to say that I am very bullish on Masdar, as it takes much more than just building a city and financial capital to make a city vibrant and a model worthy to be copied. It will certainly take decades for the city to become as competitive as existing top cities in the country if everything were done correctly. And unfortunate for finance gurus, financial models for these cities will need to project out over something more along the lines of a century—which means that the range of possible outcomes and returns will be extremely large and overall meaningless.

However, to build new cities in barren lands (or under oceans and on other planets once the technology becomes cheap and good enough and sovereignty issues are resolved) may just be exactly what we need in order to solve the pressing global urbanization demand problem. If a team—be it purely private, public, or a mix of both—can figure out a successful and transferable model for building these new cities, then that team would be highly sought after and employed as consultants for many new cities to come.

###

Advertisements

One thought on “Urban Growth: Old vs. New

  1. The author makes an interesting argument that the Masdar model, as compared to Tianjin Eco-City, may be more successful in the long run due to the need for new cities to support the world’s expanding population. I certainly agree that new cities will be needed and in fact do not think there has been an assumption to the contrary in our class discussions; the Living PlanIT case, for instance, cited the need for 9,400 new cities by 2050. However, I would not equate ‘new cities’ with ‘remote cities’ as the author seems to imply. For instance, satellite cities within an hour or two of major, Tier 1 cities are an attractive option in my opinion. They allow existing infrastructure to be leveraged while maintaining desirable density levels.

    Even with the need for new cities, I am unconvinced that Masdar would be the more successful of the two options. I would like to look at success in two main ways: one, general ability of the city to grow and thrive, and two, capability of the city in solving the problems the world will face in terms of housing a growing population.

    On the first front, I think the author makes some very good points in that Masdar may not be the most desirable place to live. It will likely feel artificial to begin with, and will take time and effort to grow into a ‘real’ city, if it is even successful in doing so (which is a big ‘if’). Without a strong population or demand to live in Masdar, the economy will not grow and jobs will not be created, which perpetuates a vicious cycle.

    The second criteria of success, however, has me even more worried. I am dubious of Masdar’s ability to serve as a replicable model for housing the increasing population of our planet. The expensive nature of the city suggests that Masdar is at risk for becoming a “playground for the rich.” The majority of population growth, however, is not taking place in this demographic; it is the low income, developing world populations which are and will continue to skyrocket, and affordable, sustainable housing is needed to address this issue, not thousands of small, sterile lab experiments.

    That being said, if I had to pick a city to actually work on, Masdar would definitely be the more exciting project…just not the most practical.

Comments are closed.