Special Lecture + Forum on the Industrialization of India, the development of cities beyond the 'first world', and the continual development of the future of 'The City'
While the economies of the Western world have been thrown into a deep multi-year recession and its aftershocks, the economies of various other countries in and around Asia and Africa have not only continued to grow - but have seen explosive growth. In the course of a young lifetime the Indian economy has transformed not just once but many times.
Through the lens of architecture and urbanity India has always been a rich landscape of design, culture, and building. In contemporary times India and its cities are finding themselves pushing not only beyond the bounds of their historical boundaries but pushing out into new territory - not just for themselves but for ideal of The City itself.
India presents a unique opportunity of analysis wherein it is possible to travel through all the typologies of urbanity and city we have studied thus far this semester - from nomadic, to early agrarian, from the slow growing layered amalgamated city, to the tabula rasa planned city, old fortifications to new cyber-campuses - all often within close proximity of each other. For example, in a two hour drive from the center of old Delhi to its developing suburban outskirts it is possible to start in an electrified medieval urban space, to an early islamic almost renaissance city, through a mughal/baroque city, continuing through a colonial industrial series of urban spaces, through a greened turn of the century new designs of New Delhi, and onwards and outwards through modern industry, service, and technological suburban diaspora of spaces all presented in an ever changing back-to-back-to-back morphing cityscape.
Indian cities are once again poised to leap into the future. In the past five years industry, residential communities, cities, providences and the state government have organized to develop massive infrastructural projects - highways, light rail, subways, grand avenues cutting into and out of city centers, complete overhauls of ports, airports, railways. Skyscrapers are popping up in large and small cities at rates reminiscent of a post-fire Chicago, digital technology campuses are being built that may ultimately dwarf silicon valley - and all these are being built on the trunk of our increasingly new interconnected internet and technologically driven infrastructures.
In each of our lectures thus far we have explored and episode of the development of the idea and space that is 'The City' each lecture studying a facet in the ongoing narrative of urban development and structure building up slowly layer by layer, informing the concept that we now recognize as urbanity.
We will use India as our jumping off point, to exemplify, and frame our initial discussion, but you are by no means limited to the Subcontinent for analysis - indeed our discussion's purpose is to consider the next possible layer and/or synthesis of these elements into a new fomentation, a next step, a new territory, the future possibility.
Now you are challenged to use what you have learned from our episodes and continuing narrative thus far to analyze, prognosticate, and discuss:
What is the future* of the city?
*A cautionary note: I would challenge you not to postulate the magnificent future of the Star-Wars city of 500 years from now (which is fun but tends towards the utterly fantastical - and there is a time and place for that), rather consider what are the next steps of our urban landscape? What do you think the city will be? How will it change? What will it become? What will it offer? .... in your lifetime.
See the next posting for a photographic collection from a series of images from Prof. Hart taken in 2012 of various urban, suburban, rural and newly urbanizing places and spaces in India
The Forum for our discussion will be open until 10PM EST nextFriday April 24th. extended to April 27th
Each student is responsible to contribute to and continue the discussion. Unlike the lectures, this means that you must not only submit your own response but read the responses of your classmates and respond to them (with questions, challenges, defense, additional references/resources, or hypothesis). You are encouraged to share your opinion, as long as you can back it with a well reasoned and supported argument.
Each student should plan on commenting at least THREE (3x) times at a minimum during the course of the forum, to keep the discussion moving along.
EMAIL to send in additional LINKS to post on the right side of the screen, or to be updated on this post (see above).
While the economies of the Western world have been thrown into a deep multi-year recession and its aftershocks, the economies of various other countries in and around Asia and Africa have not only continued to grow - but have seen explosive growth. In the course of a young lifetime the Indian economy has transformed not just once but many times.
Through the lens of architecture and urbanity India has always been a rich landscape of design, culture, and building. In contemporary times India and its cities are finding themselves pushing not only beyond the bounds of their historical boundaries but pushing out into new territory - not just for themselves but for ideal of The City itself.
India presents a unique opportunity of analysis wherein it is possible to travel through all the typologies of urbanity and city we have studied thus far this semester - from nomadic, to early agrarian, from the slow growing layered amalgamated city, to the tabula rasa planned city, old fortifications to new cyber-campuses - all often within close proximity of each other. For example, in a two hour drive from the center of old Delhi to its developing suburban outskirts it is possible to start in an electrified medieval urban space, to an early islamic almost renaissance city, through a mughal/baroque city, continuing through a colonial industrial series of urban spaces, through a greened turn of the century new designs of New Delhi, and onwards and outwards through modern industry, service, and technological suburban diaspora of spaces all presented in an ever changing back-to-back-to-back morphing cityscape.
Indian cities are once again poised to leap into the future. In the past five years industry, residential communities, cities, providences and the state government have organized to develop massive infrastructural projects - highways, light rail, subways, grand avenues cutting into and out of city centers, complete overhauls of ports, airports, railways. Skyscrapers are popping up in large and small cities at rates reminiscent of a post-fire Chicago, digital technology campuses are being built that may ultimately dwarf silicon valley - and all these are being built on the trunk of our increasingly new interconnected internet and technologically driven infrastructures.
In each of our lectures thus far we have explored and episode of the development of the idea and space that is 'The City' each lecture studying a facet in the ongoing narrative of urban development and structure building up slowly layer by layer, informing the concept that we now recognize as urbanity.
We will use India as our jumping off point, to exemplify, and frame our initial discussion, but you are by no means limited to the Subcontinent for analysis - indeed our discussion's purpose is to consider the next possible layer and/or synthesis of these elements into a new fomentation, a next step, a new territory, the future possibility.
Now you are challenged to use what you have learned from our episodes and continuing narrative thus far to analyze, prognosticate, and discuss:
What is the future* of the city?
*A cautionary note: I would challenge you not to postulate the magnificent future of the Star-Wars city of 500 years from now (which is fun but tends towards the utterly fantastical - and there is a time and place for that), rather consider what are the next steps of our urban landscape? What do you think the city will be? How will it change? What will it become? What will it offer? .... in your lifetime.
See the next posting for a photographic collection from a series of images from Prof. Hart taken in 2012 of various urban, suburban, rural and newly urbanizing places and spaces in India
THE FORUM: How it works (A re-briefing)
The Forum for our discussion will be open until 10PM EST next
Each student is responsible to contribute to and continue the discussion. Unlike the lectures, this means that you must not only submit your own response but read the responses of your classmates and respond to them (with questions, challenges, defense, additional references/resources, or hypothesis). You are encouraged to share your opinion, as long as you can back it with a well reasoned and supported argument.
Each student should plan on commenting at least THREE (3x) times at a minimum during the course of the forum, to keep the discussion moving along.
EMAIL to send in additional LINKS to post on the right side of the screen, or to be updated on this post (see above).
