Español

Protection against the storm

Written by Pablo González and Pedro Nonay, trying to find what we can do in our adaptation to changes in world order.

Entry 6

Cities have to adapt

December 31, 2024

In this entry I want to talk about cities, and their need to adapt to the new times. Of course, that means talking about housing, but also about many other aspects of the city.

As I have been saying in previous entries, I support the idea that almost all the changes that are occurring in the world have their ultimate cause in the invention of the Internet. And in the many derivatives of it that have been subsequently developed. 

The Internet affects all aspects of life, the economy and society. Evidently, it also affects the city.

The meaning of the city. A bit of history.

It is well known that the emergence of the concept of “city” was a consequence of the invention of agriculture. Before that time, we were hunter-gatherers, that is to say: nomads. Human groups did not have a permanent residence. They moved from one area to another according to the seasons of the year, and according to the possibilities of having good hunting, or good fruits to gather.

Agriculture forced them to live constantly near the land they sowed. In this way, they could do the work that the fields required without having to travel far. They could also watch over the fields and avoid theft. For this reason, the concept of “village” appeared, which, according to their productive capacity, evolved into towns and cities.

As a curiosity, one can observe how this very ancient invention of agriculture maintains its visible trace in the distances between villages even today. At that time, it was logical to sleep (establish the village) at a reasonable distance from the land being worked. That distance had to be sufficient to be able to make the journey from the village to the land to be tilled (and back) in a sufficiently short time to be able to work all day on the land and return to the village to sleep. Since, at that time, there were no means of transportation as there are today, they had to walk or ride a donkey. It is known that a normal person walks at a speed of about four kilometers per hour. Therefore, consuming one hour a day to go to the land, and another to return, marks an approximate limit of how far one could go to work on the land. That is, the land had to be a maximum distance from the village of about four kilometers. This means that the distance between villages would be between six and eight kilometers. 

It is easy to see that, today, this is still the usual distance between villages in agricultural areas. All this depends on the orography, since in steeper places it takes longer to make the journey. In those places the villages have to be closer, unless they are mountainous, or wooded, or desert areas, that is to say, without agriculture. In the latter cases, the usual distance between villages is that of a full day’s walk, which is what allows you to sleep in the next village. 

Some of those villages (few) evolved to be the first cities. This happened because they became the administrative centers of the region, which usually depended on where the regional leader lived. Others (even fewer), evolved to be the capital of the countries, which also depended on where the king lived.

Much later, because of the industrial revolution, it was necessary for workers to sleep relatively close to the factory where they worked. This meant that decisions to set up factories meant that the population of the area had to increase. The same thing happened later with decisions to set up large offices. People had to sleep less than an hour away (on average) from their workplace. With today’s cars, and high traffic density, that means sleeping less than 50 kilometers (approximately) from the factory or office.

All of the above generated the concept of “city” that is still in force today.

The human being is tribal.

We were tribal in the nomadic era. That’s because humans were not good at hunting alone. It was more efficient to hunt in groups. At that time it was small groups. Generally, related by kinship. This led to the creation of something similar to a psychological conditioning that forced human beings to have good relationships with others. In the same way, the inverse concept appeared, which is that of bad relationships, that is, the enemy, from whom it was preferred to live far away.

Although the cause of being tribal is so old, it has proven to be still useful today. It is no longer for better performance in hunting. But there is greater performance in all matters. Even in scientific or artistic evolution. It is a fact that things progress better if there are several people dedicated to the same subject living together and sharing knowledge.

It can be said that being tribal is not trivial, which I find an interesting play on words.

The Internet changes everything.

It turns out that today, with the Internet, the percentage of people working in agriculture and factories is decreasing. And those who work in offices can do so, more and more, without going to the office every day (teleworking).

This, at first glance, may lead us to think that it is no longer necessary to live in the same city. This is what digital nomads are all about.

However, and because of what I said above about being “tribal”, it is a fact that the production of almost everything improves if there is interaction among the participants. And it is not enough that this interaction is limited to the capacity of communication (by email, or with virtual meetings). It is good that it also involves more direct and intimate interaction. In other words, you have to socialize. Everyone can remember how good ideas have come to them in informal conversations, usually sharing leisure time with colleagues. And that doesn’t work in virtual meetings.

