Tag: smart cities

Parks and public safety

I spent the last hour and a half working from a park near my house in Barcelona. It helped that I wasn’t using my laptop – I was mostly working with a notebook and pen. The incredible thing was that never once did I feel unsafe working in that park, and it has to do with the park’s design.

I got accosted by a human only once – by this guy asking me if I had a cigarette lighter and who walked away when I said no, and by dogs (of all shapes and sizes) multiple times. Despite the fact that I was in a park, and people don’t go to parks at 10 am on a weekday morning, there was a constant flow of people in front of me. There were, to put it in other words, sufficient “eyes on the street” which contributed to the place’s safety.

I’ve ranted sufficiently on this blog about the design (or lack of it) of Bangalore’s public parks (one with a name sufficiently similar to that of this post). The problem with the parks, in my opinion, is that they are exclusive closed spaces which are hard to access.

The sprawling Krishna Rao Park in the middle of Basavanagudi, for example, has only two or three entrances, and the number of trees in the park means that large parts of it are hardly visible, providing a refuge to unsavoury elements. This phenomenon of few entrances to parks is prevalent in other city parks as well, with the consequence that the BBMP (city administration) closes off the parks during the day when few people want to go in.

The park I was sitting in this morning, on the other hand, had no such safety issues. It helped that there weren’t too many trees (not always a positive thing about parks), which improved visibility, but most importantly, it was open on all sides, providing a nice thoroughfare for people walking across the area. This meant that a large number of people in the vicinity, even if they didn’t want to “go to a park” ended up passing through the park, because of which there was a constant flow of human traffic and “eyes on the park street”, making it a significantly safer space.

There might be (maintenance-related ) reasons for having limited entrances to parks in Bangalore, but the administration should seriously consider opening up parks on all sides and encouraging people to walk through them (after all, walking paths are an important part of Bangalore parks). Maintenance costs might go up, but safety of parks will be enhanced significantly, and it will be possible to keep parks open at all times, which will enhance their utility to the public.

Maybe Krishna Rao park, with roads on all sides and in the middle of Basavanagudi, might serve as a good pilot case for this.

The myth of affordable housing

Cities are unaffordable by definition because of the value that can be extracted by living in them. 

A few months back, my Takshashila colleague Varun KR (Shenoy) asked me if there is any city where housing is not prohibitively expensive. It wasn’t a rhetorical question. While answering “no”, I went off on a long rant as to why affordable housing is a myth, and why housing in urban areas is by definition expensive. I had been planning to blog it for a while but I get down to it only now.

Cities are expensive to live in due to a simple reason – lots of people want to live there. And why do lots of people want to live in cities? Because the density in cities means that there is a lot more economic activity happening per capita that results in greater productivity and happiness.

If you are in a rural area, for example, there are few services that you could afford to outsource, for the small scale means that it doesn’t make sense for people to provide that service. Even when such services exist, lack of competition might mean a large “bid-ask spread” and hence inefficiency. This means you are forced to do a lot more tasks which you suck at, leaving less time for you to do things you are good at and make money from.

Needs of a rural area also means that there is a natural limit on the kind of economic activities that can be remunerative there, so if your skills don’t lie in one of those, you are but forced to lead a suboptimal existence.

Larger agglomerations (such as cities), by putting people closer to each other, provide sufficient scale for more goods and services to become tradable. Transaction costs are reduced, and you can afford to outsource a lot more tasks than you could afford to in a rural area, thus boosting your productivity.

Economist and noted urban theorist Jane Jacobs, in her book “Cities and the Wealth of Nations”, argues that economic development occurs exclusively in cities and “city regions” and proceeds to demolish different theories by which people have tried to create economic value in remote areas (my review of the book here).

The larger a city is, the greater the benefits for someone who lives there, controlling for ability and skill. Thus, ceteris paribus, the demand for living in cities exceeds that of living in smaller agglomerations, which gets reflected in the price of housing.

It might be argued that what I have presented so far is only an analysis of demand, and supply is missing from my analysis. (I don’t understand who is on the left and who is on the right on this one but) One side argues that the reason housing is not affordable in cities is that strict regulations and zoning laws limit the amount of housing available leading to higher prices. The other side talks about the greed of builders who want to “maximise profits by building for the rich”, which leads to undersupply at the lower end of the market.

While zoning and building restrictions might artificially restrict supply and push up prices (San Francisco is a well-known example of a city with expensive housing for this reason), easing such restrictions can have only a limited impact. While it is true that increasing density might lead to an increase in supply and thus lower prices, a denser city will end up providing scale to far more goods and services than a less dense city can, thus increasing the value addition for people living there, which means more people want to live in these denser cities.

As for regulations that dictate that “affordable housing” be built, one needs to look no further than the “Slum Rehabilitation Apartments” that have been built in Mumbai on land recovered from slums (the usual deal is for a builder to commit to building a certain number of “affordable” houses for the erstwhile dwellers of the slums thus demolished apart from “conventional” housing). Erstwhile slumdwellers rarely occupy such apartments, for they are willing to accept a lower quality of life (in another slum, perhaps) in exchange for the money that can be generated by renting out these apartments.

This piece is far from over, but given how long it’s been, I’ll probably continue in a second part. Till then, I leave you with this thought – a city becoming an “affordable” place to live is a cause of worry for policymakers (and dwellers of the city itself) because it is an indicator that the city is not adding as much economic value as it used to.

 

Car-free days, traffic jams and social capital

While most news nowadays is fairly hilarious, one piece was more hilarious than the others. This was about traffic jams in Gurgaon yesterday, a day that had been declared as a “Car Free Day”.

You might wonder why there might be traffic jams on days that are supposedly “Car Free”. I don’t know the precise effect this can be classified under, but it’s somewhere in a linear combination of Prisoner’s Dilemma and Tragedy of the Commons and correlation, all led by a lack of social capital.

There are no rules that declare the day to be car free. It’s just a “request” by the local government (traffic police in this case). While there were some nominal efforts to improve public transport for the day, etc, there was nothing else that was different yesterday from other days. So why did it lead to a traffic jam?

If you know it’s a car free day and you have a car, you’ll assume that other people are going to leave their cars at home, and that you are going to have a free ride in free-flowing non-traffic if you take out your car. And so you take out your car. Unfortunately, the number of people who think such is enough to cause a traffic jam.

The problem stems with a lack of social capital in Indian cities (based on anecdotal experience (my own data point from 2008-09), I would posit it is lower in Gurgaon than in other Indian cities). As a consequence, when people are trying to make the “great optimisation”, they allocate a greater weight than necessary to their own interests, and consequently a lesser than necessary weight to others’ interests. And thus you end up with outcomes like yesterday’s. More generally, “requests” to people to give up a private benefit for others’ benefits can at best turn out to be counterproductive.

While designing policies, it’s important to be realistic and keep in mind ease of implementation. So if the reality is low social capital, any policy that requires voluntary giving up by people is only going to have a marginal impact.

Coming back to traffic, I’m increasingly convinced (I’ve held this conviction since 2006, and it has only grown stronger over time) that the only way to make people switch to public transport is to lead with supply – flood the streets with buses, which among other things actually increase the cost of private transport. Once there is sufficient density of buses, these buses can be given their own lanes which further pushes up the cost of driving. Then we can look at further measures such as prohibitive parking costs and congestion pricing.

We can have these notional “no car days” and “bus days” and “no honking days” but it is unlikely that any of them will have anything more than a token effect.