56 comments:
In Response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City…
It is interesting to look at a place that is currently in development and see how it progresses. As Americans we generally look at the world through a lens different than our own. It is difficult for us to interpret what we see as other cultures when we are not immersed within it so hearing about the rise of another nation’s capital and infrastructure it is interesting to compare it to what we know as our own history. As India continues to grow at the rate it is we will see some of the initial blunders that we made in our growth but also be able to view a culture as it rises from these pitfalls.
To look at some of the research on the recent growth in India it is interesting to look at those who tell of warnings of what is to come or show the downfalls of the current growth. In one article it speaks about how the rise of construction of skyscrapers and other larger buildings has proven to be a signal of coming downturns in the economy. With the upswing that comes in the economy before building these skyscrapers also comes the large expenses of building. With this growth comes a higher cost of living that many people in India cannot afford. With this growing wage gap will also come a greater difference in the way that the Indian people live, which already in its current state is largely different.
In the Indian city of Gurgaon-Basai mud and brick buildings have been replaced with the building materials of modern day construction in America, concrete and glass. It is a city that has trouble identifying with where it stands culturally in this time of economic shift. The city’s outskirts have many rural elements like a bird sanctuary but on the interior of city proper there has been a growth of skyscrapers and shopping malls that attract more affluent people to reside in the area. The city is slowly creeping out further into the rural land and many of the former residents of the villages are gaining money from developers in lump sums and spend it unwisely since they have no idea of managing it. When looking at how India is reacting to their current boom it brings to mind the struggles seen historically by developing areas during recessions. Looking from an architectural standpoint one may hope that during the urban development process they will not repeat mistakes made that are seen in developments made in some of the other lectures we have seen in this class.
Link describing upswings and busts in economies in their relation to development…
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-15/news/30627887_1_skyscraper-high-land-values-empire-state-building
Article on growth in Gurgaon Basai, India…
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-26933610
In Response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City…:
The future of The City, for me, is very hard to propose. There seems to be a cycle of growth and death. Cities gain popularity and lose it. I think the main course as of now is gentrification, which is making cities popular to younger people that can afford apartments. We see gentrification is the way Temple itself is taking "undesirable" land and repurposing it. I have seen the changes, though not quite recently, of train stations being spruced up as well. These are all indicators. I think Philadelphia's image might be changing to something the middle class suburbanite finds appealing, but, well, I am not an expert. I do not the paths of other cities. I just assume that because they have grown, they will decline and grow again.
Matthew B.'s post on India's growth is quite interesting. India itself has a varied landscape and a rich history of different occupations and religions which its buildings reflect. The skyscrapers and shopping districts are attracting the Indian elite whilst pushing the impoverished further out. I think this is pretty indicative of how our cities have grown, here, too - there doesn't seem to be a happy medium where all classes can enjoy all areas of the city. Is it possible that this will ever happen? I think that a lot of this problem comes from societal frameworks that demonize the poor and romanticize the wealthy, causing a huge disconnect and an even larger wealth gap. India's cities seem to also be taking this route. Perhaps what we classify as "development" is more like a Westernization? What does this mean for the future? I think it means that our sense of "development" is still quite Eurocentric.
What does everyone else think?
-Kristen N.
In response to Special Lexture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City:
One of the most interesting concepts for me, is the multiple transformations and explosive booms in India, despite the fact that it does not seem to have a real commodity quite like some Middle Eastern countries do in the form of oil. Western countries are dependent on it and pay immense amounts of money for oil, in turn bringing in revenue that allows the economy to explode and allows massive skyscrapers that surpass that of the Western countries in size and, in some cases, grandeur. Just from reading the most recent post on the blog by Prof. Hart, it does not seem like the affluence and wealth is not limited to the rich who are funding the skyscrapers or those who are being paid for selling their oil, but it is being seen in small villages and farmlands. It appears to be more widespread and is seemingly offering a way for some of the general population to escape poverty or, at the very least, make their lives more comfortable. They are going from living in, what some would call, primitive dwellings and are now able to build more permanent homes and solid structures to inhabit.
Something that troubles me is that, although it is seemingly occurring in many villages and more rural areas, the population density leads me to believe that a vast majority is living in cities, leaving them almost out of the equation in terms of experiencing a shift in affluence, lifestyle, and architecture. I have read that in New Delhi, there have been plans to hike up the budget for urban planning in order to keep up with the rapid expansion that the urban environment is experiencing, some of which is being set aside for cheap, affordable housing in low income areas.
The overhaul that is being seen in public transit is also something I consider to be a major leap, especially considering the common belief that there is such little room on trains that there are hundreds of people sitting atop the train, in great danger of falling off. The practice is called "train surfing" and has been a practice in many different countries of the past century, but is far more prevalent in Asian countries. Quite frankly, it would take incredible improvements to combat this and still have a fairly efficient train system in which train surfing is stopped, but I can only imagine they have plans in mind to help alleviate the problem through this transformation.
In response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City:
Examining India as a case study for trying to conceptualize how cities will evolve and change is very fascinating. As once a British colony, India is a country that has undergone many different rulers and is currently a country that is brimming with a variety of cultures and peoples. Its cities are very reflective of its history. Looking specifically at Mumbai, this city is an example of how globalization has caused cities to seek constant growth by means of construction and business infrastructure. However, this is often times done at the expense of the impoverish, as very clear when considering the enormous slums that are present in not only Mumbai but almost every major city in India.
This trend is something that I believe will continue to occur over the next century. AS cities fight to industrialize to keep up with the world markets, more buildings will spring up until there is not room left. Sadly, this process is one that is cyclical and one that has occurred in other sectors of our society, especially seen in the U.S.’s economic market. Like many other students have pointed out, cities are constantly going through a decline and growth period. As cities continue to evolve, I envision urban centers that will begin to further repurpose older buildings as well as build new structures. However, space is not limitless and this will lead to architectures and civil engineers to have to creatively innovate new forms of architecture.
In response to Kristen N.'s comment:
I found that Kristen’s acknowledgement of Temple University’s role in gentrification in the city of Philadelphia to be extremely relevant to this specific forum. Temple University is a institution that is located in North Philadelphia, an area known for having a less than stellar reputation for cleanliness and safety. However, Temple’s role in gentrification is one that has been very controversial. I think that Temple’s role in overtaking surrounding communities to expand its campus is one that is a done for two reasons: to create a buffer zone in which temple students (and parents) will feel safe, and to help reshape the outlying community of North Philadelphia. This trend of gentrification is something that will continue to occur in major metropolitan cities, like Philadelphia. I agree with Kristen’s comment that this is an example of how “Philadelphia's image might be changing to something the middle class suburbanite finds appealing.” However, this process of gentrification is linked very closely with the wealth disparity that is inevitable in modern America. Temple’s gentrification is meant to make the surrounding neighborhood better but at the cost of pushing out local residents. Overall this process is meant to make Philadelphia neighborhoods more appealing to the suburban families possibly entertaining the idea of moving into the city. This potential growth in city population and families who inhabit the upper middle class would be a great push to support the economic growth and health of the city, but at what cost?
