Building new planned cities is an emerging mode of urbanism in the global south (Moser &amp; Cote-Roy, 2021). Examples of these new planned capital cities include Abuja in Nigeria, Astana in Kazakhstan, and Brasilia in Brazil. Additionally, the New Administrative Capital in Egypt, and Nusantara in Indonesia are among the notable ongoing projects.
A running theme amongst new planned cities in the global south, whether capital or secondary cities, is modernist master planning. Characterized by awe-inspiring architecture, and a bias for wide car-centric streets, the modernist city is a projection of an imaginary urban utopia. These modernist imaginaries are inherently exclusionary because, in essence, they are not designed to accommodate the entirety of the socioeconomic quintiles. Rigid zoning, high-end housing, gated enclaves, and car-centric streets effectively dictate who can go where, and when. This rigidness in design, and the perceived rationality of the progressive, modernist city makes it unforgivable for those in the lowest socioeconomic quintiles (Hobson, 1999).
<h3>&nbsp;Cities as spaces of people:</h3>
Urban space is not just the static physical space. Rather, it is a dynamic, evolving mesh of social flows and interactions that dictate collective behavior (Altman, 1992; Castells, 2007). Urban space is not merely the conglomeration of buildings, roads, and institutions; neither is it the complex relationships and interdependencies (in)between them, but it is the &ldquo;underpinning&rdquo; of the social and the political order itself (Lefebvre, 1974).&nbsp;
Underpinning the social order is actualized via urbanism in its totality; the spatial arrangement and urban policies together dictate how the social networks will interact in the newly produced space. The urban form and policies (zoning, transportation, amenities, etc) are designed to maintain a specific order within planned cities. This order is an integral part of the way that the new city is planned to function.&nbsp; Through this perspective that transcends physical space, urbanism is understood to be a social practice by which a process of social engineering ensues. This leads us to a deeper understanding of urbanism: it is not just about producing spaces, it is a political act that, implicitly, reorganizes the social order (Lefebvre, 1970).&nbsp;
Within the neoliberal economic system, specifically in the global south, there are two major players in the production of space; authoritarian regimes, and entities and/or individuals seeking the accumulation of capital and profit. Space is first commercialized by the latter using Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI) of modernist cityscapes, branded with trendy urban concepts (e.g., sustainable-green-high tech). This incites the former&rsquo;s political imagination of a utopian urban future (Moser &amp; Cote-Roy, 2021); controlled, rigid, and -hopefully- functional. This urban utopian imaginary, bred by power and capital, produces new exclusive spaces that enable the fortification and expansion of power and profit. This implies that new planned urban utopias are, in essence, a political act that reorganizes the social order to&nbsp; serve the imaginaries of power and profit.&nbsp;
Notably, these urban imaginaries are not just produced through capital and power. They are also coproduced and disseminated by different social mechanisms (media, academia, consulting firms, investors, etc.) as these imaginaries tap into the wider aspirations of a better urban future (Lindner, Meissner, 2018). These coproduced imaginaries focus on marketing these new planned cities as &ldquo;Global Cities&rdquo;. The Global City is a classification of cities that are major actors in the global economy (London, New York, Hong Kong, etc.). A common theme amongst new planned cities in the global south is that they aspire to become &ldquo;Global Cities&rdquo;. Posing as nodes for attracting global capital and talent, these cities aspire to redirect some of the global resource flows to its end. Foundational work on Global Cities focuses on their role in the global economy&nbsp; as nodes of command and control for &acute;capital` and &acute;power`. In other words, a Global City&rsquo;s function within the global economy is facilitating the interactions of politics and business. This is reflected in the choices of urban planning and policy in these newly planned cities. For example, if a Global City is planned from scratch, the focus wouldn&rsquo;t be on public housing, but on typologies of housing that are more &ldquo;conducive&rdquo; for the self-proclaimed global status. Based on this understanding,&nbsp; the notion of &ldquo;Global Cities&rdquo;, specifically in the global south, is mostly geared towards producing spaces that attract Transnational Corporations (TNCs) (Lai, 2009). Within the capitalist system, the gradual integration of these cities into the global economy ultimately produces vast socio-spatial and economic inequalities (IBID).&nbsp;This exclusionary nature of the &ldquo;Global City&rdquo; essentially makes it &ldquo;globally connected but locally disconnected&rdquo; (Castells, 1996).
