Our urbanism: in retrospect and restitution****
Friday, 22 April 2011
Sheikh Serajul Hakim
I remember I was talking to David Satterthwaite, who edits prestigious Environment and Urbanization journal, at IHS lobby at Rotterdam back in 2008. It was a typical chilly winter evening as we were sharing our views on 'the city' and more particularly about being 'urban' per se. Mr Satterthwaite was explaining to me the merits of the 'urban'. I decided to 'listen and learn' and paid a rapt attention to him, not only because he was a Londoner for decades while I was a 'to-be-urbanite' second generation of a rural-to-urban migrant household in a typical third world city; also it was his authority on third world urbanisation processes and his influential critiques of numerous World Bank urban policies that made me pick my position. Responding to my questions on what makes the city such a magnet, his answer, as always, was uncomplicated. "Compactness", he said, "cities in all their density have this amazing capability to accommodate and fulfil individual desires you know...it is a machine that serves the humane; this is what makes me love being a city-dweller". Although I had sufficient doubt about his comments, yet I started to realise the profundity of his message only as time went by. Indeed, a city is both a space and a place where we all love to rub shoulders with each other and in the process form a society amongst utter strangeness; this is what 'compactness' implies allegorically. The familiar problems with a 'not so familiar' root Cities this way remain an emblem of aspiration for many. Take Dhaka for instance. Dhaka is a symbol of hope for most Bangladeshi people; that of course include migrant labours, students, the middle-class jobseekers, the petty businessmen, let alone the wealthier amongst the population. Yet, often Dhaka and similar cities appear as if they are the centre of all evils. They are frequently portrayed as the root of all social ills, or depicted as the godforsaken residence of the sinners and muggers, while city streets are labelled as the habitat of devil itself. Cities are said to pollute, deprive, disturb and degenerate. But one wonders how often the underlying forces behind the devil are questioned before blaming the cities themselves. One obviously wonders how much our conscious decision-making and often collective carelessness led to present evil of the city in the first place. Are cities like Dhaka to be blamed for what they are now, or is it the way and underlying intensions by which Dhaka has been allowed to urbanise particularly during the post-independence decades? A number of problems can be immediately associated with the urbanisation of Bangladesh and particularly that of Dhaka. Although well-known they may be, the issues of affordable housing (for both middle- and lower-income groups), a very speculative land market, inadequate and often inaccessible public transportation network, carrying capacity of the communication network, a severe lack of public space and outdoor recreation facilities, supply shortage of water, electricity and gas should again be remembered amongst the most daunting ones. However, it is the historical politics played by all decision-making regimes is what needs to be held guilty above all. Although consensual acts over most national issues is a rarity irrespective of political brands, there is little difference between AL's and BNP's adoption (or, non-adoption?) of urban policies historically. Irrespective of bureaucratic planning with colonial hangover or politically charged electoral manifestoes-none has actually touched upon the root cause of all urban evils in our so-called democratic society. If equality and equity are the two keywords that attribute democracy, 'centrality' and 'uneven development' remains the diametrically opposite tradition that pertains most of the planning and policy-making efforts, particularly in post-1971 urban Bangladesh. Dhaka, indeed, has proved to be one particular victim of this policy-making culture. Roots to the perils: too much centre and least periphery No wonder, the Mughal chose Dhaka as 'the' setting for their capital. It was a strategically important post for the British Raj, even in the proximal presence of Kolkata. In addition to Dhaka's political significance, the geographical factors such as the higher tract of land in the midst of swamps and rivers, its comparatively moderate micro-climate, easier communication with other parts of Bengal, and above all Dhaka's accommodativeness to many different cultures - all helped it become Bengal's ultimate centre. This, however, played against Dhaka in the longer run. In fact, it became the victim of its own repute since it always enjoyed significant attention, compared with other locations of Bengal (and later Bangladesh). Even under modern day democracy (which is opposite to anything central), Dhaka continued to be seen as the single largest city amongst Bengal, while the so-called planning and policy making regimes remained myopic enough