In response to Kristen:
I definitely see where you are coming from with gentrification and the constant ups and downs of a city. The area surrounding Temple was a wealthy neighborhood about one hundred neighborhood and maintained its wealthy status after the was what was known as the "White Flight" to the suburbs and prominent African-American doctors, lawyers, etc. moved into the area and the mansions that spanned North Broad Street before the area began to decay. Alternatively, from my understanding, Fishtown was once a predominantly White, blue-collar neighborhood prior to its recent shift as an up-and-coming neighborhood as of late and 20 years ago, Philadelphia wasn't exactly the most desirable place to visit, let alone live. So Philadelphia appears to be on the upswing recently.
In response to Francesca:
From your post, it seems like the cost is too great for some of the benefits of gentrification in the general Temple area and I agree. This is a bit of a forced venture among the private developers, where students aren't typically invested in the upkeep of the area. We live here temporarily, with the majority moving home over the summer and winter breaks and will typically only spend a few years in the general area. It's unfortunate and I feel that I am guilty of not being too concerned about the surrounding area. With these general gentrified areas, this is somewhere that the residents will be living in year-round and typically live at least twice as long as we Temple students generally do. There is far more of an investment being made in by these young adults and the previous residents aren't necessarily being forced out. I know plenty of students that prefer living in newly gentrified areas like Northern Liberties and Fishtown because it is more affordable and has a more welcoming environment.
In Response to Kristen N.’s post on Industrializing India…
You bring up some interesting points about the cyclical nature of the growth and destruction of the city, in what I assume you mean not only size of the city but also, condition, culture, and economy. It is a good exercise to look at what developments are happening in a city and try to determine whether we are on an upswing or a downturn in the cyclical path. Another part of industrialization in cities that is so fluid os the fact that often they are prone to disasters. This cycle can abruptly change in a city if some kind of disaster; naturally for example hurricane Katrina or economic like the Great Depression. These abrupt changes alter the fabric of life in affected areas.
In Response to Conor L.’s post on Industrializing India…
It is quite interesting to see that the gain of wealth is not limited to corporations and larger entities but can also be shared with a man whose family has been farming on the land for generations. In America we have not had a boom of this type of change in the class structure in quite a long time. We oft not see people finding oil in their back yard and changing their class. An argument could be made for some of the fracking companies that will do just that but I do not believe it is to the same effect. Another difference between the two situations is the portrayal given to the two. I do not believe that India is seeing as much of the bad press on things like this as we in America do. If someone is thinking of selling their land they can look to the news, movies, documentaries, and other sources for information that I do not think is so vastly accessible for a farmhand in India. I like your point that you bring up about the possible changes that will be made to the public transportation system in India because it is something that we can relate to from prior blogs in the class. To look at the differences between the two is astounding but the similarities are what is more interesting in the two cases of India and Philadelphia because this change had the possibility to create more lasting changes. For India, a better public transit system might mean not only greater safety but also new opportunities for places to live.
In response to Matthew B’s comment
While I think it is an interesting notion to compare two extremely different cities such as Philadelphia and Mumbai, I find it to be one that can only be done in grand themes rather than more specific details. Specially pertaining to the idea that a public transit system “might mean not only greater safety but also new opportunities for places to live” is an idea that is somewhat Eurocentric. The railway system was largely instituted by the colonization of the British, however, India’s landscape and climate is extremely limited geographically and is incomparable to much of the world, let alone the leading Western nations. Having been to India this past summer, it was extremely clear that in both a rural and urban context, this area of the world operates by a very different set of rules. And thus I believe the problems of safety and expansion, due to the general overcrowding and largely impoverish population, that plague Indian cities are something that may not be so easily resolved by the imposition of a Western phenomenon.
http://infochangeindia.org/urban-india/cityscapes/public-transport-vs-personalised-transport.html
In response to Francesca S.'s comment to Matthew B's comment:
I do also want to note that there are significant problems with harassment in Mumbai transportation. 80% of women are harassed verbally or physically on trains, buses, and similar transportation platforms. They have tried to solve this problem by creating specific carts/areas for women only, but it does not solve the problem. I also think it is really cool that you went to India recently, since it's really a huge place of change and growth! I agree that the issues plaguing the Indian population cannot necessarily be solved with Western ideas. I honestly think we hold our own society as the pinnacle of safety, security, and comfort, but it just isn't something based in reality. We have tons of issues in our infrastructure. This makes me think that certain patterns will continue: poor areas will continue to be poor, or will be "bought out" by higher class businesses and institutions. Higher class, gentrified areas will only become richer because of their appeal to middle and higher classes, making them desirable spots to live, work, or visit. I think it's really difficult to say whether or not the cities are on an upswing or downswing, then, because the changes are affecting people differently. This is the same problem in Mumbai and I think it is the result of a global economy that favors Westernization. This is a really complicated problem. The architecture is just a symptom of it.
(My source for the harassment fact... http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/2013/08/mumbaitransport/ )
-Kristen N.
I think that the future of Philly is gentrification, especially in the Temple University area. Ever since I came to Temple, gentrification has been an issue. Attending this university continues to become popular which leads to bigger and bigger incoming classes. But Temple only has some much housing. This is what lead to the building of Morgan Hall. The building has 24 floors for incoming students to occupy. But even that isn't enough. Realtors are taking it upon themselves to build up the surrounding area as well. This is causing students to impede on local families and their neighborhoods. It also raises the cost of living in the area, making it hard for local residents to stay in their homes. Gentrification for the city as a whole is in the future as well. Companies are constantly trying to buy up vacant lots or dilapidated buildings in order to put new and shiny buildings in their place. They creates more skyscrapers, apartment buildings, etc. and more people come to join the Philadelphia family.
Cities in general are an ongoing process. At some point in their lifetime they become popular and everyone wants to live there. Then people grow old or move out of the city to raise their family. The city then has to re-brand itself to entice a new demographic of people to come.
In response to Kristen N.:
I agree with you that Temple University has a huge contribution to the gentrification of the Philadelphia area. I myself live on 18th St. which is inhabited by both students and local residents. You can tell that 90% of the time they're not happy with the activity going on on our street. However, they're accepting of it and haven't caused any problems. They're usually really friendly. But it's just sad to think that that area used to be their neighborhood and little by little realtors came in and took over. They've been more than cooperative with it happening, but I'm sure if they had it their way, they'd like it how the neighborhood used to me. Living near students raises a lot of issues that they never had to deal with: drunken fights, noisy weekend nights, parties,etc. Realtors are doing this everywhere too, in terms of neighborhoods around Temple's campus. At what point will people realize to just leave certain areas how they are?
Developing countries like India and China are experiencing their industrial revolution. According To my source, in just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants. From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years. And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years (Larson). While China has already surpassed the U.S. in the implementation of renewable energy, their reliance on coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, continues to increase despite the adverse effects on human health and the contribution to global warming.
