I went to Curitiba this past January. It is the capitol of the Brazilian state of Parana, and the picture you see is of the Wire Opera House. This visionary building was completed in two months under the reign of the mayor at the time, Jaime Lerner. In the '80s and '90s, the city led the Western Hemisphere in progressive, "green" urban planning. The city fought hard for these changes, and made many of them under a military dictatorship, but when you visit the place, what one sees is truly impressive.
To start, there are so many trees, parks and squares. Lerner, who was head of the most powerful urban planning institute in Parana before becoming mayor, emphasized green spaces not only for recreation, but to reduce pollution and minimize uncontrolled commercial development. Another sight are the bus stops, which serve a bus system that works as efficiently as many subway systems. You pay in the cylindrical containers, and not on the bus, saving precious time. The downtown is well-lit and has plenty of pedestrian spaces. A battle that was hard fought, Lerner managed to avoid allowing cars to take over the area.
The city, according to a New York Times Magazine article, is suffering from growing pains. With expansion, democracy and politics, nothing is easy...especially staying green.
Here is my question: why aren't more cities trying this? I can only hope that the recent World Mayors Conference can lead to some type of awakening. City planning must think about tomorrow, and not just what is good for today.
1 comment:
Very interesting post. Difficult question to answer. Like you said in your post, a dictator has a unique ability to get things done. I think one of the main obstacles to better city planning is the democratic process. There are NIMBY, or some other social equity issues that arise. Unfortunately, much planning is seen as zero-sum, where there are winners and losers. Perhaps there is some truth to that idea? When a new light rail train is built in the business district, who benefits?
As an example, the recent Philadelphia's mayor's race was revealing. When the question of planning was raised in a debate, many of the candidates rejected "planning" as a luxury of the rich. They argued that if we spend money on planning in the wealthy areas, then the poor outer neighborhoods will lose police or school funding.
They didn't see the connection between good planning and community building, education, health and safety. This is a good example of poor leadership and ignorance. Perhaps the important distinction isn't between planning and no planning, but rather between good planning and bad planning.
Good news though, the one candidate who was the strongest advocate of planning actually won the election. Nutter! Keep hope alive!
Post a Comment