Without a question, we are living in an urban era. More people now live in cities than anywhere else on the planet and I’ve repeatedly argued that cities are our most important economic engine. As a result of these demographic and economic shifts, we’re seeing megacities at a scale the world has never seen before. Below is a list of the top 35 largest urban areas in the world.
The top urban area is Tokyo-Yokohama, with a population of roughly 37.5 million people. That’s almost the same as the state of California and is more than the entire population of Canada, which sits at just over 35 million people. London, which, during the 2nd half of the 19th century, would have been the largest urban area in the world is now the 29th largest.
But at the same time, London arguably remains the most important global city–a title that can only really be rivalled by New York. Which raises an important distinction. One that Aaron Renn clearly identifies in this recent article for New Geography: Just because a city is a megacity, doesn’t mean it is or will ever be a global city. In fact, Renn argues that many of the world’s largest megacities will never “turn the corner” and become leaders of the global economy.
For that to happen, he believes that the city needs to belong to a country on the rise:
Moscow was the capital of the Soviet Empire. New York and Los Angeles came of age when America was the rising, and ultimately dominant, economic colossus. It’s the same for Paris and London, two borderline megacities, which rose as imperial capitals.
But how much of this is driven by the country and how much of it can be driven by the city itself, upwards? Could it be the city that ultimately empowers the country to rise? I ask these questions because Renn frames his argument as if “national hyper growth” is the only prerequisite that will allow the struggling and underdeveloped megacities to pull themselves up and into the developed world.
But the problem is that there’s no clear path to prosperous maturity for these megacities. They are so huge, and their problems so immense that they are difficult to even conceptualize, much less do something about. The amount of needed infrastructure provision alone – water, sanitation, drainage, transport, telecom, electricity, parks, schools, etc. – is staggering. And that doesn’t even touch arguably more difficult problems like corruption and good governance. Absent national hyper growth – a la Japan or Korea – of a level that creates a plausible claim to being the world’s rising economic power, or the proceeds of empire, it seems unlikely any of these cities will ever succeed. By contrast, smaller cities have a much more addressable problem space.
Now, I don’t disagree that the problems in these cities seem almost insurmountable. I’ve been to places like Dhaka, Bangladesh. I’ve witnessed first hand the challenges facing megacities in the developing world.
But to assume that these cities are lost causes without the nation itself lifting it up, seems almost self defeating and overly pessimistic. It also strikes me as a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. Because if cities are our economic engine, then “national hyper growth” seems difficult without also getting our cities right.
What comes first?
Yes, there are and will be reforms that need to happen at the federal level but, at the same time, I think there’s a lot that can and should happen from the ground up. Perhaps that’s part of the reason Singapore has been so successful. As a city-state, its reforms were both top down and bottom up.
I want to believe that with the right reforms, policies, and leadership, any country can create a framework in which its cities are able to thrive. And that it’s not just the result of imperial rule or some other circumstance. From good and transparent governance to developed financial markets, there are many things that cities need to truly prosper. But when you get it right, the results can be remarkable.
Chart: Demographia
A few days ago I asked a reader of this blog if there was anything, in particular, that she’d like to see more of on here. She responded by saying that she’d love to learn more about how other cities—outside of Toronto—are managing urbanization, as well as how we shape cities and cities shape us.
Would love to read how other cities are managing the growth of urbanization, how we change cites and they change us @donnelly_b
— Nancy Phatsaphaphone (@PhatNancy)
It’s an interesting and important question because, frankly, the challenges are greater outside of Toronto. One of the stats that often gets cited here in the media is how the Greater Toronto Area gets approximately 100,000 new immigrants every year. This doesn’t include domestic migration though, so I would assume that our total number is even greater.
But if we stick with 100,000 for now, it means the GTA receives about 11.4 new immigrants every hour (100,000 people / 8,765 hours in a year). Lagos, Nigeria, on the other hand, receives between 50-60 new people every hour. In fact, it’s predicted to be 7th fastest growing city in the world between now and 2020.
If you take a look at the complete list of the world’s fastest growing cities (all estimates, of course), you’ll likely notice that the vast majority of the cities are in the developing world. And that’s really the challenge. The world is rapidly urbanizing and becoming the most urban it’s ever been, but the changes are the greatest outside of developed nations. This poses entirely unique challenges.
Of the kinds of cities I’m talking about, I’m most familiar with Dhaka, Bangladesh. In my last year at Penn, I was part of a studio led by KieranTimberlake Architects that focused on water and housing issues in that city. It was a partnership with the University of Dhaka. We spent roughly 2 weeks there and it was an eye opening experience.
Here’s a telling slide from our final presentation:
What we were trying to do with this chart was compare population and per person land value for our development site according to various city types. In other words, we were essentially asking: If we were to build out our proposed site in the same way, as say, Dallas, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, or what is typical for Dhaka, how many people could we fit and what would be the resulting per person land value?
I don’t remember where we got the land value figures from, but we were trying to be cognizant of the fact that every city requires a unique solution. Using the same per person land values in Dhaka as in Dallas would be unimaginable because Dhaka has over 40,000 people per square kilometre (top right on the diagonal line above) and Dallas has under 1,400 per square kilometre (bottom left on the diagonal line above).
The challenges of urbanization in the developing world are profound, particularly in places like Dhaka where most of the city is subject to severe annual floods. By some estimates, 18% of the city’s land area gets flooded every year—talk about adding another layer of city building complexity.
We didn’t solve all of the problems in that studio and we’re not going to do it here, but I do think it’s important to fully understand the problem. One of my favorite books on cities is called “The Endless City." It examines New York, Shanghai, London, Mexico City, Johannesburg and Berlin, and has a ton of great data and diagrams.
Here are a two that outline densities and land use patterns for the above 6 cities (same order starting on the top left):
If you’re interested in cities, it’s definitely worth having it on your coffee table. And fitting to @PhatNancy’s tweet, ”The Endless City doesn’t just show how cities are changing but also how they are changing us.”