How to manage a megacity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- By 2050, 6 billion people could be living in cities. How should the challenges caused by rapid urbanization be handled in the world ahead? Film supported by @mission.winnow
00:00 - What are megacities?
01:01 - The problem with megacities
03:07 - How is Ahmedabad tackling rapid urbanisation?
04:45 - How can cities manage traffic?
07:04 - The problem with waste
08:00 - How is Recycle Central revolutionizing trash?
10:58 - What are the most urgent issues to resolve?
Read our latest coverage on the world ahead: econ.st/3HtLmuQ
Sign up to The Economist’s daily newsletter to keep up to date with our latest stories: econ.st/3gJBH8D
How has Ahmedabad tackled urban sprawl?: econ.st/3Hv2yjH
Read our special report on waste: econ.st/3qNr4Xk
How are new ways of moving around disrupting car-making?: econ.st/3kKI0Kf
What’s the future of driving?: econ.st/3crAnDL
You know it's time for serious "city discussion" when the violins start playing over a skyline timelapse
hahahha
0Ujiuiiiiuiuuuuuhijjjjhjjjhjhhjhhhhhhjjjhhhjjhhhhuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhkjjjjj
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjuhhhuuu pjjj
p 0yanguuuuuuiiiiii888999iuuuuuuiu7i8888ìuuùijin.raAa
Cities all over the world should be doing everything they can to discourage car ownership. High quality Public transport and pedestrian infrastructure are the only way for a city to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
I live in Ahmedabad and it's an awesome case study of development.
i am from Ahmedabad, and this is accurate narrative of my city, yes there is some corruption in development, but it done in advancing projects, and also waste management is improving .
True. Corruption to an extent is acceptable if the cost you pay in bribes makes the work much faster than the legal cost which is aimed at getting more votes than making economic sense.
Its pretty clear that ahmedabad is successful by just looking at the map.
All localities look similar and well connected irrespective of incomes.
That's astronomically better than having groups of luxury skyscrapers connected by a single road and slums all around...
@@CoolMan-ig1ol l6⁶1iihhjoooppjj
Ku 7yuhhuuuuuuuu⁶7 you uuuiijh hp jam un
Zb7IIIIIU¹jk
Kkk9jon.j.hiklojjjo 6Omong pull up ok ok ok Tomomi
11111¹11111¹1 11111¹1 w11¹
.
What about designing cities around humans rather than cars? Mixed use buildings (shops, offices, apartments all in the same building) which means travel distances are shorter, as well as making energy use cheaper due to the density. Encouraging people to walk, take public transport, cycle rather than drive their expensive and inefficient cars.
Cars are somewhat useful to transport elderly from their homes to hospitals.
Look at American cities compared to Europe
Don't forget diversity in food its been 40 years of the same stuff over and over in stores.
Earth has 100,000 to 200,000 edible plants on it.
Yes there are solutions but if psychopaths /greedy business run the countries you cannot expect much from them.
I really recomend channel about urbanisation
NOT JUST BIKES
@@fin2754
Exactly
channel
NOT JUST BIKES
can broaden some minds
I wasn’t aware of what San Francisco was doing with the automated recycling. That is a very cool use of artificial intelligence that I actually am ok with and definitely would like to see that technology be adopted in my city!
Fantastic video. However I disagree with the focus on composting. This is not a sustainable option in large-scale centralized applications. Centralized composting facilities will not last. They emit methane and nitrous oxide (36 and 298 times more potent than CO2, although not densely concentrated) and they still produce vast amounts of CO2 in this mostly aerobic process.
A more sustainable option in the future is to first recover the carbon into a value-added product or biofuel, and then use the residuals as soil amendment (eg. Hydrothermal Liquefaction, Gasification, Pyrolysis, Anaerobic Digestion)
So you are saying all the organic waste,like fruits and vegetables wastes etc shouldn't be left in open to break down on a large to obtain natural fertilizers.
It does not have to. Those gases can quiet easily be captured and either sequestered or used for fuel. They don't just throw it in a giant head and let it rot. It's controlled.
Did you not listen to the fact they add in stuff that absorbs the greenhouse gasses?
