The assumed continued growth of the cities is untested. It may not last and may also not be desirable. Just one possible alternative follows the software-as-a-service trend or the mobility-as-a-service such as ride-sharing and car-pooling. Imagine then, lifestyle-as-a-service.
It has become commonplace for articles and presentations about cities to start with facts such as that in 1950, 30 per cent of the world’s population was urban and by 2014 that number had reached 54 per cent.
Reference to this trend is invariably followed by an assertion that the trend must inevitably continue into the future, suggesting, for example, that by 2050, 66 per cent of the world’s population is projected to be urban. In this article I ask whether we have the courage to question whether this trend is inevitable or, indeed, desirable?
I start with a deliberately provocative title because significant decisions and substantial long-term financial commitments are regularly made—by governments, corporations and individuals—based on this untested assertion.
Any good financial adviser will always offer the disclaimer that “past performance is no guarantee of future results”. Yet economists, planners, politicians and many others continually make this statement, often simply in passing, to confirm a broadly agreed “fact” or inevitability. Broad consensus does not necessarily imply that a proposition is correct.
Urbanisation is not inevitable
Let’s begin by examining whether the trend of increasing urbanisation, and centralisation of people in cities, is inevitable and later we’ll explore whether it’s desirable.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Ebenezer Howard, lamented that “it is deeply to be deplored that the people should continue to stream into the already over-crowded cities, and should thus deplete the country districts”.
For Howard, this flow of people into cities reflected the various attractions of city life, which were being ruined by overcrowding. He therefore proposed the development of garden gities—new settlements blending the best aspects of town life and country life—which would act as an alternative attractor drawing people out of existing cities. This would reverse the flow and redistribute the population in a “spontaneous and healthy manner”.
After writing Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Howard helped establish the Town and Country Planning Association in the UK, securing the first town planning legislation in 1909 and sparking a worldwide interest in town planning.
Given these origins of the town planning profession—where the ambition was to plan for innovative new settlements—it is odd, to me at least, that most in the profession like to call themselves urban planners and focus almost exclusively on managing what they perceive as the inevitable and inexorable growth of the major cities.
The project of planning any individual town or neighbourhood should be undertaken in the context of a broader National Settlement Strategy as the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) has long been advocating
The growth of cities is inevitable so long as town planners continue to believe that the trend is inevitable and therefore fail to critically question whether it is desirable.
The project of planning any individual town or neighbourhood should be undertaken in the context of a broader National Settlement Strategy as the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) has long been advocating.
Where people live, depends on where housing, work opportunities and infrastructure are provided, which, in turn, depend on the outcomes of a settlement strategy process.
For that process to be rigorous it must examine whether populations should be distributed across the continent or centralised in a few cities. We can only critically consider whether ever increasing urbanisation is desirable when we are open to the possibility that is not inevitable—that we have agency and can plan strategically for something different.
Nor is urbanisation desirable
To the question of whether increasing urbanisation is desirable, I argue, with Ebenezer Howard, that the growth of cities results in the depletion of “country districts” just as the growth of “the economy” results in the depletion of natural ecosystems.
This parallel is not accidental. Economic growth does not happen evenly, particularly in terms of geography, it happens in cities while rural and regional areas invariably struggle.
We often hear that “cities are the engines of economic growth”, ignoring that the food, energy and resources that underpin that growth are extracted from rural areas outside the city. By viewing the settlement patterns more broadly we can appreciate that growth in one area only occurs at the expense of another.
There is a clear link between the unlimited growth of cities and the narrative of unlimited economic growth.
Both assume that unconstrained growth, ad infinitum, underpins social progress. Neither acknowledges environmental limits. Both draw artificial boundaries around their area of interest allowing them to ignore dependencies and externalities. Our cities and broader settlement patterns are shaped and organised by our economic system.
Economics is about how we organise ourselves to satisfy our needs and wants. This ultimately translates into the arrangement of human settlements: the spatial relationship between living spaces, workspaces, and their connection to food, water, energy and other resources needed for surviving and thriving.
The current linear —take, make, use, dispose—economic model is expressed in the landscape as a city that takes resources from outside the city limits and similarly disposes waste.
Striving for the growth of cities will necessarily cause depletion and degradation in other regions when we fail to appreciate the connection and interdependence between them.
A circular economy creating a circular city networked system
In contrast, a fully circular city would not need to extract food, water, energy and resources from outside as these would be kept circulating within it.
Using renewable energy to circulate water would help grow more food close to consumers, eliminating the waste and pollution associated with transporting food over long distances.
Indeed, we could design to eliminate all organic and inorganic waste, converting it to resources or new products within the city system. Planning for a network of small, diverse, regenerative agricultural systems—producing food and managing organic waste locally—is essential for an efficient food system, and for regenerating natural systems.
These characteristics—continually circulating resources, eliminating waste and pollution and regenerating nature—are consistent with the definition of a circular economy.
The transition from a linear to a circular economy would necessarily result in a reorganisation of both individual settlements and settlement patterns.
The city will become a more distributed system, a network of circular economy precincts or villages. A report by NSW Circular (now Circular Australia) in 2022 describes how circular economy principles can be embedded into the business case for precincts and infrastructure.
The five global megatrends shaping the way we live
To further develop this concept of a circular city network it is useful to examine the many technological, social and environmental changes happening in the world and ensure that our proposal is aligned. In 2012, CSIRO prepared a report examining the global megatrends that are changing the way we live.
1. and 2. Resource depletion and biodiversity loss
The first identified megatrend is resource depletion, which our proposal responds to by circulating the same resources within the city system. The second is biodiversity loss which could be reversed through the previously mentioned regenerative agricultural practices.
3. Geopolitical shifts (means we need more local resilience)
In the 2012 report, the third megatrend—geopolitical shifts—primarily referred to the rise of China and the consequent increasing economic opportunities. CSIRO’s updated report in 2022 now emphasises global instability and uncertainty.
The risk of disruptions of global supply chains evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the imperative of local resilience. While this is often interpreted as national resilience, the pandemic lockdowns reinforced the importance of local communities and our immediate neighbourhoods.
Optimal resilience would be achieved if we could produce, store and distribute energy, water and food in and around our local communities. Imagine a neighbourhood-scale renewable energy micro-grid, powering our homes as well as a fleet of shared electric vehicles, while also helping to circulate water.
With abundant water, significant food production would be possible. A diverse, regenerative agricultural system could produce a substantial proportion of the community’s nutritional needs, while regenerating natural ecosystems.
Integrated, the food, water and energy systems would form a nature-based infrastructure ecosystem. Indeed, the city should be imagined as a complex system, structured as a nested network of regenerative and resilient communities.
4. Ageing populations
The fourth megatrend of ageing populations has resulted in a burgeoning number of retirement villages. Yet recent research by Kennedy and Buys (2020) shows that the word retirement is redundant and that the concept of the retirement village should itself be retired.
While people are living longer most wish to continue to lead productive and purposeful lives in “micro-neighbourhoods” with diverse and inclusive infrastructure and amongst a broad age demographic.
Social and community facilities would complement the food, water, energy and transport infrastructure previously mentioned. The consequent additional costs for the design, delivery and management of infrastructure and facilities can only be achieved with an appropriate business model.
Kennedy and Buys suggest that micro-neighbourhood development projects could be funded by “long-term capital rather than short-term debt, for greater financial and community returns”.
5. Digital transformation
The fifth megatrend refers to the transformation of society due to the internet. An example is how the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to work from anywhere for many, so the need to concentrate work opportunities in large cities is less necessary.
Online retail also diminishes the need for centralised markets, allowing producers to sell directly to consumers, neither of which need to be in a major centre. The internet, as a distributed network with no centre, enables the development of a network of human settlements with no central city.
6. From ownership to access
The sixth and final megatrend identifies the rising demand for services and experiences over products—a preference for access rather than ownership.
Software is no longer purchased in a box but is downloaded when we sign up to a subscription service. Following the lead of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) there is increasing interest in the concept of mobility-as-a-service (MaaS), which already includes ride-sharing and car-pooling.
Translating this into the built environment we can imagine a circular economy micro-neighbourhood offering lifestyle-as-a-service (LaaS).
Instead of planning for dormitory suburbs, a village could be planned, designed and built to offer food, water, energy, transport, housing, work hubs and entertainment in one integrated system, funded through long-term capital.
These services could be offered as a package under a single rental agreement.
Conclusion
Rather than centralising power, production and people in cities, a circular economy, understood in the context of the various megatrends transforming our society, would enable the dispersal of populations into a distributed network of community-scale settlements—each connected to the Country on which they are located, collectively managing the circulation of resources while simultaneously regenerating natural systems.
Spinifex is an opinion column open to all our readers. We require 700+ words on issues related to sustainability especially in the built environment and in business. Contact us to submit your column or for a more detailed brief.
This, in my view, is a more desirable future than the continued centralisation of populations in congested and unaffordable cities.
The potential to respond to a range of social and environmental crises is constrained by the perceived inevitability of urbanisation. Until we can let go of this assertion, it is not possible to imagine an alternative and more desirable future. We cannot plan for something unless we can first imagine it.
In doing so we can also move beyond lip-service to Indigenous knowledge systems and actually learn how to achieve sustainable development through Connection to Country.
We may then also see a continent-wide distributed network of nations, each Caring for the Country on which they are located and envisioning the landscape as a network of waterholes connected by songlines.
