How does urban planning adapt to the great economic and social changes of our century? Our economic, technological, and social system is undergoing a radical transformation. In the industrial city of the 20th century, the economic model was based on factories as production centers, and these were located outside the city because they generated smoke and noise and were aggressive towards the urban environment. That is why it is a model that specializes the territory: spaces for residence and spaces for production are created, and mobility is based on the car so that people can move between these spaces. But, in the 21st century, productive units are no longer found outside the city, either due to renewable energies or because the economy and production are based more on information. Therefore, we cannot continue specializing the territory. Urban planning has to change and, in fact, it is changing.
So, what will the city of the future be like? We have to return to the compact city, to the Mediterranean city. A city that mixes uses, where we can live and work. It is a dense city, because its productive model is a network model: if the industrial economy was an economy of specialization, that of knowledge is an economy of interrelation. And social innovation depends on that relationship between people. Therefore, spaces must be created that invite that relationship. This is a historical change that is having to be applied in cities around the world. Otherwise, they collapse, are inefficient, and, since there are no encounters between people, they are not innovative either.
According to the UN, by 2050, 66% of people will live in urban environments. Will the amount of resources and energy needed for urban life increase? Currently, 70% of energy consumption is allocated to transport. The new city will reduce that consumption, because it will not be larger, but denser. And with more density, less movement and less energy consumption. More efficient. The 20th-century city is not efficient in that sense, because a single person traveling by car to work consumes a brutal amount of energy. But if I can walk, at most I wear out my shoes!
So, are we still living in 20th-century cities? We are at a moment of transition. There is a global consensus that we must move to a 21st-century city model to avoid collapse. Recently, for example, I was in Lima. It takes about three or four hours to cross it, and therefore, the city is permanently collapsed. The same thing happens in Bogotá, Buenos Aires, and Paris. London has a great subway system, but it is also collapsed; hence the application of a congestion charge for private vehicles to access the center. But is this the solution, or a new urbanism focused on people being able to live close to where they work? Of course, as with all changes, this transition poses other problems, such as gentrification, which must be addressed through public housing and rentals for young people, which is not easy. And social innovation models must also be introduced, as the risk of creating cities that are not very equitable and socially cohesive is high.
How can urban spaces be improved without breaking their social cohesion? In the first models we contrasted, such as the 22@ project in Barcelona, innovation consisted of integrating urban planning with economic strategy. Little by little, we introduced energy innovations, and now, we have introduced social ones. But there is no magic solution. It is through practice and contrasting models that you improve the theory. And that's where we are.
Does all this have to do with that concept of "right to the city" that is being talked about so much again?
Exactly. A person who is expelled from a neighborhood due to rising housing prices loses the right to the city, which should be an egalitarian and democratic right. Everyone should have the right to housing and to the use of public services and spaces. Gentrification is the main enemy, but it would also be a mistake not to change the city model, because prices would rise anyway and, on top of that, you would reach collapse.
Does 22@ also work on that idea of recovering public space? Of course. The urban planning approach normally cedes 10% of the land to public space, for streets and so on. The 22@ cedes between 30 and 40%. Of that 40%, 10% are green spaces and another 10%, public housing. With the 200 ha of land that 22@ has, the entire city gains 60 ha of public land, which is 600,000 m2 of space for people. And the owner has the obligation to cede this space. The new urbanism has to put itself at the service of public interest and be capable of generating spaces for citizens using legal tools.
How can cities take advantage of new technologies? Although I am an engineer, I am a bit skeptical about the concept of smart cities and applying new technologies to urban planning. Because I believe that an excessively technological approach makes one lose sight of the sense of service to the citizen. The sociologist Richard Sennet wrote a great article, explaining that the technological approach to the city must start from public service and citizens, and not from technology. Otherwise, you run the risk of losing sight that the objective is to facilitate the lives of citizens or of falling into the digital divide and that certain sectors of the population have difficulties accessing these technologies.
To what extent does urban design influence people's quality of life? Being able to go to work on foot or by public transport, instead of taking the car and spending two hours in a traffic jam, is quality of life. Walking in a friendly environment, with public space, is quality of life. That the cars circulating are electric, reducing pollution, is quality of life. We not only have to mutate towards a new city model for reasons of economic efficiency, but also to improve people's daily lives, in addition to guaranteeing their personal and professional growth.
Photography: Rita Puig-Serra
You can read more stories like these in ALMA, the social social network, a digital space dedicated to the social sphere that provides a new perspective on the present and future of society, based on an optimistic and diverse voice, and all the initiatives promoted by the "la Caixa" Social Project.