The answer, in my opinion, or at least the only way to reverse these effects at an ‘effective’ scale (therefore at a massive scale) lies significantly in the hands of our policymakers. My stance on the issue is that as long as the powers that be (what some call the 1%) continue to influence political decisions, such as those on the energy sector, we are doomed to foresee the proliferation of the deterioration of ecological systems and human health.
Having studied architecture in Philadelphia and knowing all too well about the building industry’s significant contribution to energy usage, and despite the discourse of sustainability preached by my academics, I have come to the conclusion that while passive building design is crucial, the only way to reverse the effects at the scale I mentioned above requires incentivized policy, planning and management by these ‘powers that be’. So what is preventing us, or rather the powers that be from making the seemingly obvious right, just and moral decisions? Money? Greed? Probably. The infrastructure for these unsustainable systems are already in place and there is an apparent incentive for its implementation over solar and other up-and-coming renewable energy sources.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
In response to Lindsay C :
I’m not too sure where gentrification of Philadelphia enters into the discussion of industrialization of developing countries. Could you elaborate how you made this connection? Nonetheless, my antithetical argument regarding your thoughts on gentrification have to do with you discussing them as an ‘issue’. There are most definitely adverse effects, such as the displacement and shifting of demographics, however, I would argue that gentrification is a fundamental and necessary aspect of urban renewal. I agree with you that cities are a sort of process; they are dynamic and always changing and, like Temple, demographic fluctuations seems to be largely influenced by the growth and decay of institutions. Lastly, I don’t think you can simply say that ‘gentrification for the city as a whole is in the future’. Gentrification is itself a fluctuating process; the shifting of slums and demographics is a continuous phenomena.
In response to Todd C.'s comment:
Lindsay was referring to my prior comments about gentrification, which echo the situations in Mumbai. When areas are bought out for businesses, offices, shops, restaurants, and so on, it is often done at the cost of forcing people out of their homes. There are problems in Mumbai with this. I found it relevant to the gentrification of Philadelphia - mainly the Temple University area. I think urban renewal IS a very important thing that should be done, but it should not be done to benefit a select group whilst hurting another. This is the issue. It is too easy to say that gentrification is an "issue" with scare quotes when we are not the ones being hurt by it, if that makes sense. We can think of fracking in the same regard - it might improve the economy, but it poses major risks to the water supply, ground, and health of the people. [If you need more information on this in particular, go here! http://www.dangersoffracking.com ] I think infrastructure should be improved for the health and well-being of all the people - not just the well-to-do. I hope that clears up the connection!
-Kristen N.
Industrializing India: Environmental Impacts
It seems like the city of New Delhi is conscious of sustainability to create a healthy environment. The current use of the “non-petrol based and cleaner fuels” are excellent ways to improve the air quality and the environment. At the beginning of the “Industrialization and India’s Brown Air Problem forum,” it stated that “introduction of highways, cars, and increased traffic, unfiltered massive industrial processing, in combination with the continued burning of wood and coal for home heating is contributing massive smog and poor air quality localized around the urban areas.” Looking at where New Delhi are at right now to improve their air quality, by using certain products it has a domino effect of what type of products should consumers purchase. This then increase their knowledge and their attitude towards the environment. I begin to wonder if then people will start to live more healthier lifestyle, include walking more than driving. This will then change this over use of highways and car use bridges.
The future of the city of New Delhi, should be much greener. A green atmosphere is definitely a huge contribution to improved air quality. Small street scales will also assist in reducing the need for cars and traffic that cause air-pollution. This will also motivate people to walk more. All and all, people in the city will be able to live a more healthier lifestyle.
In response to Matthew B:
I found your Article on growth in Gurgaon Basai, India very intriguing. The video in the article are from the view-points of two Indian males, one in their twenty's the other in his forties. I find that even in that generation gap, both males still agree to the future of India being a place that "doesn't leave behind their culture/traditional way of doing things; while still embracing the modern addition to life."
From the Article, the future of Gurgaon Basai might incorporate open spaces into the village for the purpose of leisure for the community. In understanding the layout of cities in India in the past, displayed a more tight-knit system of dwellings to form a community. Now, the open spaces will become essential in strengthening the form of the community. We find that the people of India, due to globalization, have been more exposed to different sports and are not just limited to their regular game of cricket. Now, the opportunity to have a sports career becomes endless. This also solidifies the importance of open spaces to support the future sports careers of those interested.
-Shenikka G
In response to Francesca F:
Let us not forget that construction of buildings and businesses done at the expense of the impoverish, is not just something unique to slums in India. In fact, such actions take place virtually everywhere. In the California Planning and Development Report, having a “better blend of housing could benefit those poor neighborhoods.” This notion of blending class due to the type of dwellings constructed seem ideal in creating a more unified society regardless of ones class.
In terms of the social form of the Indian culture, this concept will break the class barrier that exist amongst each other. The idea of integrating social classes to produce a more diverse response to development is something I see for the future of India. People have become more concern about the well-being each other regardless of their social class. The idea of "bringing equality,” shown in The Untouchables video, incorporates all caste in the march together to create a change. The march shows “the possibilities of bring down century old prejudice and caste barriers.” This movement will further motivate the developments done in India, as physical form of the city is greatly impacted by India’s social way of doing things.
Reference:
California Planning and Development Report
http://www.cp-dr.com/node/202
The Untouchables: Breaking Down Caste Barriers in India
http://www.viewchange.org/videos/the-untouchables-breaking-down-caste-barriers-in-india
-Shenikka G
In response to the Special Lecture:
What will the future of the city be in my time? Well, I think I'd have to put that into perspective first; as far as the overall form of the city or the idea of what a city is, I think the changes might be pretty subtle as my lifetime is currently pretty short. In a non-physical manner, however, it has become something completely different even over the past decade. The city is associated with technology and because of that, it also has become part of the rapidly developing global community. Because it is now so easy to stay in ouch with every corner of the world and the easiest place to do that is the city, the city will continue to be viewed more as a port to other cities. Behind us are the days of the city being associated with industry and factory smoke; people will continue to look to the city as the beacons of technological development as technology continues to grow in power and influence. So, there may not be flying cars other than the Bugatti veyron, but they will continue to get higher and shinier to become the best beacons possible.
In more response to the Special Lecture:
I forgot to mention a very important thing; social interactions. Cities have had a reputation in the past for being less than safe. This drove people to other areas for social interactions such as parks or rural areas. As cities continue to evolve, people are becoming increasingly aware of the way their design affects the way people interact in that space.Urban planners in Philadelphia have clearly been giving that more thought over the pas twenty or so years, with projects aimed at improving the quality of city life, such as
Dilworth Park, the river walk near University City, and Race Street Pier. There is also a vastly growing food scene, which I think gets overlooked, at least in the realm of architecture. The influx of fine food establishments, I believe, at least, is a conscious effort to improve the flow of people within the city as well the quality of their interactions. This line of logic also flows directly int othe safety in the cities. Though I don't know if cities are considered safe, the crime is a shaow of its former self, with law enforcement tightening up in most cities so as to provide a better place to live for the denizens, this aimed at drawing people back o the cities.