New cities' ex-post are an entirely different product than the once imagined utopia. The interaction of new space with real world complexities and socioeconomic realities produces a multi-layered, multi-faceted city (Caldeira, 2021). Those excluded from the new spaces begin to autoconstruct their homes on the periphery of the city. It is important to note that the periphery here is not confined to the geographical periphery, but also the peripheries inside the city such as vacant plots of land, and unutilized corners.&nbsp;
The following will briefly showcase how modernist planning in Abuja, Nigeria induced new logics of engagement with space, power, and capital. It will also showcase the collision of the exclusionary nature of superimposed modernist planning and human agency; giving way to new, peculiar modes of peripheral urbanization.
<h3>&nbsp;The Case of Abuja, Nigeria</h3>
Promulgated in 1976, Abuja&rsquo;s masterplan was approved in 1979, being one of the main agenda items after the first military government was established (1975-1979). The imaginary that fueled the construction of Abuja was a yearning for modernity, centrality, and order; as is quite represented in its masterplan.&nbsp;
The wicked urban problems of its old capital, Lagos, were deemed irreparable by the authorities. Unavailable lands for expansion, traffic jams and decaying infrastructure made the city unfunctional. Lagos, located on the Atlantic Ocean in the far west was deemed a location that is unfavorable for the authoritarian imaginary of control and access. As is the case with new capital cities in the global south, Abuja&rsquo;s masterplan emphasized grandeur through a new capitol complex, order through rigid zoning, ambition and power through monumentality, and an urban form that is heavily derived from western models. These modernist masterplans were not concerned with the cultural and social contexts, nor with the &ldquo;everyday life&rdquo; in Nigeria. Akin to masterplans of new capital cities in the global south, Abuja&acute;s masterplans were rather designed to obliviate the current and the past; mobilizing urbanism to create a new social order (Rego, 2021).&nbsp;
Concepts, masterplans and CGI renders are alluring, but implementation and contact with real-world complexity, human agency, and unpredictability produces entirely different results than those conceived by the power and capital structures (IBID). In dealing with the reality of governance and the socio-cultural domains in Nigeria, planned Abuja produced, after almost 30 years, a unique model of socio-spatial inequality (Ebo, 2013). The unexpected influx of migrant workers, the unavailability of affordable housing, and &ldquo;dysfunctional land markets'' led to the creation of &ldquo;informal settlements in the midst of magnificent modern buildings'' (Onyekachi, 2014). The peripheral urbanization manifested in Abuja is not bound by geography (i.e., the socio-spatial segregation is materialized on the geographical periphery as well as the urban core of the city). The city is surrounded by shanty towns (see fig 1) that were either old villages that evolved into complex settlements, or entirely new autoconstructed settlements that house lower socioeconomic quintiles; unable to find shelter in the rational modern city. Squatter settlements were also autoconstructed inside the city, with urban dwellers settling in the &ldquo;spaces in-between,&rdquo; on the liminality of urbanity (Lancione, Simone, 2021) (see fig. 2).
