The Limits of the City

(Source: Unsplash/Max Titov.)

C40, a non-profit global membership network of mayors dedicated to fighting climate change, has released “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5℃ World”—a 68-page report, written in partnership with Arup and the University of Leeds, outlining various recommendations for how participating mayors can lower emissions within their cities by focusing on the consumption levels of certain goods. 

Up until now, the conversation about lowering emissions focused mostly on figuring out how businesses and governments could work together to embrace more sustainable, eco-friendly methods of production. For the most part, consumption was considered a private choice, something to be left up to individuals. 

But according to this study, this is no longer sufficient if we’re going to reach climate goals. What’s needed is a new effort from local leaders to lower the levels of private consumption of certain goods. Specifically, they envision a future in which C40’s nearly 100 mayors (including those of 14 major American cities) find ways to convince their citizens to consume no meat or dairy, travel by airplane only once a year, and to buy no new clothes.

Historically, cities have always been at the front lines of addressing major social and public health issues. With climate change, it’s no different. Globally, we’re seeing public leaders introduce all kinds of policies and design solutions, whether that’s by introducing more bikes, planting more trees, or banning certain kinds of cars and appliances. 

There’s plenty to debate about climate change and what kinds of policies and interventions work best. Part of that debate involves defining what exactly we should expect from local leaders. Of course, we want our leaders to proactively address issues that pose risks to the flourishing of our communities, but is there a limit to what they can achieve? Should mayors really be tasked with influencing the wardrobes, travel patterns, and dairy and meat consumption of their citizens? 

How Change Happens

Like a natural ecosystem, cities are ecosystems that contain various spheres and systems of human activity. When I lived in New York City, I got a snapshot of this every time I visited a popular coffee shop in Manhattan. Not only did this one block hold several businesses, shops, restaurants, and apartments, but also a mosque. Several times a day, the block would fill with Muslim men laying out their rugs and descending into daily prayers right on the sidewalk while the hustle and bustle of the city flew by them. Shop patrons, police officers, tourists, locals…everyone carried on without missing a beat. 

This little snapshot is an example of how many different arenas of life unfold at the same time within the city. I think it’s what Jane Jacobs was getting at by referring to street life as the “sidewalk ballet.” Like a ballet, city life involves lots of characters orbiting around each other in a careful balancing act. Government is just one sphere alongside the spheres of family, business, and religious life. All of these spheres have to work together for the city as a whole to flourish.

Take any of the particular issues facing our cities together, whether that’s climate change, housing shortages, or crime. These are highly complex problems that touch on all of the spheres of human activity, and any solution to them must acknowledge and respect the complex social life of the city. This is perhaps one of the most pressing challenges of public life on a local level. We expect public leaders to establish policies that lead to positive outcomes, but we also expect balance. No matter the positive nature of the intention or desired outcome, one sphere cannot grow so big as to take over the others; rather, a functioning city requires all spheres to engage in the right proportion. 

Amazing solutions can emerge when city leaders are able to coordinate the interests of various spheres toward a shared goal and shared vision of flourishing in their community. But there’s a flipside: chaos can emerge if one sphere becomes too big. 

Case Study: London’s ULEZ

Let’s take, for example, the tensions rising in London over Mayor Sadik Kahn’s plan to reduce the city’s carbon emissions by 2030. The program works by setting a Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) around the city into which only certain kinds of low-emission vehicles are allowed. Drivers of non-complying, gas-fueled cars are charged 12.50 British pounds ($15.70) per day. 

Originally announced in 2019, the ULEZ program was part of a government plan to move the city of London to carbon neutral by 2050. It expanded in August of this year to include most of London and is enforced by cameras situated all over the city, which have come under attack by angry citizens, many of whom live in the city’s outer suburbs, father from public transit and who lack the money to buy a policy-compliant vehicle.  

This policy represents one way cities can respond to climate change. In some ways, it’s not that different from congestion-pricing strategies unfolding in New York City or Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s campaign to “bike-ify” Paris. So why the protests and vandalism of over 500 cameras? Could it be that what we’re seeing in the protests is a sense from ordinary people that, good intentions aside, the government has over-expanded its sphere?

Local Incrementalism: A Better Approach

There’s a good lesson here for mayors who want to help save the world. Good ideas run a greater chance of success if they’re integrated with the particular realities of your unique community and if they respect the need for balance between the various spheres of life. It might be politically advantageous to embrace new policies that promise to achieve certain outcomes, but if they threaten that essential balance between the spheres, are they really worth it?  

Here’s where I think the Strong Towns framework of incrementalism provides a helpful middle ground. While leaders can definitely learn from expertly written studies and policy recommendations, it’s through humble observation and Local Conversations that they are more likely to identify a more sustainable pathway to achieving meaningful change that doesn’t require adopting potentially cataclysmic policies.  

Solutions that emerge from this more incremental, local approach are more likely to provide roadmaps to meaningful action that are highly sensitive to local context and that align with available resources and a local appetite for change. These kinds of solutions are more likely to position local leaders to make recommendations that fit the capacity and temperament of their communities and that have a greater chance of not only effecting progress, but of preserving the balance between the spheres of activity that sustain city life.

---

---

RELATED STORIES

---

Change everything.

Here’s the program that will revitalize your city.