not to foresee its eventual future. Other views also suggest that many decision-makers intentionally overlooked the consequences, and were only interested in short-term and more personal benefits. Almost all educational and cultural institutions, government offices, head offices of key political parties, business organisations - both government and non-government, were hence set up in and within the catchment of Dhaka. It in fact became almost inconceivable to think of prominent institutions being established outside Dhaka! It is, henceforth, a lion's share of the country's monetary resources started to get channelised into Dhaka. Due to an absolute concentration of economic activities and subsequent policy changes (in favour of industrialisation switching from agriculture) as suggested by World Bank and IMF during 1980s and 1990s, rural peasants, who had least incentive to stay in agriculture, started moving to the city. This was, in fact, fuelled by the 'free market' regime, who although describes itself as the flag-bearer of democracy (hence justice), did actually promote setting up of low-end and labour-intensive, export-oriented industries not elsewhere in the country but in Dhaka. Considering that the logical locations for export-oriented industries would be the sites closest to sea ports (i.e. Chittagong and Mongla), yet hundreds of these were again allowed to set up within disturbing proximity to Dhaka. Neither any public policy intervened and controlled such development, nor were the long-term consequences of this foreseen. This was also when land price began to escalate due to the over-concentration of economic activities and consecutive cash flows on to a particular location. Successive governments utterly failed to control land market as well; thus speculators and land-grabbers were allowed to control the delivery of this culturally significant scarce resource. Due to this high land price, single detached houses started to be replaced by high-rise apartments. Development control was mostly overlooked while at times impossible; no policy framework was devised either to make sure the so called 'developers' not only develop their own fortune but also engage into some long-term social obligation (for example, many US municipal policies require real estate developers to involve into various forms of long-term commitment to the immediate neighbourhood as soon as they erect any building there). The consequence of all these is however evident; in time, even the surface area of Dhaka's streets became insufficient to contain the mass of vehicles; the sewerage system, water and gas supply is already proving utterly inadequate; the encroachment of peripheral low lands by both government and private parties turned Dhaka into a 'big basin' literally; there is not much green left in the city, nor there is sufficient space to breathe in to the open air. In the wake of constant inflow of rural peasants, governments were unable to provide affordable housing for the poor and for the poorest of the poor as slums proliferated. Questions as answers If someone says, for example, that imposed foreign policies, or unprecedented population growth, or rural urban migration are the reasons why uncontrolled urbanisation in Bangladesh and particularly in Dhaka took place, it can be viewed as a deliberate act of overlooking the more significant and contextual variables. This mere scratching of the surface does not resolve all issues; ample reasons prompt for digging deeper and do plenty of soul searching. One must ask what made Dhaka the way it is now. Is it only the physical, environmental, engineering or infrastructure provisioning in which solutions to the problems of Dhaka lie, or is it rooted deeper into the politics associated with our decision-making structure (and culture)? None seems to have any clue if asked why, for example, the agricultural ministry and secretariat cannot be moved to Jessore or the ministry and concerned secretariat for fisheries to Khulna? Why does Chittagong still remain a business capital only on paper while a formal relocation has not been possible yet? Why not the transportation sector is developed in a way that Dhaka can be reached in 2-3 hours from any corner of the country? Why only Dhaka residents are allowed to burn priceless natural gas in the traffic signals, where the gas could have been used to yield more permanent return for the entire nation? Why City Corporations and Pourashavas still require budget approval and sanction by the central government? Why not policies are formulated that refrain new townships from developing on city borders, and instead promote planning and developing the already existing yet haphazardly urbanising peripheral townships (e.g. Savar or Keraniganj to Dhaka) as complementary growth centres? Towards an equity in resource allocation and distribution These apparently unrelated questions, however, points to a single direction; answer to all of these lies in the historically problematic focus on 'absolute centrality'. As with the case of Dhaka, with population in-migration and monetary investment, along came various social issues and social ills that infested Dhaka's society. The complexities and contradictions associated with Dhaka's urban environment thus can be viewed typically as a by-product and in some particular cases a direct product of various monopolised forms of socio-economic concentration and centrality. This is exactly where the notion of compactness contradicts with the idea of concentration. Referring back to David's desired compactness, a scheme as such seems achievable only through a controlled concentration, and a balanced distribution of population, resources and other socio-cultural parameters-hence through the design and implementation of a measured footprint. Considering today's rapidly urbanising globe, there won't probably be any distinction between rural and urban in next five decades. Given that, a careful rethinking is required on devising a sustainable path on which we must steer our urban growth. The best possible way to doing that is to help develop high-density, low-impact alternate growth centres on the basis of their individual competitive advantages. This is what Rio and Mumbai did; the Europeans and North Americans have done this long ago. Indeed, such developments serve the economy by satisfying the market. There is, of course, much to learn from the sour experience of Dhaka; the good amongst all the gloom is that we already have a benchmark in the ample evidences of Dhaka! As I am preparing this manuscript, the world remains in a state of transition; persistent questioning of the existing models of democracy, capitalism and market economy hence is pointing out to the global rise of the 'left'. This 'left,' however, is strictly in question of all forms of monopoly, centrality, biasness and concentration as enjoyed by only a few individuals and corporations in the society; the 'left' hence rises for a fair and just society. Considering what we have experienced with the contemporary urban policies in Bangladesh, such justice and redistribution of resources should certainly touch upon the scale of a nation. All we need to do is to keep on questioning our apparently accepted way of life, i.e. our contemporary urbanism per se. We must not stop until we convince ourselves that our chosen form of urbanism is based on fairness, equity, impartiality, evenness and balance in all socio-cultural-economic premises. The author is an architect and a PhD fellow at National University of Singapore. He cane be reached at: upal_1394@yahoo.com
I remember I was talking to David Satterthwaite, who edits prestigious Environment and Urbanization journal, at IHS lobby at Rotterdam back in 2008. It was a typical chilly winter evening as we were sharing our views on 'the city' and more particularly about being 'urban' per se. Mr Satterthwaite was explaining to me the merits of the 'urban'. I decided to 'listen and learn' and paid a rapt attention to him, not only because he was a Londoner for decades while I was a 'to-be-urbanite' second generation of a rural-to-urban migrant household in a typical third world city; also it was his authority on third world urbanisation processes and his influential critiques of numerous World Bank urban policies that made me pick my position. Responding to my questions on what makes the city such a magnet, his answer, as always, was uncomplicated. "Compactness", he said, "cities in all their density have this amazing capability to accommodate and fulfil individual desires you know...it is a machine that serves the humane; this is what makes me love being a city-dweller". Although I had sufficient doubt about his comments, yet I started to realise the profundity of his message only as time went by. Indeed, a city is both a space and a place where we all love to rub shoulders with each other and in the process form a society amongst utter strangeness; this is what 'compactness' implies allegorically. The familiar problems with a 'not so familiar' root Cities this way remain an emblem of aspiration for many. Take Dhaka for instance. Dhaka is a symbol of hope for most Bangladeshi people; that of course include migrant labours, students, the middle-class jobseekers, the petty businessmen, let alone the wealthier amongst the population. Yet, often Dhaka and similar cities appear as if they are the centre of all evils. They are frequently portrayed as the root of all social ills, or depicted as the godforsaken residence of the sinners and muggers, while city streets are labelled as the habitat of devil itself. Cities are said to pollute, deprive, disturb and degenerate. But one wonders how often the underlying forces behind the devil are questioned before blaming the cities themselves. One obviously wonders how much our conscious decision-making and often collective carelessness led to present evil of the city in the first place. Are cities like Dhaka to be blamed for what they are now, or is it the way and underlying intensions by which Dhaka has been allowed to urbanise particularly during the post-independence decades? A number of problems can be immediately associated with the urbanisation of Bangladesh and particularly that of Dhaka. Although well-known they may be, the issues of affordable housing (for both middle- and lower-income groups), a very speculative land market, inadequate and often inaccessible public transportation network, carrying capacity of the communication network, a severe lack of public space and outdoor recreation facilities, supply shortage of water, electricity and gas should again be remembered amongst the most daunting ones. However, it is the historical politics played by all decision-making regimes is what needs to be held guilty above all. Although consensual acts over most national issues is a rarity irrespective of political brands, there is little difference between AL's and BNP's adoption (or, non-adoption?) of urban policies historically. Irrespective of bureaucratic planning with colonial hangover or politically charged electoral manifestoes-none has actually touched upon the root cause of all urban evils in our so-called democratic society. If equality and equity are the two keywords that attribute democracy, 'centrality' and 'uneven development' remains the diametrically opposite tradition that pertains most of the planning and policy-making efforts, particularly in post-1971 urban Bangladesh. Dhaka, indeed, has proved to be one particular victim of this policy-making culture. Roots to the perils: too much centre and least periphery No wonder, the Mughal chose Dhaka as 'the' setting for their capital. It was a strategically important post for the British Raj, even in the proximal presence of Kolkata. In addition to Dhaka's political significance, the geographical factors such as the higher tract of land in the midst of swamps and rivers, its comparatively moderate micro-climate, easier communication with other parts of Bengal, and above all Dhaka's accommodativeness to many different cultures - all helped it become Bengal's ultimate centre. This, however, played against Dhaka in the longer run. In fact, it became the victim of its own repute since it always enjoyed significant attention, compared with other locations of Bengal (and later Bangladesh). Even under modern day democracy (which is opposite to anything central), Dhaka continued to be seen as the single largest city amongst Bengal, while the so-called planning and policy making regimes remained myopic enough not to foresee its eventual future. Other views also suggest that many decision-makers intentionally overlooked the consequences, and were only interested in short-term and more personal benefits. Almost all educational and cultural institutions, government offices, head offices of key political parties, business organisations - both government and non-government, were hence set up in and within the catchment of Dhaka. It in fact became almost inconceivable to think of prominent institutions being established outside Dhaka! It is, henceforth, a lion's share of the country's monetary resources started to get channelised into Dhaka. Due to an absolute concentration of economic activities and subsequent policy changes (in favour of industrialisation switching from agriculture) as suggested by World Bank and IMF during 1980s and 1990s, rural peasants, who had least incentive to stay in agriculture, started moving to the city. This was, in fact, fuelled by the 'free market' regime, who although describes itself as the flag-bearer of democracy (hence justice), did actually promote setting up of low-end and labour-intensive, export-oriented industries not elsewhere in the country but in Dhaka. Considering that the logical locations for export-oriented industries would be the sites closest to sea ports (i.e. Chittagong and Mongla), yet hundreds of these were again allowed to set up within disturbing proximity to Dhaka. Neither any public policy intervened and controlled such development, nor were the long-term consequences of this foreseen. This was also when land price began to escalate due to the over-concentration of economic activities and consecutive cash flows on to a particular location. Successive governments utterly failed to control land market as well; thus speculators and land-grabbers were allowed to control the delivery of this culturally significant scarce resource. Due to this high land price, single detached houses started to be replaced by high-rise apartments. Development control was mostly overlooked while at times impossible; no policy framework was devised either to make sure the so called 'developers' not only develop their own fortune but also engage into some long-term social obligation (for example, many US municipal policies require real estate developers to involve into various forms of long-term commitment to the immediate neighbourhood as soon as they erect any building there). The consequence of all these is however evident; in time, even the surface area of Dhaka's streets became insufficient to contain the mass