Given the understanding above, this new housing arrangement reflects a new social order; one where those in the lowest socioeconomic quintiles are socially and spatially excluded from the city. This planned socio-spatial segregation creates new social and political dynamics within the city. While the Abujian masterplan has not achieved the imagined social order that is based on progressiveness and modernity, it certainly gave rise to new modes of living, moving, and interacting within the city; for those at the top and those at the bottom of the socioeconomic quintiles.&nbsp;
The visuality of the socio-spatial inequality in Abuja is truly striking. It shows that the imaginaries dictated by a disconnected body politic never truly manifest. Yet, what evolves is an urban metamorphosis stuck in transition; a spatial contest between authoritarian imaginaries and socioeconomic realities.&nbsp;
<h3>Towards inclusive, just and sustainable urbanization</h3>
The urbanization of Abuja sheds light on a key takeaway: that the utopian imaginary of western-style modernity in the global south often yields different results than those anticipated. Designing utopian cities for the wealthy and powerful, whilst ignoring the local context and the socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural realities is doomed to soon create wicked urban problems. The attempt to reorganize the social order in favor of modernity and monumentality through a superimposed masterplan does not only fail, but lead to the emergence of the realities of unequal development and alienation of those in the lower socioeconomic quintiles.&nbsp; While reorganizing the social order via urbanism invokes a negative connotation, urbanism that is designed to alleviate local socioeconomic realities will help create cities that are more inclusive, just, and sustainable.&nbsp;In this sense, urbanism should be approached as a localized practice that attends to the social, economic, and environmental realities. Urbanism that is inspired from the model of global cities and superimposed upon developing countries will not abruptly create new realities. On the contrary, for urbanism to yield positive and equitable results, it should be participatory, tailored, and addresses the social needs above all else.&nbsp;
<img src="https://api-aps.aucegypt.edu/uploads/tinymce/1678171246imagef1.png" alt="" width="1432" height="729"> Figure 1. a squatter settlement in the middle of a high-end residential area. A representation of inhabiting the "in-between".
<img src="https://api-aps.aucegypt.edu/uploads/tinymce/1678171307imagef2.png" alt="" width="1431" height="723">Figure 2 Mpape, one of the biggest slums in Abuja situated on the northern periphery of the city
<img src="https://api-aps.aucegypt.edu/uploads/tinymce/1678171397imagef3.png" alt="" width="1431" height="727">Figure 3 Stark socio-spatial inequalities in Abuja
<hr>
References
<ol>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Moser, S., Cote-Roy, L. (2021). New cities: Power, profit &amp; prestige. Geography Compass 2021;15:e12549. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12549">https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12549</a></li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Hobson, J. (1999).&nbsp; New towns, the modernist planning project and social justice. The cases of Milton Keynes, UK and 6th October, Egypt. Working paper no.108. University College London (UCL).&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Altman, I. (1992). A transactional perspective on transitions to new environments. Environment and Behavior, 24, 268-280. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916592242008">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916592242008</a></li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Castells, M (2007). Space of flows, space of places: Materials for&nbsp; theory of urbanism in the information age. In W. Braham, J. Sadar, &amp; J. Hale (ed), Rethinking technology: A reader in architectural theory (pp 440-456). London: Routledge.&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Lefebvre, H. (1974). Ch. 7 Openings &amp; Conclusions in The Production of Space: translated by Donald Nicholson Smith. Blackwell publishing.&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Lefebvre, H. (1970). Ch 1. From the city to urban society &amp; Ch. 8. The urban illusion in The urban revolution: translated by Robert Bononno. University of Minnesota Press (2003)</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Lindner, C. &amp; Meissner, M. (2009). Book Introduction: Urban imaginaries in theory and Practice. Routledge. New York.</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Lai, Karen P. Y. (2009). New Spatial Logics in Global Cities Research: Networks, Flows, and&nbsp; New Political Spaces. University of British Columbia.&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Caldeira, T. PR (2017). Peripheral Urbanization: Autoconstruction, Transversal logics, and politics in cities in the global south. Environment and Planning D: Society &amp; Space. 2017, Vol. 35(1) 3-20. Sage Journals</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell publishers.&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Rego, R.L. (2021). New capital cities in the global south: Post-modernist context, modernist layout in Nigeria and Brazil. Cicades (online). https://journals.openedition.org/cidades/3973&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Ebo, I. (2013). Planning for exclusion in Abuja. Open democracy. <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opensecurity/planning-for-exclusion-in-abuja/">https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opensecurity/planning-for-exclusion-in-abuja/</a></li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Onyekachi, A.F. (2014). Prospects and challenges of informal settlements and urban upgrading in Abuja. International Journal of Innovation and Scientific Research V. 11 no.2 pp 420-426.&nbsp;</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;" aria-level="1">Lancione, M., &amp; Simone, A. (2021). Dwelling in liminalities, thinking beyond inhabitation. EPD Society &amp; Space. Vol.39(6) 969-975. Sage journals.</li>
</ol>

آراء

Commentaries

التخطيط العمراني

Read Also