Great article Steven, we have to hope that’s how the future is going to be (or should be).
But, but…
In finding a way to a transformed world, language matters — it determines the future that we can “imagine”.
First: Thinking in terms of a “city” narrows our thinking by invoking city images from ancient times to the nineteenth century. The only term that now makes sense is “rapidly urbanising region” — more or less boundless, polycentred, fractal, embodying almost every type of urban environment including “villages” (another term that needs to be updated).
What meaning does the term “city” have when applied to the 100 million inhabitants of the Pearl River delta (maybe 20 “CBDs”), or the 30 (or 40) million who live in the gravitational field of Lagos? To reinforce this reality, the term “city” cannot even help us understand and manage the “rapidly urbanising regions” of Sydney, Melbourne and the other state capital regions.
Second: The term “urban” can be just as deceptive. Almost all of the world’s people now have what must be called an urban life — informed, connected, economically interdependent, not to mention living in a (possibly remote) place built, managed, lit, powered, sewered, wired and serviced like any urban area.
Your network of community-scaled settlements (offering “food, water, energy, transport, housing, work hubs and entertainment in one integrated system”) are an essential element of, and model for, all “rapidly urbanising regions”, not places that stand in contrast to the “urban”.
So: The greatest challenge to humanity is not to deny or misconstrue the “inevitability of urbanisation” but to transform entire rapidly urbanising regions into places that, as you say, “collectively manage the circulation of resources while simultaneously regenerating natural systems” (and at the same time achieve a measure of equity and dignity for all citizens).
I think it is possible to think of dynamic regions like the Pearl River delta and Lagos in those terms.
(As an aside, the future of the planet won’t be determined by city and regional planners like you and me, but by another version of the military-industrial complex. Empirically, the creative dynamism of a rapidly urbanising region results from the actions of the region’s governor-investor-developer complex.)
In any event, the transformation of the vast rapidly urbanising regions will determine the future of the planet.
Thanks Jeremy for your comment…you may not remember but you were my first planning lecturer, inspiring me to think outside the box, such as with your ambit claim for the jurisdiction of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority…and the recommendation of Christopher Alexander’s ‘A Pattern Language’.
I think about the term ‘city’ a lot and agree with you about the various interpretations. I’m happy to use the term ‘rapidly urbanising region’ and suggest that yes, this model is an alternative to a greenfield subdivision on the outskirts of Sydney or Melbourne. Then I would ask what is so special about the these rural areas on the periphery? We are building new roads, infrastructure, utilities, new retail and community centres…why couldn’t this be done on the edge of any or every other town or village in the country? I’d suggest the reasons are (a) the narrative of rapidly urbanising region is a self perpetuating and self reinforcing story. We tell ourselves that there are no jobs or opportunities in the regions but I would argue there are more out there than in the Sydney and Melbourne periphery areas. (b) Connections to infrastructure. In the Circular Economy Village (CEV) model we are proposing to integrate all the necessary infrastructure needed to sustain the community, essentially increasing the capacity of the land to sustain the proposed population…matching supply with demand. (c) the economics of development.
I think that it’s through this last point that I can respond to your final point that planners like you and me won’t determine the future of the planet. If planners have ideas and are just telling others what they should do, then yes, we won’t determine the future of the planet. If, on the other hand, we develop a financial model, access the necessary finance and prove the concept is financially viable for developers, while delivering affordable housing, enhancing nature and building community…then maybe we can change the world.
Steve,
I notice you take issue with those who assume continued urbanization is inevitable, but you appear to have made at least one (inexplicable) assumption of your own?
Why do you assume growth is inevitable?
After all, as far as Australia’s population growth is concerned, it is almost entirely artificial. It occurs because of immigration, not natural increase, and is a matter of policy. So might we wisely, and easily avoid it in our future to the advantage of the Australian people and Environment?
You identify five megatrends shaping the way we live. Surely there is at least a sixth, which ought be identified as number 1, because it is the most important and because it is so intimately linked to your number 1. This, of course, is population growth. I can think of nothing more influential in determining the way we live and will live than this. Indeed, your entire article seems to acknowledge as much; is not it focus the impact of more people (and their consumption)?
Might you explain why this is overlooked?
Finally, I can’t help feeling you are a tad too loose in your reference to sustainable development. I submit that no such thing exists if, as appears to be your usage, you mean sustainable GROWTH. I can think of no example of growth — especially economic growth driven by population growth — that can be meaningful described as sustainable. In any circumstance that I can think of it will represent a draw down on finite resources and will require further encroachment into and upon our natural spaces.
I believe I understand the essential principles of a circular economy but, again, how does this work in the context of a growing population in pursuit of material things? In the best case scenario I can think of, this will require that your circles grow relentlessly is size (as more resources are cycled through them) or that they grow in number — endlessly. Neither strike me as a sustainable concept. Am I missing something?