All in all, I think the city of the twentieth century developed into what it was out of necessity. The industrial complex was a machine that ended up producing the world we have today, and the way the city became was a byproduct. I think we are just starting to become conscious of that, and are trying to clean up the image of the city at every available possibility.
In response to blogokristen:
I don't know if the city is changing to fit the needs of the suburbanite. I think that it is aiming at something that would be widely considered more "desirable" but only in terms of increasing safety and the possibility of people moving through the city and interacting in a way that makes them wan to come back and or live in the city. I think the re-purposing of lands ins't necessarily bad when the people of said land have no means of improving it themselves. Obviously there are some social issues that are tied into that, tones that I have very strong opinions about, such as homelessness and what should be done to help those in need, but that's a long conversation for another time. I think you are right to look at history and see the rise and fall of cities, but never has the city meant what it does today. Cities no longer compete with one another, but rather support each other in a global economy, especially if they happen to be in the same country. The city has never been a part of he global community in the way it is today, and so I don't know if I necessarily see the decline of cities happening. I think that may be true of some, but the larger cities have become more than there predecessors could have ever dreamed. Once upon a time, London was considered overrun with a million people, and know it's far far larger; even Philadelphia is nearly twice that big. Tokyo is a cit that's home to nearly 30 million people with implications on millions and millions more; at some point the size has to mean something and become a factor in whether the city lasts or not. I guess I think some of the mare too big to fail.
In response to Francesca S. :
I saw your comment on Matthew B.'s post and was curious as to what you thought the solution would be; I think there might be more to the overarching themes behind the cities that could be explored, and for what it's worth, I think things are more worth comparing when they have more differences. Overpopulation seems to be an issue thatt's difficult to deal with, and thus far the only ways have been controversial at best. This is where I think responsible architecture could play a huge role in the developing city; as I stated before, I think cities should and more than likely will continue to build upward, which I think is the best way to combat overpopulation, even if it seems overly simplified. Finding a way to house a humongous population of impoverished people seems a daunting ask, and knowing what we now know about "projects", it's tricky to go about it in an ethical way. But any other problems such as a transportation system would be secondary to a living situation, in my opinion.
In response to Shenikka G:
I want to elaborate off of your statement that the construction of building and businesses at the expense of the impoverish is not something unique to the slums of India but the impoverish in almost any developed city standing today. It goes back to the concept of Westernization and the notion that those who are more developed are more “civilized” and therefore should spread their classified civilization to anyone who is anything less than them. The reason being not to help these people and innovate them from their lifestyle but to help themselves, because the more westernized influences there are, the more places those who claim to be civilized can control, live in, build on, develop e.t.c. The concept of “concentrated poverty” is one that is familiar to the United States and most cities within the U.S., specific areas are labeled as higher poverty, designated environments, it is similar to the slums in India but given a more, “civilized” name. For example, this article titled, “Up and Coming Neighborhoods:Getting in While the Getting is Good” discusses an area near San Francisco, Oakland Hills, that is now and up and coming neighborhood due to the concepts “things can always change” and “community makes a huge difference”. The area that was once “a part of the city that’s extremely poor and dangerous” has revamped it’s community, specifically the Maxwell Park area, and turned it so, “Maxwell Park doesn’t feel quite like the rest of East Oakland”. But the reasons why this specific area became listed under one of the Up and Coming Areas is because it was re-westernized. The concepts mentioned at the end of the article showcase this exact point and even though the area now has an entirely different feel and is attracting more people for it to be a place to live, was it an action that kicked people out or an action that brought people together?
http://www.ziprealty.com/blog/and-coming-neighborhoods-getting-while-getting-good-part-3
In response to Rhet’ posts about the city and the suburbanite as well as the future of the city, I found an article discussing how the suburbans are becoming more like cities and the cities are becoming the more appealing place to live. I think the suburbs are trying to keep up with the appeal for the city. “But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life. “Lifestyle centers”—walkable developments that create an urban feel, even when built in previously undeveloped places—are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of faux city blocks” I have defiantly noticed the increase in expansion of rural areas but this was my first time reading of this type of extreme in terms of development. I think this is somewhat of a contradicting concept for the idea of the “suburb”. Also economical factors are having an effect of this issue as mentioned in the article, “If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded”. So relating this back to the future of the city, according to what was discussed in this article, they are only going to continue to grow. It seems as if they are becoming more appealing as life norms and concepts of traditions are shifting, it looks as if people will be increasing moving into the city as opposed to moving out.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/the-next-slum/306653/
In response to Connor and Francesca
In terms of relating the gentrification of Temple to the industrialization of India, I agree it is a topic that is relevant to the forum. As previously discussed in a prior class, this is an issue that has being ongoing between Temple and surrounding residents of the area for decades, but the fact of the matter is Temple will most likely win just as the industrializing of the slums will overtake those living within the slums. Within the years I have been at Temple, there has built a two new apartment/student housing complexes, several parking garage/lots and a new building, as far as developments within the neighborhood I have not seen any or heard of any that have been brought to my attention. Unfortunately, regardless of any reasons, economic standpoints or who was there first, in this case, Temple will most likely win any debate due to their funds, establishment as a University and notions of development and safety controlled by the University. I agree with Francesca and her comment of Temple being a temporary home for the students and a full-time home for the residents who live outside of campus, so where should the concern be placed and who should have the final say? Is that something for the University to decide, the city or the people? Who ultimately decides gentrification of areas? This article is titled, “The Problems and Promise with the Gentrification of Philadelphia”, it discusses how “despite concerns over gentrification, the city can't afford to slow development. So, it must find ways to encourage growth while protecting long-term homeowners and creating neighborhoods that are economically and racially diverse”.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Gentrification_in_Philadelphia.html
India is considered to be a country in poverty, which can cause problems when it comes to the expansion of globalization. Poverty makes it hard for a country to give better food, clean water, more resources, and a better education. A country cannot do these things if they do not have the money.
India has a history of low growth which led to persistently high levels of poverty. Once India started to grow their economy, poverty started to decrease. To fix this issue, there have been many ideas created. For example, better education, health, improve skills, and domestic market integration. “Improved growth prospects in the US will support India’s merchandise and services exports, while stronger remittance inflows and declining oil prices are expected to support domestic demand.” These are just some ideas India is hoping can help increase potential growth.
