Cities exist because they offer economic and social benefits. People generally come to cities to make money, find a partner, and interact with other humans. Occasionally, we underestimate this desire to cluster — which was the case during our recent pandemic. But the reality is that this is a human tendency that has existed for thousands of years and that also happens to be accelerating.
I mean, as recent as 1980, only about 40% of the world's population was living in an urban area. Today, this figure is closer to 60%, and by 2080, it is predicted that up to 90% of the people on this planet will live in an urban center.
This will take the number of megacities with over 10 million people from 3 (in 1980) to nearly 100 in 2080 (according to projections from UN-Habitat). But here's the thing: cities help people become wealthier, but once people become wealthier, they tend to have far fewer children. This inverse correlation is well established. So intuitively, there should be limits to the growth we are seeing.
Here's an interesting article from CityLab by Greg Clark, Borane Gille and Jennifer Dolynchuk that pegs this peak somewhere around 2080. We will still remain extremely urban, but overall our population will start to decline. And for some cities, like Tokyo, this decline has already started.
Cities exist because they offer economic and social benefits. People generally come to cities to make money, find a partner, and interact with other humans. Occasionally, we underestimate this desire to cluster — which was the case during our recent pandemic. But the reality is that this is a human tendency that has existed for thousands of years and that also happens to be accelerating.
I mean, as recent as 1980, only about 40% of the world's population was living in an urban area. Today, this figure is closer to 60%, and by 2080, it is predicted that up to 90% of the people on this planet will live in an urban center.
This will take the number of megacities with over 10 million people from 3 (in 1980) to nearly 100 in 2080 (according to projections from UN-Habitat). But here's the thing: cities help people become wealthier, but once people become wealthier, they tend to have far fewer children. This inverse correlation is well established. So intuitively, there should be limits to the growth we are seeing.
Here's an interesting article from CityLab by Greg Clark, Borane Gille and Jennifer Dolynchuk that pegs this peak somewhere around 2080. We will still remain extremely urban, but overall our population will start to decline. And for some cities, like Tokyo, this decline has already started.
We talk a lot on this blog about how best to intensify and add housing to our existing cities. But
Toronto is number one. Los Angeles is number two. And New York sits just behind Winnipeg and Calgary. Huh?
The reason this is likely surprising to you is that when most people think of urban density they think of the urban core. And you are correct in thinking that the urban core of New York City is denser than the urban core of Winnipeg.
The difference here is that we are talking about "urban area" (or "population centre" in Canada). This is the continuously built up area around each major city. Think of it as the lit up area that you might see on a nighttime aerial photo.
Urban areas don't care about municipal or other jurisdictional boundaries. And they don't factor rural areas. Urban areas are a measure of continuous urbanization.
So even if you have the densest downtown on the planet, if you have a sprawling low-density urban area surrounding it, you can still end up with a relatively low overall population density. And this is precisely what is happening here with New York.
This is also why there's only so much that you can glean from a blended average like this. Because you can have very different urban forms and very different mobility splits (think New York City vs. Winnipeg), and still end up with somewhat comparable averages.
: 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.
Toronto is number one. Los Angeles is number two. And New York sits just behind Winnipeg and Calgary. Huh?
The reason this is likely surprising to you is that when most people think of urban density they think of the urban core. And you are correct in thinking that the urban core of New York City is denser than the urban core of Winnipeg.
The difference here is that we are talking about "urban area" (or "population centre" in Canada). This is the continuously built up area around each major city. Think of it as the lit up area that you might see on a nighttime aerial photo.
Urban areas don't care about municipal or other jurisdictional boundaries. And they don't factor rural areas. Urban areas are a measure of continuous urbanization.
So even if you have the densest downtown on the planet, if you have a sprawling low-density urban area surrounding it, you can still end up with a relatively low overall population density. And this is precisely what is happening here with New York.
This is also why there's only so much that you can glean from a blended average like this. Because you can have very different urban forms and very different mobility splits (think New York City vs. Winnipeg), and still end up with somewhat comparable averages.
: 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.
