Is currency the missing link in twenty first century urban design?
There is no perfect way to design a city. The world would surely be a dull place if each urban area were identical. But although each city has unique challenges, they unquestionably share some basic characteristics. This has driven urban planners over the last century to seek theories and methodologies which can be applied towards developing almost any city.
One of the most influential figures in this regard during the first half of the twentieth century was Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, better known as Le Corbusier. A pioneer of what is considered modern architecture and the International Style, Le Corbusier is often identified with a notoriously pragmatic approach to urban planning. His legacy includes an incredible seventeen projects across seven countries, which have been declared UNESCO World Heritage sites. The Le Corbusier school of functional living appeared to provide a practical response to growing urbanization as the twentieth century evolved, However, it also left a trail of wholesale demolition and reconstruction, characterized by functional living spaces such as high-rise blocks.
Many felt that the approach of Le Corbusier and his followers was devoid of human input and failed to cater for the social requirements of a city. Creating a space to live and conduct everyday tasks is all well and good, but what about spaces and opportunities for people to interact with one another? In short, would there be room to sustain and nurture the feeling of community?
Chief among the critics was Jane Jacobs, whose ideas culminated in the seminal work, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” in 1961. Jacobs sought to place people at the center of urban planning. To this end, she coined phrases such as “social capital.” Essentially, Jacobs viewed cities as inherently organic, rather than sterile planned areas. She regarded everyday human, social interaction as a key component of urban vitality. Furthermore, Jacobs was far from just a thinker. She successfully campaigned against the construction of highways in New York and Toronto, which would have destroyed rich social spaces. Ultimately, argued Jacobs, cities are meant for people, not cars.
A revolutionary thinker at the time, Jacobs’ approach today encapsulates something of the mainstream orthodox attitude towards urban planning. Rehabilitating structures, preserving historical buildings and encouragement of a 24-hour city have become the norm rather than the exception, with the human experience placed front and centre. Urban planners are today well aware of the importance of facilitating common experiences, creating shared memory and increasing everyday interaction. All of which enhances the crucial feeling of community which provides the glue to a city’s social fabric.
However, traditional urban planning can only go so far. Community is not only about structure, building and physical development. The bonds which tie people to one another are often about something more abstract. For example, the fanaticism that a community and its residents exhibit for a local sports team, creates local heroes celebrated by all. Similarly, the historic popularity of local newspapers gives local residents a shared written record of city life.
But this local particularism appears to be under threat, as cities continue to grow. By 2050, almost 70% of the world’s population will live in cities. This poses all kinds of practical challenges. But as Jacobs would surely agree, the issue is not only about functionality, but about preserving social well-being and local identity in an age when global brands and a parallel online reality dominate.
Urban planning is suddenly about so much more than the physical development of a city. New tools are required in order to preserve social vitality and the very sense of community which has always been at the heart of any thriving city. Fortunately, new technologies are just as much a feature of today’s world as the new challenges facing cities. This means that solutions can be found.
None more so than the development of city-wide currencies. Although the concept of a community currency is nothing new, the technology now exists which can elevate it to a different dimension. City-wide currency is no longer a question of notes and coins, rather an app on a mobile phone. Not only does this make it infinitely more convenient, but it opens the door to new possibilities. It means that at the tap of a button, city residents can not only make payments, but they can also receive bonuses and rewards in local currency. Calibrated correctly, these currencies can serve as the framework for a rewards platform which can genuinely enrich communities and cities.
These currencies allow residents to be rewarded for actions which benefit the greater good — For volunteering, recycling, car-pooling, participating in civic activities and much more. City-wide currencies hold the potential for a new urban reality in which people routinely help each other, where good deeds are an inherent part of the local culture. The potential impact is cities which are more vibrant, lively, compassionate, community-minded and in short, more attractive places to live. In this way, city-wide currencies might just be the missing link in twenty-first century urban planning as officials and planners grapple with the challenges of fast-growing cities.