I think India is going to continue to expand and grow as an economy because they are coming up with solutions to help produce future policies. It is important for them to meet these standards to help fix issues that are going on in India. I think more infrastructure is going to be built in the future to help better their society, boost growth, and create more jobs for their citizens. In the long run, it will help decrease poverty because people will be making money and will be able to live healthier.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/10/27/india-needs-improve-manufacturing-performance-high-growth-path
Environmental Impacts
It is interesting to see the evolution of a city and how it transforms to meet the need of the future. However, if these drastic changes are not thought out it can lead to problems of pollution. As designers it is our responsibility to be aware of the environment as we design for the future. Unfortunately it is not the mindset of past generations. I believe that a sustainable future begins with our generation because it was introduced to us at a young age. Older generations are aware of pollution and sustainable infrastructures but I believe that they are stuck in their way of doing things. I am excited to see how and what our generation contributes to the built environment. What will the future look like? Will we continue to produce for profit and personal gain or will we design to meet the needs of the environment as well as its inhabitants?
In response to Shenikka
Blending of social classes in neighborhoods is an interesting theory but is it effective? People naturally tend to gravitate toward like-minded individuals. By having a blend of social classes do you think that this will cause resentment against social classes? A poor man that has a rich neighbor on a daily basis sees how the rich man lives may cause resentment and vice versa. For example, most Temple students live on or near campus but when they graduate they move away. Why? In my personal experience I lived on campus throughout most of undergrad but I am moving away due to the fact that I’ve outgrown the college culture and the younger students. I am moving to an area where young professionals (such as myself) live. Naturally people gravitate to where they would like to fit in or where they are in life whether it be there age group or social class. People seek commonality. Based on this fact I don’t think that blending of social classes would be effective. However it should be up to the individual.
In response to Jillian to my response to Francesca:
I want to reconstruct your statement:
“therefore should spread their classified civilization to anyone who is less than them”
to “ therefore should rule over those civilizations who are anything less than them.”
Since this is essentially what teas place. My concern is about those improvised people. Where are they left to go? They are not even able to be apart of such development of the history of the cry that they too share with the other civilizations and classes.
I’m glad you are able to understand the “control” factor that plays into this scenario. This is why I found the idea of "better blend of housing”,” according to the California Planning and Development, as a solution to creating a unified society. It is in this way I see the future development of Indian Cities. We find that the division between lower and middle class people becomes harder to distinguished. Since most people practically undergo the same struggles of life: finding a job, paying debts, paying bills, affording rent, buying food and so on.
In response to Kristen
It is very unfortunate that gentrification displaces so many. There should be a better system for urban renewal. Based on what I’ve learned about human nature and business, the people who are expanding and building and displacing people are doing it for economic reasons and personal gain. As humans we are naturally selfish which is awful but true. If we were more aware and had more consideration and empathy towards others then many of the world’s problems would not exist. This problem of burning fossil fuels, fracking, global warming, the Earth’s carrying capacity, pollution, etc are all a result of people being selfish and doing things for personal gain without think of the consequences. How will these changes affect the lives of other people? How will my actions affect the environment? I wish it was like this but it is. This is not to say that no one care but not enough people do. People are also generally conformists and are impacted by social media. So if we marketed and advertised in a different way that promoted environmental friendly solutions and empowered people then maybe the outcome would be different.
So looking into the future of cities without going to far...I read an article about a year ago that had some interesting technologies that could be used in the near future to better our waste of power and energy. One that really stood out to me The article talked about installing solar powered tiling on highways and street roads. The "jist" of this idea was that these tiles would replace having to use road paint to separate lanes, provide the power for tolls, and provide the power for stop lights and replace reflectors. While it may be hard to imagine such a thing, I tried to think about as best I could and I have a few concerns. Obviously this article was strictly hypothetical, but how much would something like this cost? Millions of digital solar powered tiles, on every road..sounds pretty expensive to me. And while painting new road signals, power toll booths, and placing reflectors on the roads, do not seem to out weigh the costs of these tiles. While I do see the positive outcomes of using the power from the sun and not wasting the precious energy we have left, I do not see this theory as every becoming a working reality because of the cost and the fact that you would have to make and install these tiles virtually everywhere on the earth. Who would install these? Who would keep up the maintenance? What happens if a tile broke, or better yet, the entire system fails? Would there be accidents on top of accidents and mass chaos? This seems like a very real possibility. In todays digital run society, glitches in any type of system always causes some type of uproar. Based off all of these reasons, I just do not see anything of this nature ever becoming a legitimated reality. But if it did work, you have to admit it is pretty cool concept.
In response to Jillian to my response to Francesca:
I also read the article you proposed: "Up and Coming Neighborhoods,” and I think your definition of what is “re-westernized," would be very helpful to respond efficiently to your question.
From my understanding of the article, The location of the Maxwell Park, at Oakland foothills, are considered an “unclassifiable part of the city.” It is pretty much poor and unsafe. However, it wasn’t successfully revamped because of the economy, its dangerous surrounding neighborhoods, among other reasons. In addition to its misfortune, the Oakland Unified School District shut down five elementary schools, causing Maxwell Park families to send their children elsewhere. Clearly, revamping a neighborhood takes into account many different factors; however, it is the social form of Maxwell Park that strengthens the community. The transformation of their green space to a “beautiful community space, complete with a mosaic made by residents,” displays such bond. Revamping here bonds the community in a social interactive way, it is the other factors that pushes the community away.
In response to Jon C:
You can blend a banana to get a banana smoothie or you can add grapes, apples, peaches, strawberries, blueberries and so on to get a FRUIT smoothie. (I don’t want to make this post a class or race issue, so I hope you can get the drift of my analogy).
Basically, individuals attracting those of commonality is a given. But it is this same commonality that blends us together because at the end of the day, we are all still different individuals. Lets use your example of Temple University, as the common denominator. Aren’t these same individuals of different backgrounds? social class? I’m not just talking about us, the students, but the other people that work in and around Temple. Is Temple then not, a community that is blended? Being that you have stayed throughout college there, can you therefore admit that it has in deed been effective thus far.
In Response to Special Lecture:
It is very interesting to view a country that is currently developing. We were not around during the initial development of the United States so all of the information we have is from history books and things we were taught.
Through India we now get to see first hand what it takes to develop as a country. This development is not limited to the skyscrapers being erected in the cities but to all of the surrounding area. Inhabitants are now able to build permanent homes made of glass and concrete, instead of brick and mud.
What worries me is that growing at such an enormous rate can cause many problems to occur. If this growth was to continue many of these cities can come overpopulated causing many of its residents to move further away. This can be beneficial to the growth of the city but most of those who live outside of the city and cannot afford these new permanent homes will have nowhere to go.
In response to Conor L:
I would agree that it was very interesting to find that India is growing at such a great real without a commodity such as oil. This has led me to believe that India will continue to grow for many years to come. Their economy is not limited to a scarce natural resource that may run out in time. Countries such as Saudi Arabia can decline just as fast as they were formed as their oil reserves start to dry up and could possibly left worse off than they once were. Once people adjust to this enhanced lifestyle it’s difficult to go back. This makes me believe that India, although growing at a slower rate is a power that is here to stay.
In response to Francesca S and Matthew B:
I would agree with both of you that with this great growth in India there is a price. While seeking to continue building their infrastructure, they will be forced to move further away from the cities giving those who cannot afford this new cost of living no place to go. There has to be a way to accommodate these people without risking the growth of the city.