Besides, being “tribal” has entered our cultural DNA. We also bring it to leisure. Most people (there are exceptions) like to share their leisure time with others.

In other words, it is still necessary to live close to these “others”. Therefore, the concept of “city” is still necessary. However, with major changes.

Now, individuals decide.

As I said, formerly people had to live near agriculture, factories, or offices. And the decision of where these were was not up to ordinary people, but to politicians or businessmen.

Now, after the Internet, people can telework more and more. Some day they have to go to the common place (maybe to the office), but as those are few days, and as there are good means of transportation, those few days they can afford to consume more hours in transportation. That is, they can live farther away from that common place.

However, people still want to socialize with their counterparts. Therefore, the decision of where they want to live no longer depends on where the office is located, but on where those they want to socialize with live, as well as where is closest to their hobbies (mountain, sea, or whatever).

In other words, the decision of where to live will no longer be a consequence of the actions of politicians or businessmen, but of the tastes of individual people. This is something that is in process, but it will increase over time. An example of this can be seen in how, in almost all cities, the phenomenon called gentrification is appearing. Gay neighborhoods are created, Chinese neighborhoods, tourist neighborhoods, … And the inhabitants move to live there, not because of the proximity to their work, but because of the proximity to the people they want to socialize with.

Now, the future of the city depends on the inhabitants liking what it has to offer. That is the great novelty.

The city has to do “marketing”.

Because of the above said, it used to be politicians and businessmen who made the decision to invest. Thus, they created jobs, which forced citizens to change their residence to live near that place.

Now citizens are increasingly free to live where they want. This will happen gradually, depending on professions, ages, and tastes. Of course, as always, the youngest are the ones who will most easily have the courage to change their place of life.

Therefore, the ability of politicians to attract new citizens, and to prevent existing ones from leaving, has changed completely. They must now focus on making their city attractive to the inhabitants (formerly they also wanted to attract, but it was foccused on businesses). They must focus their efforts on creating the environment in the city that those social groups want. And, as a relatively large city cannot be “monothematic”, they must choose several social groups (what they call urban tribes) to incentivize. Also, since I’ve already said that people want to socialize among peers, that’s solved by encouraging different environments in different neighborhoods. Again, it’s the gentrification thing.

Therefore, what politicians must do now is: “marketing their city”. They must sell the city to the people, so that they decide to go and live there. In addition, of course, they must ensure that the “things” (infrastructure, environment, leisure offer, …) that these desired urban tribes require exist in the city.

In other words, formerly, politicians had to attract investments to build factories, offices, and jobs. Now they have to sell the city to the inhabitants, the general public. Or, to put it another way, formerly they functioned as a power lobby, now they have to do it more like a business, generating brand image (and product). There will be competition between cities. Some will succeed in attracting the inhabitants, others will not (as in the case of companies).

For this reason, it is essential to create spaces for the coexistence of the inhabitants. They have to be those that the social tribe chosen desires. They can be for nightlife, cultural creativity, service offerings for digital nomads, comfort for certain races or religions, sexual tastes, … And that means changing the licensing systems and permitted uses.

For all this, it is essential to forget as soon as possible what has been called “urban planning of spots”. These were the “planning plans”, where different colors were given to the areas of the city according to whether they were destined for housing, factories, offices, … At most, in these future colored plans, each color can be assigned to the social tribe for which each neighborhood is promoted. 

It is also necessary to accept that, after the Internet, the use of each square meter built is variable over time (even hourly). Or, should it be forbidden to work at home because the residential area does not allow the use of offices?

All this I am talking about I already developed in entry 9 of the book I called “Thinking 2020”, which I wrote during the pandemic. I reread it now and I’m glad I don’t have to retract almost anything. The trends are confirmed. You can read that entry  here (the part of the entry that talks about real estate is in point 21).

I recommend politicians to think very seriously about these things if they want their city to function well in the future. The alternatives are those in the images below.

The size of the city.

In the past, the size of a city was a consequence of the jobs it offered. Now it is a consequence of the quality of life and services it offers to its inhabitants (who can live there, but work remotely anywhere).

Simplifying a lot, there are two optimal sizes of cities that will work well in the future. They are those of approximately 500,000 inhabitants, and those of 10 million (of course, these are approximate numbers).