of vehicles; the sewerage system, water and gas supply is already proving utterly inadequate; the encroachment of peripheral low lands by both government and private parties turned Dhaka into a 'big basin' literally; there is not much green left in the city, nor there is sufficient space to breathe in to the open air. In the wake of constant inflow of rural peasants, governments were unable to provide affordable housing for the poor and for the poorest of the poor as slums proliferated. Questions as answers If someone says, for example, that imposed foreign policies, or unprecedented population growth, or rural urban migration are the reasons why uncontrolled urbanisation in Bangladesh and particularly in Dhaka took place, it can be viewed as a deliberate act of overlooking the more significant and contextual variables. This mere scratching of the surface does not resolve all issues; ample reasons prompt for digging deeper and do plenty of soul searching. One must ask what made Dhaka the way it is now. Is it only the physical, environmental, engineering or infrastructure provisioning in which solutions to the problems of Dhaka lie, or is it rooted deeper into the politics associated with our decision-making structure (and culture)? None seems to have any clue if asked why, for example, the agricultural ministry and secretariat cannot be moved to Jessore or the ministry and concerned secretariat for fisheries to Khulna? Why does Chittagong still remain a business capital only on paper while a formal relocation has not been possible yet? Why not the transportation sector is developed in a way that Dhaka can be reached in 2-3 hours from any corner of the country? Why only Dhaka residents are allowed to burn priceless natural gas in the traffic signals, where the gas could have been used to yield more permanent return for the entire nation? Why City Corporations and Pourashavas still require budget approval and sanction by the central government? Why not policies are formulated that refrain new townships from developing on city borders, and instead promote planning and developing the already existing yet haphazardly urbanising peripheral townships (e.g. Savar or Keraniganj to Dhaka) as complementary growth centres? Towards an equity in resource allocation and distribution These apparently unrelated questions, however, points to a single direction; answer to all of these lies in the historically problematic focus on 'absolute centrality'. As with the case of Dhaka, with population in-migration and monetary investment, along came various social issues and social ills that infested Dhaka's society. The complexities and contradictions associated with Dhaka's urban environment thus can be viewed typically as a by-product and in some particular cases a direct product of various monopolised forms of socio-economic concentration and centrality. This is exactly where the notion of compactness contradicts with the idea of concentration. Referring back to David's desired compactness, a scheme as such seems achievable only through a controlled concentration, and a balanced distribution of population, resources and other socio-cultural parameters-hence through the design and implementation of a measured footprint. Considering today's rapidly urbanising globe, there won't probably be any distinction between rural and urban in next five decades. Given that, a careful rethinking is required on devising a sustainable path on which we must steer our urban growth. The best possible way to doing that is to help develop high-density, low-impact alternate growth centres on the basis of their individual competitive advantages. This is what Rio and Mumbai did; the Europeans and North Americans have done this long ago. Indeed, such developments serve the economy by satisfying the market. There is, of course, much to learn from the sour experience of Dhaka; the good amongst all the gloom is that we already have a benchmark in the ample evidences of Dhaka! As I am preparing this manuscript, the world remains in a state of transition; persistent questioning of the existing models of democracy, capitalism and market economy hence is pointing out to the global rise of the 'left'. This 'left,' however, is strictly in question of all forms of monopoly, centrality, biasness and concentration as enjoyed by only a few individuals and corporations in the society; the 'left' hence rises for a fair and just society. Considering what we have experienced with the contemporary urban policies in Bangladesh, such justice and redistribution of resources should certainly touch upon the scale of a nation. All we need to do is to keep on questioning our apparently accepted way of life, i.e. our contemporary urbanism per se. We must not stop until we convince ourselves that our chosen form of urbanism is based on fairness, equity, impartiality, evenness and balance in all socio-cultural-economic premises. The author is an architect and a PhD fellow at National University of Singapore. He cane be reached at: upal_1394@yahoo.com