The Formula to Creating a World Class City
Here’s a challenge: Name five iconic cities. Did you roll your eyes?
What makes us associate the word cities with Paris, New York, London, Tokyo or Sydney when there are much higher concentrations of people in others like Dhaka, Chennai or Mumbai?
City planners explain this through hard infrastructure, with iconic landmarks such as the beloved Big Ben (a memorable landmark from many of my favorite Enid Blyton books) and soft infrastructure — we all lust over Germany’s free university tuition and attempt to introduce some Scandinavian hygge in our lives.
I remember presenting on Japan’s phallic festival to La Tomatina, in a French class in an American school in Zimbabwe. The perfect blend of hard and soft is what propels these cities into stardom — and what brings a subsequent and ceaseless flow of investment and capital to these regions.
Kotler explains through his theory on the levels of Place Marketing like this:
Reminiscent of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it all begins with the sprawl of corporate headquarters, growing inwards to marketing the image and quality of life along with its people’s culture, cultural attractions and infrastructure, both iconic or plain. Countries like Bhutan are more known for their efforts in maintaining pristine natural conditions. Regardless of whether its swoon-worthy architectural feats or nature untouched, at the core thrives the planning group, the citizens and their elected leader who generate the essence of their city.
In South Korea’s case: 1995 is the first year regional leaders were elected via voting for the first time, giving citizens a direct say and jurisdiction to pursue whatever art and cultural event they wanted. Emerging from a society so hell bent on economic development, finally cities and leaders could develop cultural events and celebrate festivities even at a regional level.
In 1920 France, a Swiss-French architect cum city planner named Le Corbusier realized that the bustling French population was walking the same roads as the mayhem of donkey herds. He imagined a ‘city of towers,’ as pictured above, as a ideal anthropocentric city, and even imagines the complete demolition and rebuilding of cities — to the point where the top of skyscrapers could be connected to create a futuristic airplane landing strip. However grandiose his dreams, the cityscape pictured above does not look so strange. In fact, many of Korea’s cities have been strategically planned to resemble the above, such as the hip new city Songdo, Incheon.
However, each brilliant new idea is faced with criticisms, and introduced a debate on urban regeneration vs. urban development. The difference is was pinpointed by the iconic Jane Jacobs, author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities who criticizes le Corbusier. She lamented American cities that had transformed from neighborhood communities into big boulevards counter intuitively generating more alienation by the failures of urban planning. Criticized for lack of expertise in urban planning, she denounced those reeling from a credentialism high and pushed past her criticisms and belittlement as a ‘housewife’ to challenge the flaws of her policy makers.
She coins the difference between : “Foot people vs. car people.” Tourism and real life happens among those walk, weaving in and between the nooks and crannies of cities, and not the large shopping malls and landmarks that lay eerily empty as soon as it gets dark. Instead of eagerly demolishing old towns in the name of urban development, there is merit to her crediting the value and sustainability of urban regeneration. Now that’s the definition of a street smart lady.
You can read more about her here.
When planning to infuse a little more culture into a new location, it is important to consider the context and background of the new institution. Take for example, Seoul Arts Center (예술의전당) the representative arts and cultural center established in 1987. Seoul’s burgeoning art scene should be thriving around this area, yet all it is known for is its brilliant, blockbuster exhibitions, along with its difficult transportation, grossly expensive restaurants and coffee shops, and generally an area that you go to for a show and get out as soon as it’s done. It’s place marketing, despite having been in this area for decades, has failed to take into consideration the importance of urban regeneration. Besides significantly raising prices in the neighborhood, there was no apparent correlation between the suave art institution and the community around it.
In comparison, there is Daelim museum located in Hannamdong. Created in 1996, this area is also rather mountainous and difficult to get to. Yet, this place is the craze for youths and adults alike, with lines winding around the art gallery and its nearby restaurants filled with people. D Museum has taken a conscious effort in developing it’s own community by holding workshops for its locals and giving them more opportunities to directly interact and take part of the museum. This has allowed for the growth and revitalization of an otherwise steep and rocky area. Although prices have inevitably escalated around here as well, D-Museum as a cultural institution has made conscious effort to reconnect with the people and build a sustainable community as an arts and cultural hub together.
Creating a world class city is a complicated formula that is handled from an eagle eye view to the individual introspection of the residents living in the community. Regardless, the fundamental difference between urban development and urban regeneration is clear. Only when locals are incorporated into cultural institutions can place marketing be effectively implemented. It’s a community effort, but it’s directly returned as the community’s shared and lasting wealth.