The explanation for these sizes is because of the services they can offer. And, I have already said that the inhabitant will now be less loyal, and will change cities if they do not have adequate services.

A city of 500,000 inhabitants offers quality of life in terms of tranquility. It allows you to do almost everything on foot. It is also the right size to offer complete services. That is to say, it allows to have a hospital capable of doing heart transplants (which a small city could not), or a Chinese school, or … The only thing that this city cannot offer is the “hyperconnection” with the rest of the world, or with scientific, technical, or artistic evolutions. I mean that this city cannot have the big airport with several daily flights to all destinations in the world (they will need to transfer to another airport, which is acceptable if you fly little, and not so much if you fly a lot), nor the possibility of having gatherings every afternoon with several Nobel Prize winners, or with several creative artists, … But there are many people who do not need that for the life they like to live, and prefer the tranquility with full services.

The city of 10 million people does offer the “hyperconnectedness” I spoke of above. It does so at the cost of losing tranquility. But there are many people who have to fly very regularly, or who want, because of their personal tastes, to be close to the social avant-garde of their particular interest. In addition, to provide people with a “sense of community”, that big city can offer the gentrified neighborhoods I mentioned above.

It is important to realize that these cities of 10 million are not usually a single municipality, but what is called a metropolitan area, which is the urban grouping (without agriculture among them) of several neighboring municipalities. This requires a great deal of coordination among these municipalities, even though each of them offers a different lifestyle.

It is also necessary to realize that cities of intermediate size are doomed to failure. That is because they will not be able to offer the tranquility of cities of 500,000 inhabitants, nor the “hyperconnection” of those of 10 million. And the inhabitants will go where they get what they are looking for. In other words, if you are in that intermediate size, you should bet on reaching the 10 million, and adapt the municipality in question to the tastes of its inhabitants (present or future). 

Of course, there are always exceptions, such as Geneva, which, being small, does offer “hyperconnection”. But they are just that: exceptions. In the case of Geneva, for having focused on the majority of its inhabitants being of the world’s upper class, which is not very replicable.

In addition to the above, there is the case of small villages. They offer even greater peace of mind. And, with teleworking, almost everything can be done from there. But this option is only valid for people who are not too old and have few social needs. That is, if they have children, they will not be able to find the school they want there, or if they have medical problems, the hospital will be far away, … It is an option for unburdened bohemians, which is a type of people that exists, but they are not the majority.

The decadence of the unadapted city.

Cities that do not adapt their offer to the above will fall into decadence.

This decline will be observed because businesses will be closing. So will leisure activities. There will be more and more abandoned buildings. Progressively, more marginal groups will come to live there. There will be increased insecurity in the streets, … 

As a result, some citizens will decide to move elsewhere. Some will do so because the city no longer offers them the life opportunities and relationships they are looking for. Others, because they will be afraid of insecurity. Those who stay will live increasingly uncomfortable, out of place, and confined to their homes (not very pleasant).

That process is a feedback spiral. The more “normal” people leave, the more businesses will close, and the more “complicated” people will arrive.

In addition, with the lack of population, municipalities will collect less taxes. Thus, they will not be able to offer good services such as garbage collection, street maintenance, sports centers, lighting, security, … All this will encourage a greater exodus of inhabitants.

Housing. Necessary versatility.

There is a lot of talk about the housing problem. It occurs in much cities of the world. Criticism focuses on two closely related aspects: a) the lack of housing, and b) the unaffordability of housing prices.

Both criticisms are true. But almost no one talks about other very important factors.

On the one hand, because of the same cause of all the changes, which is the social change implied by the existence of the Internet, it is a fact that the way of staying is changing. 

Families are more diffuse. Young people share more housing. They do it for short periods of time. It is not only because they cannot afford their own housing (to buy or rent). It is also because they want to socialize with someone, and because their life project is to stay there for a short time. And, the existing housing offers poorly what they demand. They do not have the spaces they need. The bedrooms are small for teleworking. The theoretical “parents’ bedroom” is larger, which makes it difficult to share rooms among equals. The same is true of the bathrooms, …

Something similar happens with people who live alone. There are very few homes designed for these people, who need less size, and who are less concerned about having partitions that differentiate rooms (because no one will bother them). And that group of people is growing, being forced to live in a larger house than they need.

