The government of Southern Sudan unveiled a sweeping, multi-billion dollar plan to redevelop its regional capital cities. Given the precarious financial state of the Sudanese government, the bold proposal was shockingly unexpected.  But what really had people scratching their heads was that the upgraded cities would take the shape of various fruits and animals.

Voice of America reports “the $10.1 billion plan proposes remaking cities in Sudan’s south into shapes found on regional flags.  Blueprints and maps illustrate Juba in the shape of a rhinoceros, Yambio fashioned after a pineapple and Wau as a giraffe.”

Although impressed by the ingenuity and creativity of the Sudanese urban planners, Infrastructurist’s Melissa Lafsky soberly addresses the problems of pie-in-the-sky development projects. “At the end of the day,” she writes,

trying too hard to demonstrate innovation can backfire, and wind up drawing attention away from even more important factors — like eliminating massive slums and basic infrastructure problems in the region. And what about the government apathy and incompetence that led to billions of dollars lost to corruption and poor management since the end of the war? Sparkling new cities, assuming they get completed, will certainly put forth an image of renewal — but whether they substantially improve the lives of the average Sudanese citizen remains to be seen.

(Thanks, Infrastructurist.)

Sourch: Voice of America

Image courtesy of VOA News.

These days, scholars and activists trying to map the ideal form, function, and identity of cities in our globalizing world are mostly advocating for revitalized urban cores. Joel Kotkin, author of The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, offers a counterpoint in the September-October issue of Foreign Policy, arguing that the creation of a strong ring of suburbs and smaller cities is the best way to ensure healthy economic growth and human well-being.

As unfashionable as it might sound, what if we thought less about the benefits of urban density and more about the many possibilities for proliferating more human-scaled urban centers; what if healthy growth turns out to be best achieved through dispersion, not concentration? Instead of overcrowded cities rimmed by hellish new slums, imagine a world filled with vibrant smaller cities, suburbs, and towns: Which do you think is likelier to produce a higher quality of life, a cleaner environment, and a lifestyle conducive to creative thinking?

Kotkin’s observation of wealth distribution around urban areas is particularly compelling:

Innovators of all kinds seek to avoid the high property prices, overcrowding, and often harsh anti-business climates of the city center . . . In India, the bulk of new tech companies cluster in campus-like developments around—but not necessarily in—Bangalore, Hyderabad, and New Delhi. And let's not forget that Silicon Valley, the granddaddy of global tech centers and still home to the world's largest concentration of high-tech workers, remains essentially a vast suburb. Apple, Google, and Intel don't seem to mind. Those relative few who choose to live in San Francisco can always take the company-provided bus.

Disparity between living conditions in cities and suburbs, Kotkin concludes, is an element missing from the current urban planning discussion. “The goal of urban planners should not be to fulfill their own grandiose visions of megacities on a hill, but to meet the needs of the people living in them, particularly those people suffering from overcrowding, environmental misery, and social inequality. When it comes to exporting our notions to the rest of the globe, we must be aware of our own susceptibility to fashionable theories in urban design—because while the West may be able to live with its mistakes, the developing world doesn't enjoy that luxury.”

Source: Foreign Policy

Image by rxb, licensed under Creative Commons.

How would you fill an empty lot? That’s what the Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts is asking. Their flickr site provides a template photo of an empty urban lot and invites people to fill it in with their own ideas. The resulting collection of images ranges from the environmentally practical to the downright whimsical, including this waterfall and a tightrope walker, all nested between two buildings. Governing reports that the project was intended to spark conversation about public spaces rather than actual plans for development. That’s probably good news, because in these tough economic times, who wants to fund a giant fish tank with car-sized fish?

Source: Governing

Image courtesy of John Ruppert