@@rajkishorebehera7489 digestive reactors or modern landfills go through the process of composting while trapping methane for biofuel disposal. This both creates a green fuel and removes methane pollution which is 100 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as co2. The only issue is cost. It is much more green than traditional composting though and can still create compost. They just require tanks or tarps to capture gas
Kevin Clack, that is an interesting perspective. However, some countries and some large cities have done composting well on a large and commercially viable scale. E.g., from Barbados to Las Vegas, there are entrepreneurs who are collecting food and other organic waste from hospitals, from schools, from restaurants, from hotels, from supermarkets to avoid having these valuable resources treated as immediate garbage. Some items can be redirected to supply food-banks, the poor, the homeless. Other items can be composted and turned into soil for farmers and for households, and other outputs can go towards animal-feeds.
I'm from Japan. Japan's population has been concentrated in metropolitan areas, especially in Tokyo. I suppose cities in Japan are relatively well-planed and well-organized but, in my opinion, Tokyo is facing the same problem as San Francisco. I feel that it's about time for companies to relocate their headquarters or branches from Tokyo to other areas in Japan, considering we no longer need to commute to offices thanks to the Internet technology.
I assume that companies will do this in the near future because they've realized that there was no need to gather employees in one place during the pandemic.
This trend could reduce traffic jams and then air pollutions in metropolitan areas.
In addition, given that Japan is a country with many earthquakes, decentralization of business or government is quite important.
English Novice, thanks for those excellent observations. Decentralisation and diversification of food-supplies, of energy-supplies, of transportation, of work, of education, of public services, and of other important aspects of society and the economy, would do wonders for improving food-security, energy-security, reliability of supply-chains, reduction of risks from high dependence on metropolitan centres, and empowerment and inclusion of rural, remote, and other communities.
Thank you Brent-san!
@@MrToritani Having worked with Japanese and their disgusting long working hours, I can only say that despite your nation's industrial progress, Japan is really a messed up nation! I don't consider a city of nearly 40 million people livable, sustainable or durable!!! Houses of 40 m², crowded subways wherever you go! Japan could learn a thing or two from China in terms of City planning and City development.
0
that's true
San Francisco waste management is nice but most modern mega-cities are in Asia (e.g. Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Seoul), the video would be much more complete if it would show how they are managed
Ycj sbb id sbb id di kdm
Pg da cm g h
I think water infrastructures is one of the most important issues that need to be solved.
"Overcrowding", screen shows traffic jam which is a consequence of urban sprawl.
And a lack proper urban design (walkability, micromobility, transit). Cars are the most inefficient modes of transportation. So let's just ban cars from entering city centres. Cities are for people, not cars.
@@NeonNion The thing about cars is, the only thing worse than giving them free rein is to try and get rid of them completely.
Cars are definitely not ideal for commuting purposes as they are highly inefficient. But going on a weekend journey to the country side to enjoy some nature camping requires a car, and doing your entire week's grocery shopping certainly helps to have a car.
I read somewhere (perhaps in a comment) that the concept of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) has some drawbacks, and that is why it is not being automatically employed near all the large (urban) waste sources to generate electricity and/or heat.
However, I always forget what the disadvantages of such a technology are, as they haven't seemed to be convincing to me yet, and I'm starting to find it suspicious how little WtE is being talked about as a solution to the increasing waste problem.
Waste being plastic to energy is the least worst choice of those options. But we need to stop the plastic in the first place.
Being of age and how to manage the sequence of returns in those early periods is what seems quite scary in the current market. The market is never a loser in a twenty year cycle, but the 2000s decade scenario scares me and could really disrupt my retirement. When you are no longer accumulating but withdrawing its hard to be anything but cautious.
Clever and smart people along with technology will help but, the idea and thinking that the economy always has to grow for humans to progress and to be able to survive may need to be reviewed and revised. Presently, if the economy is not growing, it is considered a problem and or a failure. Growing the economy is also thought to be the best way to help end poverty. If a growing economy could end poverty, the most developed and prosperous countries should not have any poverty.
This type of thinking cannot continue uninterrupted on a finite planet with finite resources. There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure. For this type of thinking to work, there needs to be some new economic models developed along with some new types of money and financial systems based on economic sustainability! Not on economic growth!
Many thanks for your work! Great material!
Great planning makes great cities!
It's become clear you cannot build your way out of automobile congestion. Congestion comes down to human tolerance for inconvenience. If you increase capacity of highways, you'll get short term relief from congestion, but it will soon return to jamming up as people who had given up driving return to the automobile.
