“Cities are Good For You.” Agreed. So What?
By Madison Newton, Petek Yurt, Ryan Phillips
Introduction
Leo Hollis attempts to produce a formula for a thriving city in “Cities are Good for You.” He sees cities as dynamic, creative places that enhance social connectivity and human wellbeing. Through a myriad of global anecdotes, Hollis argues that sustainability, trust, and inequality must all be addressed in order for a city to remain ‘good for us’. But so what? Deriving practical applications for modern metropolises like Toronto proves somewhat of a challenge from the idealistic patchwork of examples put forth by Hollis. There is certainly merit to Hollis’ three-pronged formula, but it is up to the urbanist reader to interpret the broader implications and practicality of his claims.
Unpacking Sustainability
In chapter 10, the book’s most explicit treatment of sustainability, Hollis lays out his case for why cities are both the largest battleground in the fight against climate but also a source of significant hope. While some of his arguments feel a bit like conventional wisdom packaged up as new urban utopianism (for example, it is hardly a surprise that dense cities with mass transit have low per-capita carbon emissions), he does articulate some ideas that are valuable for consideration. Most interesting among them is the way that the book’s long-running thematic tension between top-down urban planning and “organic” development interacts with the necessity of promoting sustainability in cities.
Throughout the book, Hollis is critical of centralized urban planning efforts, especially those of early 20th century planners such as Le Corbusier or Robert Moses. This predisposition away from centralization is in part what motivates his near categorical dismissal of planned sustainable cities and communities such as Masdar City in the U.A.E. These criticisms certainly hold weight. Masdar city both appears unlikely to be able to meet its lofty zero-emissions targets and is on track to be the world first “green ghost-town” (The Guardian, 2016). At the other end of the spectrum, Hollis levels unreserved praise on grassroots initiatives such as urban community gardens in NYC. However, while not explicitly acknowledged by Hollis, the most powerful examples raised by Hollis occur when top-down plans meet grassroots efforts align and influence top-down plans. Consider the example of urban cycling in NYC. In this case, a combination of bottom-up pressure from activists and top-down pressure to reduce congestion and carbon emissions over a number of years has forged a robust cycling ecosystem.
This is perhaps one of the most useful and generalizable lessons that can be drawn from Hollis’ work. Civic action and community activism can put forward policy initiatives, but these initiatives are at their most effective when they align with larger governmental plans. Similarly, top-down policy plans are doomed to fail if they don’t generate support and buy-in from the grassroots of the community. This importance of alignment hits particularly close to home in the Toronto context where alignment between civic leaders, municipal leaders and leaders of higher order governments is a prerequisite for successful sustainability policy. Given the examples presented by Hollis, it is worth considering how the Canadian system can promote greater engagement and alignment between all orders of government as well as civic and community leaders.
Trust Issues
In addition to sustainability, Hollis examines trust as an essential component to a thriving city. He advocates not only for greater trust amongst city inhabitants, but he also urges that there must be a solid foundation of trust between civilians and civic leaders. Hollis cites various definitions of trust, but perhaps the most profound of which is based on the views of Scott Burnham whose notion of trust is finite and prone to constant redistribution (147). He explains, “the fact that we no longer trust politicians and the police means not that we have lost trust but that we have placed our trust in other relationships and forms. Rather than signalling the end of trust, instead what we are seeing is its redistribution into other systems such as the proliferation of open source and sharing communities” (147). He argues that cities are experiencing a decline in trust in authority and a concurrent growth in communal trust in one another. Understanding this shift in trust and how it influences our interaction with the people and spaces around us is crucial to the development of effective urban policy in the modern city.
Toronto’s thriving sharing economy is exemplified by the rise of platforms such as Uber, Airbnb, bike-shares, coworking spaces, peer-to-peer lending, and even community gardens popping up throughout the city. The rise of the sharing economy signals the aforementioned growing trust in one another, which Hollis argues is critical for the cultivation of a city that is truly ‘good for you’. However, there is cause for concern should growth in communal trust through the sharing economy be the result of lack of trust in our civic leaders to deliver essential services. Do we trust strangers to drive us from point A to point B because we can no longer rely on public transportation? Do we rent long-term Airbnb’s because there is a lack of affordable housing in the city? If so, how can the government regain trust in its constituents? Hollis asks if we can design trust, to which Burnham offers that we can nurture it.