As far as I can see, that which would make it sustainable, and efficacious, would be an end to, and an avoidance of, growth. Until we address GROWTH, resource depletion, biodiversity loss (and decline in abundance — you forgot that one, and it is important!) will continue unabated.
Have I anything wrong here?
Regards,
Dr Graham Clews.
Is it possible to reconcile these three VERY different perspectives?
Perhaps, but only as a technological optimist.
(If there’s not much political hope, and not much hope of social change, then the planet’s only chance is that humanity’s incredible intellectual curiosity/ingenuity – exacerbating all of these challenges at an accelerating speed – will also accelerate awareness and answers and actions.)
From this perspective, the sense of the term “growth”, like the terms “city” and “urban”, needs radical updating.
We know about material “growth” in its twentieth century (and current) form. But a certain kind of “growth” is the only answer to the survival of the world as we know it: growth in knowledge, technology, and power to act, of course; growth in chemical as opposed to thermal processes of every kind; growth in people power; growth in equity and in human welfare; and growth in the capacity of urban regions to reverse their present blind appetites.
In 1950, about half of humanity lived in extreme poverty, an income today of about $2/day or less. It’s now about 10%, since in the last 20-30 years half of humanity has risen above $7/day. That’s GOOD growth – whatever happens in the first world where a tiny minority live on $40/day or more.
IF it is roughly right that “the transformation of the vast rapidly urbanising regions will determine the future of the planet”, forget about “planning” (focus on the actions of the governor-investor-developer complex), forget about “cities” (the image of a city confounds our understanding of the realities and possibilities of rapidly urbanising regions), and forget about material “growth” in its current form.
Instead join the last-ditch effort to transform humanity’s (inevitable, urban) habitat into what Stephen (collectively managing the circulation of resources while simultaneously regenerating natural systems) and Graham (avoidance of resource depletion, biodiversity loss and decline in abundance) both call for.
Not rural villages. Not stasis.
WITHIN the “rapidly urbanising regions” of Australia we must develop FASTER to “collectively manage the circulation of resources while simultaneously regenerating natural systems” and avoid “resource depletion, biodiversity loss and decline in abundance”, because that is precisely what the world needs to do.
Jeremy, your notion of a governor-investor-developer complex is interesting. They are the people in the rapidly urbanising regions who say we should keep rapidly urbanising so that they can keep benefitting from that rapid urbanisation. One reason to go rural is to say we are not playing your game any more. We can design our places for living, working, growing food, etc. very differently.
One way in which the new system can be different is in its alignment with natural ecosystems. These systems have a growth phase, they reach maturity, then eventually decline and die before being recycled and regenerated into new life. This is a thermodynamically stable, or steady-state condition. It is not stasis. It is a dynamic state of continually change. It stands in stark contrast our current economic system that strives to maintain endless growth in energy use and material production. A system that refuses to acknowledge that the growth phase can end, that maturity represents an acknowledgement that we have enough, there is no need for more stuff, more growth.
Hi Graham,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. The megatrends I mention are those identified in the CSIRO report linked in the article, but yes, population growth is an important issue.
This, and the problem of endless economic growth on a finite planet, have been central issues on the development of the Circular Economy Villages (CEV) concept.
There are different ways of looking at these issues. If we look at population from a national perspective then yes, potentially we could have a policy of zero immigration but this would not solve anything as population growth is a global problem not a national problem…it won’t go away if we try and close the borders. The way to address it, as ecological economists (eg. Herman Daly) have suggested, is to find a way to transition to a steady state economy. This, as you are probably aware, is an economy that is thermodynamically stable, designed to sustain a discrete population and supporting assets for a long time (preferably indefinitely), ie. it doesn’t need endless growth. In a steady state economy, the population does not exceed the capacity of the land and natural systems needed to sustain that population. Indeed, the idea of regenerative development is that the daily activities of the people in it, growing food, managing water systems etc., results in a net positive impact on the land, regenerating natural systems.
Creating a steady state economy is not something you can do at a national scale (or not very easily). Much easier to consider each bioregion or each village, enhance natural systems to generate the food, water, energy needed by the population in that place. A CEV is designed to be a steady state economy, circulating the necessary resources indefinitely.
We can now describe how the network of CEVs addresses both the population and the growth problems. The reality of the world today is that there is population growth. Australia absorbs some of that growth. In doing so we create a network of CEVs so that the positive impact of these villages offsets the negative impact of the existing population. As this form of housing will be more affordable, we might look for ways to transition existing villages, towns and infrastructure, localising production, making communities more resilient and also regenerating nature.
Building CEVs is a way of managing the growth that is currently happening to help transition to a steady state economy.