The only way constructing more highways can work is if you construct super-by-pass corridors. Each suburb gets its own highway terminus, with no off ramps in between. Of course politically this doesn't work because the neighborhoods near the city limits get carved up and isolated, and the land given over to a super-by-pass provides zero economic benefits, unlike traditional off ramp / on ramp access which provides some economic stimulus.
Or, hear me out. Instead of running a highway from everywhere we should run public transit. Having a convenient bus route will reduce congestion by huge amounts. Right now in America you can't really live without cars, giving people other options to driving will really reduce car usage. Traffic there isn't a problem of not enough capacity it's a problem because cars are the only option.
@@justahamsterthatcodes I'm not advocating for my idea. It's unworkable, and wasteful. I was only pointing out a way that building more roads would solve congestion.
@@WestOfEarth Yes, but like you said, only briefly. I used to live near DC - we had highways go everywhere in every direction. Once a new road is built, it fills up. People take other roads (often residential or 2 lane) and then those roads have issues and turn into their own highways. Especially in these areas, with the population continuing to grow, the need for roads will only continue.
I live in Japan, and everyone moves to Tokyo. When I look around, all I see are a bunch of miserable people with their heads down sighing away. Try to strike a convo with them and they will give you a mean glare like you invaded their personal space. Go to the countryside and you'll see more cheerful people. Are mega cities really necessary? The internet brings us together now so we don't need to physically live near each other in shoebox sized houses.
I agree 100%
Iron Swan, these are excellent points. I would also add that dispersion of the population more evenly would decongest urban centres in multiple ways. People in cities are overpaying for everything, including food, clothing and transportation. The noise, the pollution, the growing unaffordability of cities to the bottom 90% of the income-distribution in most countries, the crowds, the traffic, and the risks from not growing one's own food, and/or not eating fresh foods from safe, organic, local sources, are contributing to sickness, to premature deaths, to overwork, to malstressors, to anxiety/depression, and to personal feelings of being in isolation, despite the presence of many other people. The disconnection of people from each other and from Nature contributes to a lack of peace, of joy, of health, and of spirituality.
@@brentshuffler1234 this is so true cities do not increase the standard of living at all the money that u earn does not increase your real income since it all goes to rent and expenses and u end up not only poor but without access to clean air and nature too
That's not why megacities exist
Here's an idea to foster survival of urban population: fossil fuel corporations should be either lured or forced to move their business models to solid waste processing. mounting demand from megacities is a sustained source of revenue.
This is excellent!! Please make more quality content about cities
When you look at it from the perspective of an individual's daily life routine, their isn't such a daunting crisis!
Not when people in mega cities realize thier health issues is causing from CO2, from plastic waste, and congession stress.
Let me know when ecosystemic methodology will be a required application amidst the urbanized planet. Waiting for that.
Great article found, thanks you.
WHIM ( 5m 42s, Helsinki ) was deployed in the west midlands UK in 2018
what was or is the outcome of that?
you deserve more views. that was an awesome work
loved this video!
Looks like a lot of these megacities are on the coast and around the equator. Not sure how to break this to you guys....
Big corporations will not like it, but we have the technology to make them food and energy independent.
The start-ups bringing that tech to neighborhoods and individuals will be essential for survival.
Especially when huge distribution collapses happen.
And they will happen.
India always be an icon about filthy,slum,pollution,crowded,etc etc. I feel sorry for India.
Very nice production!
I understand accepting reality but shouldn't there be an effort to move *away* from city concentration. Half of world population in cities? Wouldn't there be a limit to what technological help can achieve?
Why? People should live in cities and leave more space for nature.
@Свеча so people belong in concrete buildings and trains all day? Not one with nature? Not the ones that can walk and swim in lakes and rivers ?
The economist e seus planos para um mundo "melhor"
Interesting propositions - wouldn't it be even greener to deal with waste at source? Where there are homes that can equip themselves with specific bins for sorting waste products and a composting facility, these could be on hand. Where homes do not have the space - eg flats - there could be a communal waste site for recycling/composting. It would be more cost efficient than the full scale and probably more expensive processes. The waste generated is bought with the product - so the immediate disposal should be part of the buyers remit. They could remove packaging at the store and have a facility there for leaving it with the store if the store is not on board with recycling /net zero waste. The problem should be eliminated so that it isn't a problem, not nursed. We don't live in a world that is easily blanketed for some - the negative effects of living in a negative lifestyle affects the planet. L R
Yes, it may be greener and more efficient, but it ignores the reality of people. Getting a mass of individual people to change their behavior, to actually do the work themselves, is a huge hurdle. Most cities and suburban areas have recycling facilities if you're willing and able to sort and drop off yourself. The percentage of people that actually go through that effort is disturbingly low.
