February in Santiago and urbanism

It is estimated that Santiago has already exceeded 7 million inhabitants and that the surface of the city (urban spot) is about 114,700 hectares. The density, therefore, would be 61.24 inhabitants per 1 hectare (hab/ha), which is the same as saying that there are about 163 square meters of urban space per inhabitant.
It can be seen that, for example, the average density (hab/ha) of cities with more than 500 thousand inhabitants is 27.9 in France; 26.4 in Germany; 29.7 in Italy; 49.7 in the United Kingdom; 24.1 in Canada; and a staggering 11.95 in the United States. I mean, we’re talking about very, very low densities.
The densest city in the world is Dhaka (Bangladesh): 16.8 million people live in just 45,583 hectares (less than half the surface of Santiago; 40% to be exact, can you imagine that?), which gives a density of 369 inhabitants per hectare. Crazy. On the other hand, the cities that are at the top of the quality of life ranking have very low densities (55 in Vienna, 27 in Vancouver, 28 in Copenhagen, 36 in Oslo, 27 in Auckland and 38 in Zurich).
The conclusion is clear and irrefutable: countries with high GDP per capita are characterized by cities with low population density. That is, cities with a high quality of life offer, in general, more urban space to their inhabitants. This happens because the higher the income, the larger houses, second homes, more cars, parks, avenues and urban space in general are demanded, goods with income elasticity greater than 1, an effect that complements the demand for land due to population growth. In cities of poor countries, with low quality of life, their inhabitants live crowded; they have a housing and infrastructure deficit.
If we were a developed country and Santiago was well planned from the beginning, its current surface area should be at least double. Toronto, for example, has almost 7 million inhabitants and the size of the city is twice that of Santiago. Result: density of 30.3 inhabitants/ha.
People are grouped into cities given the benefits it delivers, turning the city into a great productive unit. But the benefits of concentration also come with disadvantages. The urban problem, therefore, is in the (more) efficient management of the positive and negative externalities generated by the city. Santiago is an example of a mismanagement of negative urban externalities, among which congestion and pollution stand out. Wasting 3 hours a day (or more) on moving on time peak it has a very high opportunity cost. In good time teleworking!
An efficient urban policy is one that makes cities compete to attract their “customers” (inhabitants). This favours decentralisation. But for cities to compete with each other, each requires that they have minimal internal infrastructure and accessibility, along with adequate connectivity mega-works between them. Thus, an efficient urban policy that generates such competition between cities, would positively grow the second and third urban centers of the country, which today are far from the size of Santiago (which is a clear example of the imbalance): Valparaíso-Viña have 866 thousand inhabitants in about 15,800 hectares; Concepción has 849 thousand inhabitants in 19,400 hectares.
Of course, efficient urban policy requires getting rid of prejudices and mistaken beliefs. One of them, at a general level and especially at the level of urban planners and architects, is that the extension of the city is bad. per se. Normally when exposed on examples of modern cities, “solutions” with beautiful skyscrapers that they share “amicably” with their surroundings are emphasized. This could be fine as a solution to specific problems, but the global vision, as an integral solution of the city, could point to a direction totally opposite to the densification that is promoted as a mantra. We must be very clear that, to the extent that our country converges to development, its cities will necessarily require expansion (most likely Santiago at a lower rate than the rest, but it will still expand).
As the real estate world does not repair mostly on the global vision discussed in the previous paragraph, but maximizes its profit according to what is allowed by the regulatory plan, it is then the regulatory plan that is “responsible” for planning the city with a long-term vision. And here we fail: we see from obsolete regulatory plans (surprise with that the little urban space thate remains takes the prices of the land to the clouds?) to plans that take several decades to be approved, through speculation for the change of land use.
Given the greater demand for land as a result of the greater general income that our country will have on its way to development, it should be emphasized that it will be the poorest segments of the population that will proportionally have a greater increase in their income. The rate of motorization will continue to increase, regardless of the efforts made to improve public transport, and there will be a significant demand for replacement of houses and their surroundings, due to the economic obsolescence that occurs long before physical obsolescence. Santiago is already a collapsed city, if you do not prepare for what is inevitably coming, we will be more like the cities of the third world than Toronto or Vienna.
And what does February have to do with all this? Suppose that in the peak On holiday in February means that about 1.5 million santiaguinos leave the city. The density would fall to about 48 (inhab/ha). That’s why Santiago is so nice in February. Could it be like this, or even better, all year round?

The content expressed in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment