Urban Concentration

I recently came across this article in the National Geographic. It deals with the ever-increasing number of folks who live - or who will live - in large cities over the next few decades. It is predicted that the percentage of people living in cities in 2050 will increase to 75% (it's around 50% now). This has a number of implications. But first, the article:

(begin quoted text)

Sustainable Earth: Cities

Rio+20 shows how our rapidly urbanizing world presents challenges and opportunities for sustainable development.

Andrew Curry

For National Geographic News

The world's concrete jungles don't have the best reputation when it comes to being environmentally friendly. Think "city," and most of us picture unappealing vistas: gridlocked cars, smoggy horizons, and landfills overflowing with urban debris.

Yet demographers say the majority of the world's population already lives in urban areas; by 2050, three-quarters of the people on Earth will live in cities. Most of the action toward urbanization is taking place in the developing world. Urban areas occupy just 2 percent of the Earth, but consume 60 to 80 percent of the world's energy and produce 75 percent of carbon emissions. (See the National Geographic magazine feature "City Solutions" from December 2011.)

Rethinking Cities

Does the trend towards urbanization spell disaster? Maybe not. Recent research suggests those numbers may be deceptive. In fact, the typical urban resident produces less CO2 than average for the country they live in. The average American is responsible for 23 tons of CO2 per year; the average Washingtonian, just 19.7—and New Yorkers generate only 7.1 tons apiece.

That's because cities offer opportunities for efficiency in a way sprawling suburbs and scattered rural areas simply can't. Small apartments are easier to heat and cool than suburban homes, dense cities make public transit an attractive option, and stacking offices makes them more efficient to manage. In other words, the "concrete jungle" is actually a lot greener than it looks.

At the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the debate over managing this urban transition will focus on how smart urban planning—from efficient and clean public transport to a realistic appraisal of how migration from the countryside to cities works—can make the most of these efficiencies.

China alone is undergoing one of the most dramatic demographic revolutions the world has ever seen. In the past 30 years, more than a quarter of the Asian giant's population has moved from farms and small villages in the countryside to booming cities like Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, and Wuhan. Over the next 20 years, 15 to 20 million people each year will flood into Chinese cities.

All those new city dwellers will need places to live and work, making China the world's biggest de facto urban planning laboratory. Experts estimate that more than 1,500 skyscrapers will be built in China every year for decades to come; dozens of Chinese cities will need mass transport systems built from scratch. To put that all in context, China must build the equivalent of one Chicago-sized city each year for the next two decades.

China's far from alone. With their booming populations, countries like India, Brazil, and Indonesia are at the forefront of the urban future.

Looking Ahead

The potential is tremendous, but that doesn't mean the future of the city will be smooth. Urban planners must overcome challenges like traffic congestion, a shortage of adequate housing, and declining infrastructure. While cities are more efficient, they also concentrate demand for resources such as power and water, making it vital for planners to look beyond the city limits.

And authoritarian, centrally planned city designs like China's—efficient, perhaps, but often far from democratic—may not be a model many countries want to emulate.

There's no doubt the world of the future will be urban. The challenge confronting us today is whether we can make that world an efficient and sustainable one.

(end quoted text. Retrieved from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/sustainable-earth/cities/#)

This has implications for Mont Belvieu. On the outskirts of one of the world's largest cities, and in an America where urbanization already accounts for more than 80% of the population, we are facing a very dynamic time. Houston has already claimed several smaller communities to the west of downtown. People I know who have been in the area for decades claim there was a time when Katy was its own separate entity. Yet driving through the area now, you don't get a sense that Katy is any different from the rest of the sprawl that has enveloped it. The same could easily be said of Pasadena, of Sugarland, of Spring, and of many others. 

Interestingly, folks who live in Katy, and others, still prefer to identify themselves as being from those places. But other than a tax role, or a mailing address, what is it that makes Katy distinctive? Why is there still a place called Spring? And what is different about Pasadena from places like Texas City or Pearland?

Some places are lucky. Galveston is on an island, which separates it physically from surrounding communities. San Antonio has a great, storied history that will help define it forever. Small towns all over the country have downtown areas that shape the character of the community and provide places of collective memory and history.

Some places - and Mont Belvieu is one of them - are not so lucky. We have a good history here in the City, but it is not tied to a particular place - the historical parts of our City are literally being removed as industry expands in the older part of town. There is a collective history, but that exists largely within the memories of folks that have made the area their home - some of them for generations. As the physical reminders of that past are being eliminated, there is the real danger that this memory will be gone, too. And as this part of our history and memory are lost, we run the risk of being just another bedroom community on the outskirts of a larger, nondescript community that people more readily identify with.

So what to do?

First off, we need to make sure that we continue to have places where people can gather to share common experiences. This all adds to the perpetual memory and collective feeling of community. The new City Park is definitely a step in the right direction. This facility has already created a place for people to come and celebrate major life events, sporting events, and just an afternoon together with friends. All of these shared and common experiences help bolster the feeling of community and knit our families and friends together.

We must also insist on the highest quality of development. There are many areas of the City which have yet to be developed. As they come on line, it is imperative that we demand that these new developments fit in well with what we want the community to look like. This is beneficial for developers, too - communities that have quality development enjoy the increased patronage and buy-in from the local residents, which increases their spending at and interest in new developments.

Finally, we need to get out and participate in those things that will make us a part of the community. Lions and Pilot Club, Boy Scouts, Little League and Pop Warner - these are all great things to be a part of, and essential for the health of the community. But even more generally, people are benefited just by showing up for an event - movie night in the park, the Fourth of July celebration, Fall Fest, and many others. Our children learn that these are good things to do, and the legacy of togetherness and community is passed down from one generation to the next.