@@andrew40in my country every home has four bins: general waste, food waste, paper, and metal/plastic
It gets sorted further at the station but much of the work is done already. Most people I know sort their trash, it was rolled out only 4 years ago and people pretty quickly accepted it
India has never taken an innovative approach to anything. India is full of individuals how are innovative. Sadly the country, it’s politicians and it’s leaders do not value these people enough.
Innovation is less than what is needed
But it is not 'never'
Well, politicians are elected by the people (at the ground level at least). It seems to me that people here are more into religious and Caste BS than education and development (especially the rural people). The common people don't value them in the first place, all are behind engineer and doctor jobs.
I don't think it's only the politicians fault. People in India are uneducated and their mentality doesn't let them create better social conditions.
@@Piloti. even this is the politicians fault. The majority of money in India is black money and therefore untaxed. No tax revenue, means no schools. Why does nobody want to pay tax? Because the people who collect it are corrupt and it doesn’t get used to build schools. The politicians eat all the money and therefore discourage individuals and businesses in paying taxes.
@@avarmauk You are right, but the mentality is not politicians fault. It's a culture thing. A lot of Indians are stuck with medieval ideas and don't want to change.
But most palstic can't be recycled and it can be very expensive for any developing countries to recycle whatever litte plastic can be recycled
Yea exactly that's what I was thinking
There are some assumptions about the superiority of mega cities in the beginning of this clip which are simply not true. Al the advantages are true for smaller cities and in bigger extend. The most creative and wealthiest cities are not (alone) the mega cities, but cities much smaller in size. San Francisco, Boston, Zürich, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Frankfurt to name a few I know. They have all the advantages of mega cities, culturally, universities, jobs, etc. but not the problems concerning housing, traffic jams, crime, health (CO2 smog), al least in much lesser extend. They are much smaller and much more managable and generally more relaxed. A city like Amsterdam is offering more in terms of culture and art of highest level then half of the mega cities mentioned. San Francisco has more IT expertise then all of the megacities in the world. And most megacities would dream to have Boston's MIT or Zürichs ETH or the creativity of Berlin or the high level of life quality of Munich or the fashion and style of Milan. All mentioned cities offer much lower crime rates, has and have at least the same level of job opportunties. I don't know the midsized cities from other continents but I presume you would see a similar image as in Europe or the USA.
Yeah I prefer smaller cities like San Diego than the overly crowded Tokyo.
Sorry but San Francisco definitely has a crime and housing problem
@@davidconnelly2008 Hi David, I think at the moment almost all larger cities in the western countries have a housing problem due to the extreme low interest rates. But you can more easily escape this problem in Zürich where I live then for example in London. With just 30 minutes of commuting you have rental prices that are very affordable for most citizens in my example of Zürich. In London you just have to communite for two hours one way to find a affordable appartment. Is it not a problem of the last years in SF ? In New York or Paris, housing was always too expensive for everybody. How is the situation of SF in comparisment to LA for exampe. ? I had a collegue from SF that told me he would never ever move to LA.
But in smaller cities people drive more and use public transport less. You would not find a subway in a small city.
Preserve natural habitats and animals. Cities? More trees 🌳
In addion, trees also provide natural shade, cooling, reduced risk of flooding and prevent soil erosion. 🌲
Cities help preserving natural habitats because they reduce the amount of land used per capita
@@VFPn96kQT you got a point
That Ted talk was aaaaaamazing.
Compost produces greenhouse gas effect as well, specifically methane which is more harmful than CO2. How do you capture those Vapours?
City scale composting is not new, my city has been doing it for decades.
It is a recent thing in like half of my city (Calgary Canada)
@@jk-gb4et Glad to see more cities doing it.
@@falconJB What's your city?
private cars are a suburban utility. they have absolutely no place in highly dense urban areas. if you hate transit, walking, or cycling, then move back to the suburbs or coutry side.
this video leaves the best example that is metropolitan tokyo.
To say this is a planning issue... without asking what the capacity to plan of cities and also what is the context for planning. Indian cities are different from West African cities and other mega-cities across the world. How easily transferable are solutions in one mega-city compared to another?
