Last evenings on present earth

New city life: We need an open urban system where each built environment does not inhibit and suppress the users, but instead they are open to other possibilities and functions.

LIFE is uncertain. One day the Covid-19 happened, and life is no longer the same. Things will be different, and right now we’re still struggling to figure out how they will be.

In fact, we’re not even sure when this pandemic will be over, or if we would be able to come out of this crisis. The world will continue to exist, but what about us, our communities, and our cities? Assuming that we will survive this pandemic, the question on what life would be like still remains. We don’t have a solid answer. However, there are a few things that we can imagine and think about what to do with them.

Open city and public life

One of the main questions that we will need to face is the tension between densification – concentrating cities – and disaggregation, or separating out the population. The general wisdom in city planning is that density is good, and there’s value and necessity to make cities more concentrated. Transit-oriented development, mixed-use buildings and development, and other similar approaches to planning, are geared to optimise land use, and minimise carbon footprint. These are essential in creating a more practical and sustainable development, both financially and environmentally.

On the other hand, our knowledge in dealing with the pandemic is to practise disaggregation. To break the vicious chain and flatten the coronavirus curve, we are putting our cities on lockdown, separating and isolating people from each other, telling people to work from home, getting deliveries, trading online, driving with only one person in each car, and so forth. Instead of bringing people closer together, as what cities often do, we are pushing people and their activities apart.

This tension is not something new. There has always been a tension between health and safety in many industries, and the need to look at sustainability and practicality of the processes. Instead of looking at these two concerns as a dichotomy, we should look at them as a spectrum.

Densification and disaggregation are two ends of a spectrum, where most of the time, life puts us somewhere in between. What we need to do is to prepare ourselves to adapt and adjust according to what is needed at any given time.

To be able to adjust and adapt according to our needs, we need a system and environment that is nimble, agile and flexible. Urban scholar Richard Sennett argues against a tight-fit urban system, instead pushing for an open system where each built environment does not inhibit and suppress the users, but instead they are open to other possibilities and functions. For example, we need stadiums that can be turned into quarantine centres, mosques or empty luxurious condominiums that can become shelters for the homeless, and so forth. Already, we are seeing our facilities and buildings being applied this way.

This is also true for our policies. We need work policies that can easily allow people to work remotely if needed, a work schedule that doesn’t cramp everyone to work during the same hours of the day, transportation policy that gives citizens more options to commute, rather than being able to only afford one option.

We need to promote global commerce, while at the same time not neglecting local produce. Everything is a spectrum, and choosing one end rather than preparing for all has proven to be detrimental.

The nature of the spread of Covid-19 has put public life on hold. Everything that we know as essential for a meaningful public life, especially in cities, are going through an existential crisis. No more public gatherings, contact on the streets, people watching, and probably no more sense of community – physically and spatially at least. While we are figuring out how things will change after the crisis subdues, we are now relying on our phones and computers to keep in touch with loved ones, to go to classes, continue work, and get updates and accurate information on the current situation.

The Internet and social media have become the substitute for our public life.

If that is our new public life, we then need to make it available and accessible to all. Just as our public amenities need to be accessible to all walks of life, access to good Internet connection should also be available to all. We also need to put big tech, Internet and social media platforms on a higher standard to ensure enjoyment, safety and security of the public.

If social media sites are our sidewalks and parks, they should be kept clean of misinformation and abuse.

If e-commerce platforms are delivering vital medical equipment, they shouldn’t promote fakes or quack products. If online marketplaces are the infrastructure for small businesses and gig workers, they must be run fairly. And if collecting and processing our personal data helps to maintain security and public safety, more benefits should be accrued to the public by ensuring that what’s being collected and how it’s handled isn’t harmful.

Global connectedness

As cities are protecting themselves from this pandemic, borders are being fortified and strengthened. Movements are tightened and controlled, not just between nations, but also within nations, between districts, cities and villages. But more than just physical borders, some are erecting figurative borders, blaming specific communities for spreading the virus, and only protecting their own. Some have even gone further to call for the end of globalisation and the end of global connectivity.

The late Professor Lily Ling from The New School, while commenting on the Ebola crisis back in 2014, pointed out the ineffectiveness of erecting borders to contain the spread of the virus. Seen initially as an African problem, there were efforts to ban travellers from that region, to contain the virus there while the rest of the world just went about their business as usual.

But Ebola did reach other parts of the world, forcing other world leaders to look into more coordinated global efforts to deal with the virus. It was no longer “their” problem, but “our” problem.

This is by no means undermining the lockdown and movement control measure that we are undertaking at the moment. However, there is a clear difference between minimising human contact through social distancing, and shutting down our borders. We are minimising physical contact, and putting measures in place for us to be able to track the chain of infection, and hopefully to break it as well. However, we still need to connect to the global community, share knowledge, best practices and experiences.

Experts dealing with the current pandemic are echoing this sentiment. Global cooperation is key in confronting the pandemic. Only through robust international coordination can we effectively trace cases, promote cross-border hospitalisation, share medical research, reject patents on vaccines and treatment, or prevent the hoarding and price gouging of medical equipment and materials. Rather than only protecting our own backyard, we must accept that we need our collective knowledge, experiences and efforts more than ever.

This current crisis is a bizarre, fatality-filled reminder that we need to re-look at how we live.

For those who survive, whether deserving or not, evenings after the crisis is an opportunity to reflect and act on what needs to be done to ensure that the next phase of life on earth is lived more responsibly and wisely. There are practices that can be changed for the better, and attitudes and perspectives that can be altered to benefit others, as helping the others is also helping us.

How we treat each other, and our environment, both natural and human-made, will determine the post-Covid-19 world. And that world should be better than the one we’re leaving behind.

Badrul Hisham Ismail is the director of programmes at IMAN Research.