In Response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City
This is a great topic to discuss in my opinion. I think Temple University’s Main Campus is similar to the idea of combining old and new architecture in India. Temple is reorganizing its architecture system. New buildings appear, but it still preserves its old building, so when I walk around the campus, I can experience buildings in different periods of modern architecture.
I had a chance to take a look at the plan for the next ten years of Temple and surprisingly, the campus is developing in the same way as a city. The concern of community and sustainability is brought into place. Although I don’t see any detail of sustainable element of the plan, but the landscape mentioned in it helps to make sense. The landscape strongly reinforces the community element in the way that it engages the area surround to the campus.
Nhat N.
In response to the topic of Temple University
In my opinion, although Temple University proposes the plan for the next 10 years which very much focuses on the community and the surrounding, it is not doing that. Having a walk further to the border between Temple and the residential houses around, or taking Tyler as an example, the building is facing its back to the surrounding. Also, the Broad Street side of Temple is kind of welcomes students and their family to campus, but it is the only place that happens. I think this is also one of an issuea of safety of the campus.
Nhat N.
In response to Lindsay C.
I also want to add to your comment that beside realtor that came in and took over the area, the tax is also an issue. As Temple is expanding, many buildings are bought, and this causes the tax to grow up in the area. Eventually, the residents have to move to a lower tax place.
Nhat N.
In response to the lecture and multiple forum comments:
After reading several comments, I feel the issue of gentrification in specifically Temple University is something that is both good and bad for the community depending on how you look at it. On one hand, Temple's expansion and reformation of the surrounding neighborhoods helps bring in upper middle class residents, who will want to upkeep the area, and also will feel safer sending their kids to the school. However, increased property values forces residents who have been living here for years to inevitably move. It raises several ethical questions. Is it right to expand and force these long-standing residents ultimately out of their homes? Some kind of limit needs to be made, but in the end I feel both parties will not be sufficiently happy.
In response to Jillian H.:
I think your point of who will win in the end is very true. My mother who was born in raised in Syracuse, NY tells me of when the surrounding neighborhood of Syracuse University was privately owned by residents of Syracuse. However, within the past 30 years the university has bought basically all of the homes and land surrounding their university. These have served as student off-campus housing and other various campus buildings also. Now the university is pretty much segregated from the actual residents of the city, and their area has its own college culture and college town atmosphere. I feel Temple will accomplish this is the end. It takes time, but it will be done regardless of how long the local residents have been residing here.
In Response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City:
Below is a statement from an article called, “Industrializing India”:
“The government plans to build 24 industrial cities that stretch from New Delhi to Mumbai for a corridor bigger in land size than Japan, write Matthias Williams and Lyndee Prickitt for Reuters.”
http://www.planetizen.com/node/52082
The above statement made on October 26, 2011, shows what the future cities in India will be built around: industrial cities. From this, one can get an idea of the types of spaces these will amount to be. Sure, this will continue the population growth of this area in the world and create more jobs, but as India develops as a few others stated in their responses, it will cause taxes to increase and create tough decisions for people when it comes time to find a spot to live. Also, thinking about one industrial city is one thing, but for a government to have an idea of building 24 industrial cities can be seen as farfetched. It can also be seen as a great idea, but wrapping one’s head around 24 industrial cities spanning what comes out to be roughly 900 miles and what that will cause the “future of the city’ to be like is interesting. Will there be something similar to an “industrial revolution” in India?
I see the future of the cities in our area to continue on the path it has been. Along with the immense amount of redevelopment, there will also be a great amount of adaptive reuse. Unlike India’s idea of developing industrially, the greater Philadelphia area will expand with various amenities to add to the up and coming millennial lifestyle. Having everything one needs/wants within walking distance of any apartment/building they decide to live in is what the future of the city will consist of. The future of the city in our area will decrease the amount of travel, number of cars people buy, and increase the amount of money people will be dumping into the economy. Studies have shown that the up and coming population will be less likely to save money and be more or less like the spending/leasing type. Money will be spent on oneself for the wants and needs of entertainment. It is almost as if the new society will be an act now worry later type, and the development/future of the city will build around the new wants of the population with amenities through infrastructure.
In Response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City:
As for how I see the future of India and its cities, I believe they will continue to build smart cities and develop industries. Since overpopulation is a serious issue for the country to address, they will have to acquire more land on which to develop and build. Agriculture in India has traditionally been the economy's least productive industry. While not an easy task, India may have to push legislation to acquire land used for farming and transform it into land suitable for building public and private projects. Farmers are also among the most impoverished citizens in India and more than 60% of them would rather be working in a different industry. The government could absorb this land to focus on creating millions of manufacturing jobs for poor Indians who are fit to work. Obviously this a very tricky situation to make landowners sell their farm lands, but it may be one of the only solutions to prepare for the future of the country.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/world/asia/modi-sees-shiny-cities-in-indias-future.html?_r=0
In response to the Gentrification at Temple:
I think ti's fair to be worried about the ethics of displacing the poor, but (and this is going to sound cold) I think the other side has some value. Regardless of where they are, the condition of poor neighborhoods will not be one that maintains anything other than sentimental value, which is not always socially beneficial. In fact, in the case of Temple, before the school started buying up lots of the land, the campus was considered to be in a dangerous impoverished area, and displacing the people, again I know this sounds harsh, doesn't change their quality of their life, especially if the land is bought from them. By increasing the value of the land, Temple is investing back into the community, something which could very well pay off dividends in the future. When we talk about displacing people, it's not like we're talking about the Native Americans here, this is more civil and at least the people are being compensated for their property. Also I realize this issue is a little off topic, but I couldn't read all those interesting things and not put in my two cents.
In response to Shenikka G:
Industrializing India: Environmental Impacts
Shenikka makes a good point about how a healthier life style should exist as the industrialization of India continues. I definitely think that what they are focusing the industrialization on: producing/using healthier and more sustainable products to improve environmental impacts will indeed act as a domino effect. I see it starting a trend and the population will begin practicing these new life styles along with walking instead of driving etc. As I briefly talked about in my previous post about the “millennial life styles” that are up and coming.
In response to Bradley M.:
I think you raise a good point about what the future of India's industry is; are they at a point where they can afford to give up that farmland which is the largest portion of their economy for more buildings, possibly for business, but also presumably for their huge population? And if farming starts to fall by the wayside for them, how does this impact the people of India? Do they import most of their crop anyway? What industry is primed to take the helm as the lead industry for them? What effect will building more cities have on these farmers? It would seem they do not wish to do the work anyway, so perhaps their quality of life goes up, but at what cost to other Indian citizens? It just opens up a lot of questions.
In response to Todd C.:
See, I was having this debate in my Mosaics class, and I was sure that this conversation was going to devolve into this eventually, but to be honest I totally agree. That is, with the points about the one percent controlling to much of the world, and that policymakers are the best chance to enact real change in issues like overpopulation in India.How does the technological revolution fit into this? I honestly think it's become more important in certain circumstances, because its something the whole world is involved in, and the interactions within that revolution will have implications for generations to come.
In response to Bradley M.:
I appreciate the term you used, “smart cities”, to describe how India will be developing and addressing the issues of overpopulation. Also, if these farmers are interested in working in different industries I believe that they would consider working as manufacturers. As long as they could benefit off of selling their land it could work. It would create a whole new lifestyle for these Indian farmers, but it would be a change that every farmer will have to experience eventually.
In Respone to Richard J:
I tend to agree that India needs to focus their resources towards expanding their industries. An "industrial revolution", as you put it, may be inevitable. But, there are issues that need to be addressed beforehand namely pollution/sanitation and land acquisition. Delhi, Patna, Gwalior and Raipur already have some of the worst air pollution levels in the world. In fact, the World Bank estimates that the impact of growth-only oriented policies are costing the Indian economy a staggering 5.7 percent of the GDP as a result of urban air pollution, and 3.5 percent of the GDP as a result of ecosystem service losses. Productive countries need healthy citizens who can work in the steel mills and auto plants. As a mentioned in my original post, India has been struggling with the acquisition of land that they need to develop for industries. Indian officials want to acquire land from farmers but as of yet there is no legislation that would force these farmers to sell. I agree that this is the direction in which India needs to head, but there are issues that need to be addressed prior.
Source:
http://thecityfix.com/blog/energy-cities-key-india-economic-future-madhav-pai-bharath-jairaj/
In Response to Rhett:
Exactly. The transition from farmland to development is certainly a slippery slope. The Land Acquisition Act in India has caused some serious controversy as well lately. The struggle has led to protests recently by farmers who feel Prime Minister Modi is anti-farming. There is no telling what the right course of action is regarding development in India, but at some point there has to be a tradeoff. I believe the Prime Minister is acting in the best interest of the country. Farming has been at the heart of India's economy for many years, but it is also the least productive industry. There is really no telling what the repercussions may be at this point.
In response to Francesca S.,
I believe that India has had some significant trends in history. India’s growth decline has decreased from poverty, which is a huge issue there. India was not able to build infrastructure and its poverty resulted in “enormous slums” in almost every city there. I agree with you that India will continue developing as well. More infrastructures like buildings, reconstructing buildings, highways, bridges, and renovating transportation systems to make it safer for citizens will continue to grow in India. For example, a state called Gujurat in India is creating a city that will provide “high quality physical infrastructure (electricity, water, gas, district cooling, roads, telecoms and broadband), so that finance and tech firms can relocate their operations there from Mumbai, Bangalore, Gurgaon etc. where infrastructure is either inadequate or very expensive." This will create more jobs for people over a period of time. I think this type of infrastructure will give the city more pride and pleasure, because of the new means of modern development that is continuing to grow.
In response to Shenikka G.,
I like the example you gave on how India is trying to improve on a better quality life for their citizens. There have even been more bus lanes created to decrease the congestion of the road for citizens. This will make it healthier for people and improve the lives of people. Another example is the Yamuna Expressway, which has been built to make it easier for citizens to travel through. Yamuna expressway is a major highway connecting to popular routes taken by citizens in India. It will provide a safe and uninterrupted movement of passenger and heavy traffic between major routes like Delhi and Agra. All these ideas that have been implemented into the city will help India to diminish its poverty issue and will make it a much more enjoyable country.
In Response to Special Lecture + Forum Industrializing India + The Future City:
On the Urbanization of other countries:
As India and other countries in Asia and Africa begin to see rapid urbanization similar to what occurred in the United States during the industrial revolution, it becomes important that the world pays attention to how these cities urbanize because we can't afford to make the same environmental mistakes again. There is a real problem in the United States were we claim to have largely reduce our pollution emissions but this is really just because production has moved from the U.S to other countries like India and China. As addressed in the environmental impacts lecture, Indian cities such as Agra and New Delhi have large pollution problems. It will be important as new cities emerge in India that steps are taken for these modern cities to have more environmentally forward thinking plans. Good public transit systems, mixed use buildings, designated green spaces, and more walkablity are all key features of green cities.
Architect Kent Larson has some good ideas when it comes to making emerging cities more energy efficient. (http://www.ted.com/speakers/kent_larson) Since we are aware that these countries will continue to experience this growth, these countries have the opportunity to completely rethink the way the world thinks about cities. The Future of cities could be happening now if people take steps in the right direction. In the long run it is going to be far more expensive to retrofit american cities to be more green than it would be to build environmentally friendly cities from the ground up in emerging markets. Just as it was easier to build grid cities in the United States than to retrofit the Medieval cities of Europe. I think this is something important that Americans need to realize and we need to be encouraging emerging markets like China and India to enact these practices now before it is to late and the infrastructure is in place.
I foresee the Future City moving back closer to the idea of the City before the unset of suburanization, where everything a person needs is in walking distance from their house decreasing our needs for cars. In the United States as industries move to other countries I think more business will be run through telepresence and the need for office space will decrease. In 10-15 years I think we will see the return of the medieval idea that the home is the center of life.
In Response to Conor L.'s first comment:
I think your problem in understanding India's economic boom is that you are assuming India's commodity which is bringing in large amounts of money is a physical item such as oil, when rather in fact the commodity is India's large labor force. Many companies outsource jobs to India because the huge labor supply allows these companies to keep wages low in comparison to American standards. Despite offering comparatively lower wages American companies are still introducing huge amounts of money into foreign economies like India. I think this is why you noted that the economic boost does not just seem to be effecting the rich in India, jobs at outsource companies has greatly helped India's emerging middle class, who had previously primarily been farmers. Make no mistake American companies exploit India's commodity everyday, even though it is not something that can be bought and sold like oil from the middle east.
In Response to Nhat N.'s comment on Temple's plan for the future:
I disagree I think Temple is aware of the needs of the surrounding community and are thinking about those needs in its ten year plan. I also think part of that plan is the dedication to working closely with the Philadelphia housing authority (PHA). I am glad you brought up Tyler and its surrounding neighborhood because I think it demonstrates this point really well. Everyday I walk from Tyler to the train station along Norris St. I think the two sides of this street provide a stark contrast of where the PHA has done and is going to do for the city. On the right side is the Norris Homes housing complex which provides low income housing through the PHA, the homes in this area are older and dilapidated and represent much of what you seem to suggest about Temple's surrounding neighborhood. The housing development on the left side is quite the opposite, it is mixed income housing all new buildings and every house in the development has its own solar panels. This side shows the PHA and Temples current plans in action to slowly make the surrounding neighborhoods better without displacing the residents that already live there. So have a little patience and remember that most of us are only at Temple for four years, while most of the members of the neighborhood have lived in "Templetown" their whole lives. I feel like there home secruity shouldn't be sacrificed to expediate the transformation of Temple's campus.
Post a Comment