Saturday, June 20, 2009

City: past perfect or future tense-d?

We often dream. A dream of a bright future and an anticipation that the future will bring in all the things that we aspire for. Whether it is money, happiness, relations and security, we always look forward to the future. The cities are no less and somewhere each city dreams of its existence. We, the inhabitants of different cities can shape / de-shape a city into making a ‘city of dreams’ or a ‘city only in dreams’. The local authority constantly ‘fights’???? to create a ‘healthy’ future of the cities. But one must question whether these decision makers share the same dream as the common man?? Crores of money that is pumped in for the pretext of development of the cities find its several routes wither into the already wealthy pockets of these decision makers or into procrastinating things to make it work in the city. The denizen should be curious enough to question the authorities as to where does the money go.

One question that constantly pesters me is whether: The money is directed to make the cities of the past or cities of the future? Are we making a forward transgression or a reverse progression? The question then is: What is a city of the future, anyway?

Insofar as stimulus funds are available to repair failing bridges, dams, roads and vital infrastructure, that's where they should be invested.

To begin putting each city on the road to the future should be a on high priority. Which means building communities that are secure from energy supply disruptions and crippling energy prices. Laced with safe routes for people to walk and bicycle; able to provide a variety of mobility options so that everyone - including the young, old and disabled - has access to vital services.

Cities of the future condemn no neighborhood to be the dumping ground for waste, pollution or traffic; conserve vital resources such as water; prepare to withstand the anticipated impacts of climate change, including heat waves and extreme weather; protect and restore natural places so that kids of all ages have contact with nature; foster social interaction; and avoid urban sprawl, to name a few criteria.

If the benefits of building for the future are not clear, the urban leaders should think of it this way: If they plan to invest in buildings, transit systems, streets or infrastructure and those improvements are meant to last more than a decade, they are not building the city for themselves. They're building it for their children. The goal should be to create a community that remains competitive for generations to come as a wonderful place to live and do business.

The only anticipation is these urban leaders should have a vision that shouldn’t make the city as a brilliant example of ‘past perfect and future tense-d?’

No comments:

Post a Comment