We talk a lot on this blog about how best to intensify and add housing to our existing cities. But here's alternative approach: Why not just built entirely new cities? This way you don't have to worry about fixing any of the things that are currently broken in our existing cities or worry about messy things like community engagement.

Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson's argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you're going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that's not how things are generally done in the US.

However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It's easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, "but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?" The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that's why Canada is a largely urban country.

Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?

Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as "counter magnets", and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.

The fact that these cities are referred to as "counter magnets" speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven't been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.

So sooner or later, you'll need to fix what isn't working.

Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash

This UN report (2018) on urbanization trends is a fascinating way to understand how our world is growing and changing. So today's post is about some of my takeaways. If you have others, feel free to add them to the comment section below.

But first, some definitions.

The UN report considers 3 ways to measure the size of a city, all of which we have used before on this blog. The first is the "city proper." That is the current administrative boundary of a city. The second is the "urban agglomeration" area, which is a city's contiguous built-up area. And the third is the "metropolitan area," which is the approximate area of economic and social interconnectedness.

Above is what these 3 boundaries might look like for Toronto (which is the example they use in their report). About the only one that isn't debatable is the "city proper" boundary; but it really doesn't capture the full extent of a city. Wherever possible, the UN report relies on the city's urban agglomeration area. They also define a "megacity" as a city of over 10 million people.

The largest city in the world is currently Tokyo. However, from 2018 to 2030 it is expected to decline by almost 900,000 people. Whereas, the city in 2nd position -- Delhi -- is expected to add more than 10 million inhabitants during this same time period. By 2030, these are expected to be the largest cities in the world:

Most current megacities are located in what the UN refers to as the "Global South." And 9 out of the 10 cities projected to become megacities by 2030 are located in developing countries. The one exception is London. Though all regions in the world are becoming more urban, the real population growth is happening in Asia and Africa.

Most cities -- 59% of cities with 500,000 or more people -- are at risk of at least one natural disaster. And 3 megacities -- namely Manila, Osaka, and Tokyo -- are high risk for 3 or more types of natural disaster.

Going through the report's data charts, it's also interesting to note that Toronto is not projected to become a megacity by 2030. However, the Toronto area already represents over 20% of Canada's entire urban population.

In the United States, Chicago's urban agglomeration is projected to continuing growing and does come close to megacity status by 2030. The Miami region is similarly expected to grow and is actually right on top of Toronto in terms of population. But the fastest growing regions are, of course, expected to be the city's that can more easily sprawl (Las Vegas, Phoenix, and so on).

Bogotá, Colombia is already a megacity and is expected to add almost 2 million people by 2030. It currently represents about 26.5% of the country's entire urban population. São Paulo remains one of the top 10 largest cities in the world and is similarly projected to add over 2 million people in the same time period, but to a much larger base.

In Europe, it's London, Paris, and Moscow, with the latter two already in possession of megacity status.

Now quantity isn't everything. Despite not ranking in the top 10 in terms of population, both New York and London are widely considered to be the world's preeminent global cities. At the same time, we do know that the size of a city does create certain socioeconomic benefits. Urban agglomerations create agglomeration economies.

If you'd like to download a copy of the World's Cities in 2018 (United Nations), click here.

Charts/Maps: United Nations

When I was in undergrad, I spent a summer in Taipei. One of the things I remember about that summer was how difficult it was to locate building addresses. Sure, there was the whole language barrier thing, but I swear that some of those alleys (which I loved) didn’t follow a consistent numerical logic.

It turns out that a lot of the world is actually poorly addressed. Think about the favelas in Brazil. How are they addressed? (Not actually a rhetorical question; I’ve never been.)

A company out of the UK called what3words is trying to solve this problem. What they have done is created a 3m x 3m grid of the entire world and assigned a 3 word address to each square. Apparently that translates into about 57 trillion squares.

This is similar to long / lat coordinates, except that 3 words are far more user friendly than a string of numbers. They are more easily remembered and more easily communicated to other people. The front door of the Starbucks in my neighborhood looks to be migrate.stunner.racing.

One service that has built upon the what3words platform is a bike taxi service in Delhi that offers female drivers for female customers. It’s called Bikxie Pink and the 3 word addresses aim to solve the safety problem of inefficient pick-ups and drop-offs.

Even in places where addressing isn’t generally a problem, I could see what3words helping. Interesting platform.

Images: what3words