Nurturing trust in a large metropolis is no easy feat when it comes to urban planning, especially with respect to our government/civic leaders. Hollis hints that trust is bred through shared experiences, indicative of the need for Torontonians to better share in the planning and policymaking experience. The majority of Torontonians do not know their local elected councillor, and public consultations typically receive minimal contributions. Hollis unfortunately does not offer any practical insights as to how to approach this challenge, but perhaps there’s an answer in looking at the ways in which community trust has developed through the sharing economy and corresponding digital avenues, as described in Chapter 7. Digital communication is shaping the modern urban lifestyle — could a greater online presence of city councillors and municipal government officials lead to increased engagement from Torontonians, and thus greater trust in authority? Hollis’ emphasis on urban trust-building is supported by many examples of potential mechanisms to foster communal trust amongst neighbours, but the true challenge lies in nurturing trust in our local governments.
Inequality
Although cities can be good for you on certain aspects, the major downside is inequality. The widening visibility of inequality is an aspect that cannot be ignored in cities. Inequality is an inevitable problem in cities, almost impossible to solve. As described in the book, cities are a “place that attracts the super rich who want to consume the finest things… and the very poor who struggle to stay alive” (Hollis, 2013, pg. 10).
The question then becomes, how can cities really be good for you if cities are a place that attracts a huge power imbalance? Although the author slightly acknowledges this issue throughout the book, he tries to mask the downside of cities by focusing primarily on the opportunities in which can make cities thrive. He explains that “this inequality amongst cities gives people more choice about where they want to live” (Hollis, 2013, pg. 128).
This becomes confusing when related back to Toronto. The inequality really doesn’t provide lots of choices for people to live. Those that ‘struggle to live’ only have a limited amount of options to live in Toronto, where one of the major policy issues continues to be the lack of housing affordability. Many definitely won’t have many choices to live in Toronto because they won’t be able to afford it in the first place so the concept of “choice” especially in downtown Toronto fails to exist. More so, if they are commuters, their choices will be constrained to housing options closer to transit lines that are also affordable. These are policy issues that Toronto continues to deal with due to the widening of inequality.
In the later chapters Hollis (2013) explains that the role of transit can be seen as a means of addressing inequality, “suggesting that the car [is] the symbol of inequality” (pg. 319). The role of transit is a significant policy piece in Toronto. For years, the pressing issues continue to think about how to better implement policies that will help get cars off the roads and increase transit accessibility for commuters. Public transportation in Toronto is a safe, convenient and cheaper way to get around the city, hence why there is so much focus on policy to help transportation in Toronto continue to grow in its role.
There is no denying that cities have so much to offer, so much potential for growth and innovation. However there is also no denying that one of the consequences involves a huge gap between the powerful and the ones that struggle to live. Although policies in Toronto try to address the issue of inequality by examples such as trying to increase housing affordability and growing transit, the crisis continues. As homes become more expensive and as more people are required to spend hours commuting just to save money, their choices become limited and the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.
Concluding Thoughts
Hollis’ reflection on cities provides an idealistic view that cannot be spoken for all global cities. It is spoken from the vantage of a privileged intellectual who fails to fully grasp the downside of cities. The problem lies in the title alone, generalizing the assumption that cities are good for all. Without equality, trust, and sustainability, it is very difficult for cities to thrive. Hollis’ optimistic approach attempts to apply a blanket formula for city-building, when it is clear that not all cities are created equal. Toronto is an apt example of a city that continues to grow and flourish, but also struggles to attain true equality, trust, and sustainability, the consequences of which have been noted. Every city is unique, and it is therefore necessary to apply Hollis’ formula with a specialized lens that takes into consideration a city’s individual needs, challenges, and priorities, as well as the consequences of inaction.
Bibliography
Hollis, Leo. 2013. Cities Are Good For You: The Genius of the Metropolis. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