Nor does the existing housing stock solve well the problem of the elderly, who need some attention, nor that of digital nomads, nor that of those who have to spend a few months in the city because of their activity (there are no such rentals), …

On the other hand, the whole existing system was designed so that housing was a way of “tying” the inhabitant to his city: the 40-year mortgage; the difficulty of change (due to tax costs); the long-term rental contracts, with heavy collateral and penalties. And, today, the inhabitant wants to be freer.

In today’s society, the demand is for much greater agility and versatility. They want to be able to rent for a few months, without penalties or guarantees, and to be able to change easily if they change their job, their tastes, or their friends. And that is something that landlords can accept, as long as the law allows it, and as long as they can avoid problems with squatters, or difficulties in evictions. 

In other words, neither the kind of existing housing nor the type of existing contracts are adapted to the new needs. This is a political problem. If companies want to adapt to demand, but the law does not allow them to offer what the public wants, tensions arise.

It is necessary to build other kinds of housing. And it can only be done if the law allows it. 

Versatility in the use of square meters should also be allowed. The example is that (always because of the Internet), if there are more and more empty offices, or underutilized (because of teleworking), and more and more empty commercial premises (because of Internet shopping), it is stupid to complain that there is a lack of housing when it is not allowed to convert those empty square meters into housing (of the new needs, not of the old ones).

Of course, the lack of housing is solved by allowing the construction of new housing. Much better if the law allows these new houses to be adapted to current needs (not to old fashions). 

And affordability is a matter of supply and demand. As long as there are few homes, their price will go up. When there are many, supply will have to adapt.

Conclusions.

Following the above, my advice to city decision-makers is:

• It is essential to understand that now, the citizens decide. Not only with their vote. Now they can choose to leave the city or come to it (formerly they were “tied” to it).
• It is necessary to create a “city brand”.
• More housing must be built, and environments to the taste of the future inhabitants.
• Public-private collaboration is necessary.
• New city designs must be adapted to new needs.
  
  

*****

Tips for our adaptation.

As I have been saying in previous entries, I do not write this because I consider myself to be a holder of the truth, nor to convince anyone. I do it in my internal process of creating my opinion, in order to make my future decisions.

Therefore, I don’t think it would be honest not to share my conclusions. This is what I do below, but remember that they may be wrong.

Regarding the issue of cities, what I believe is that it is up to us to decide if the place where we live today offers us what we want (for tomorrow):

• Is it close to my hobbies (sea, mountain, …)? Or well communicated, at least.
• Is it from the group of people I want to socialize with?
• Do you offer me the neighborhood with the personality I like?

We also need to think about whether our activity allows us to change locations, or will do so soon.

We need to look at the direction of future changes in our city. Will it go into decline? If we see more and more empty storefronts, more crime, and fewer urban services, chances are yes.

For the same reason, if we think about a change of city, we have to analyze the new city with the same eyes. We should not do it with the idea we have of what that place was like in the past, but with those of what seems to be going to happen there in the future.

Likewise, we have to think about whether our future needs fit better with what I have said about the city of 10 million inhabitants, the city of 500,000, or the village.

We have to do all of the above by remembering what I have been saying in previous writings about the “storm of social and economic changes” coming soon. That is to say, we have to think about where we will be most comfortable during that storm.

After this analysis, we will decide our city of residence as we would do when contracting any service. 

At the end of the day, and as I have said that the city should operate more like a business and offer us a suitable product, our decision should be of the “customer decision” type. If we don’t like that company, we will go to another one.

For the same reasons, politicians have to act like businesses. They have to improve their product and service to attract more customers. The idea of having captive customers by monopoly is over. That used to work when people could not leave because they were tied to the place (either by their job or their mortgage), but that is no longer the case.

Companies should also think about these things. If they think that their customers are going to leave, they should also think about leaving. If their workers, who need to be physically present, are going to be uncomfortable in that city, they should consider leaving, because good workers will find other offers in places they like more. Therefore, collaboration between politicians and companies is very necessary to offer a city model to the taste of the inhabitants (present and future).

*****

As always, I welcome comments on my email: pgonzalez@ie3.org