O to chodzi że meta może być lekiem na nadchodzącą recesję w starym znaczeniu, maskonur Tzn Lem miał rację maskony organiczne i nieorganiczne będą potrzebne, sterylizacja stopniowa regulacja bôlu i zmiany ekonomii rządowych na model scarcity proponuje hodowlę krów mlecznych na parterach
What about the problem of Innequality and Poverty, what are solutions?
The Earth only has the resources for 3 billion people to all live at middle class standards. We are already at 7.9 billion with 10 billion by 2050.
Poverty will only get worse.
@@Crashed131963 Degrowth is the solution. Welfare growth is what we need.
education
@@Crashed131963 The Birth-rate throughout the world is declining. It will not cross 9 billion to be accurate.
Degrowth. Less consumption. Higher taxation for high income. More social benefits. Lower working hours.
Nice video.
Vorr mange har kloakk og vanntrøt i bakken Og strømm?
Vordann bytter dere vann og kloakk og El høyspent ledninger i disse byene?
High air pressure underground tubes could carry garbage to recycling centers automatically.
No trash truck and manual labor are required.
Lagos, Nigeria is projected to hit 70 million by 2100. With their oil revenues waning, they had better get a grip on family size fast. This is big trouble on the horizon.
It is crucial to set up multi-centers in the megacities to solve the problem of traffic congestion. Expanding the mass transit system isn't a solution as facing perpetual growth of population and business activities.
Hope that this tragedy can be ended in the future : )
what was the song at the beginning I liked it
It's wise to live in small towns or villages. Go to big cities to study and to have fun, but don't get stuck in there for life.
The real luxury of life is closer to nature, not to pollution.
Amen
Very sagacious thought.
But it is worse for nature.
Witnessing the birth of new landmarks is truly special.
Yes compare developed country to developing country. The thing is you throw the business model in countries that aren’t prepared to deal with such lifestyle. They have no technology or skilled labour in this particular field.
When it comes to environmental issues critical zones must be addressed regardless in which country it’s happening because the effects of mismanagement will spill over globally.
In India, it would be how to manage a overrated place with lot of slums.
Cities never made humans more free.
Here's a simple solution. Build a second level highway above the first. Wow, it's like double the road in the same area, spend 20 billion doing that, and then over 5 years you save 80 billion.
Guangzhou metro city is 65 million people
audio on the narrator a bit off on this one?
very nice
Just an FYI a GMU professor is using your video as Homework without accreditation
Cities should ban conventional cars from the city center. Instead, they should create a fleet of self-driving, electric, one-person, PLASTIC pod-taxis, which would recharge in the pod barn. Need to go somewhere? Summon a pod. Want to visit the city? Park on the edge of the city and summon a pod. The conversion of parking lots/structures to housing/offices WOULD PAY FOR THE FLEET. Pedestrians would be safer (an accident with a plastic, one-person pod would cause less injury than with a heavy, conventional car). Furthermore, the pods would be more predictable than human drivers (no more desperate turns into unoccupied parking spaces!). The pods would densify the city. Eliminating on-street parking would enhance street life.
Remove cars from Mega cities. Build more transit. Ban single family housing in mega cities. Build up (vertically)
Car-pool lanes are a failed experiment. Very few people actually change their driving habits to use the car pool lane and so the result is you have a useless lane.
Jest straszny problem jakbym sam miał podejmować decyzje to bym po prostu był bezpieczny i bezwzględny a Rzeszów jest mały także raczej będą strzelać co najwyżej bez nuklearnych wybuchów
There should have been more info ..
Se formos a ver os países e a diferença entre ricos e pobres é colossal ... O capital financeiro está a destruir a economia produtiva...e o que será sem a economia produtiva? Pobreza, miséria e a mudanças radicais e redefinidoras de modos de vida! Os Ventos que passam e os estragos que ficam e os paradoxos do progresso...Uns têm poder para inovar com tecnologia outros não ...Poderá haver aproximação num mundo a 4 velocidades?!!
Replace agricultural farms with electroporated vats of Knall Gas bacteria, replace rail transit train trolleys with Robert L Morrisons Lighter than air solids sealed in foil for nuclear powered airships, and use Marshall J. Corbett's panted for aerial cold plasma highways with spaceplanes for upward angular acceleration into orbit.
Keitaro Yoshihara has patented nimbus storm clouds from humid air.
Dalej nie mogę usunąć co wy czekacie na kolejny cud za dużo się modlicie
I don't understand why everyone wants a car n want to travel to office alone stuck in jams
I don't think we should be focusing on this problem.
we should make housing, food, and energy human right. when we do this, and we can start in places of the modern world with high homelessness like california.
my vision is not 1 big city more like 1 city made of smaller self-sustainable districts - which have their own power plant - nuclear fission later fusion.
housing can be made more efficiently - small houses, which are easy to build, and repair. to do that we could nest shipping containers into the ground and build around several of those second layers to help protect against weather. we will not need pretty houses anyway since we will be moving to VR.
today we have the technology to grow food more efficiently - laboratories can produce meat, and vertical farming can help make vegetables and fruit.
Free energy made cities bigger but this is about to change with less and less energy available .
Before the fossils fuel era so 2 centuries ago the size of the cities were limited by the food supply the surroundings can provide and transport using animals . With the end of the free energy people will have to leave cities and go to the countryside in order to produce themselves their food . Thought ‘ The economist ‘ will dig deeper than trying to explain how unsustainable system will evolve as it is a sustainable one .
If you want to invest buy some land in the middle of nowhere and preferably in high latitudes certainly not real estate in cities.
Dobry temat poruszony, nigdy więcej te labirynty są najprostsza droga do wojny światowej. Przecież to jest walka uli tylko że pszczoły chyba się nie zabijają
This is what it means to dream BIG
Bombay is the most developed place in the solar system
Да миллиардерам, мега корпорациями насрать на развитие городов, улучшение обстановки, главное прибыль, ещë больше денег получать...
Sustainability should not be the priority for the longterm health of a more urban society. Its an excuse for governments to expand their bureaucracy, taxes and power. What should be prioritize its the potential of individuality in realms of innovation and productivity. Most government's treat their citizen subjects as pawns towards an agenda that most of the time its utopic, unrealized or benefits a few well connected on the top. The rest of society feeds this monster of the state their time and resources for so called stability.
Once we realized that we can achieve a more faster and happier growth through a system of less dependence on involuntarily altruism and coercion, our civilization will catapult towards the fourth industrial revolution. This will bring forth the most productive means and solve the greatest problems in our society. Cryptocurrencys, blockchains and smart contracts will lead the charge.
Why not address the waste problem earlier in the chain? Produce less materials that needs to be taken care of. Better packaging, less single use food containers, glass bottles in stead of plastic etc. This is just life support for an unsustainable lifestyle
❤️
Food for thought
building more lanes doesn't help traffic. Solution is public transport and cycling
Not exactly.
First walkability, then public transit.
No matter what happens on Earth, you can be rest assured the Megacities on the moon, Mars and Venus will be much better planned for the future of humanity.
Bantar Gebang in Indonesia is the biggest landfill in the world.
The homeless. The garbage. the masses. How will these people be lodged and fed? How will they keep the water clean?
Olviden olviden la palabra futuro solo es un consejo !!
Agan lo que quieran pero !!
Upgrade...
Mega City 1
Similar the "Whim" concept, how about paying people not to own or use cars? For example, the denser the area, the more expensive it is to own a car. This could be done in ways like charging more for parking and gas, as well as making the taxes on them higher, encouraging people to take alternate ways. Right now, in many places, not owning a car just means you save money, but if you paid people not to have one or raised the cost, people would be less likely to use them and therefore discourage urban sprawl. Also, creating more mixed-use developments, like retail or office space downstairs and residential upstairs, instead of zoning for just one or the other.
Yes, let's push the poor out of car ownership!
Recycling plastic into more plastic. How is that going to help???
Got here from a great ad
wow amazing subhanallah
By leaving one for the suburbs like always 🤔
These red dots with the green in the back, are really hard to see to colourblind people.
Megacities become megahell and megadumps
How can save the earth from polythene pollution?
What is the upcoming megacity in Russia???
Meanwhile we have thousands of billionaires that pay little tax for clean ups
We couldn't agree more with the fact that with smart planning... shantytowns would be eradicated. The lack of new strategic planning had enabled new shantytowns to increase everywhere globally: a mistake.
Most important, inhabitants of shantytown must be moved away to other locations; and with the promise of returning when the areas are transformed in a time specified. Shantytowns represent new health hazards.
[1] Ibukun Ogunfeitime, thanks for sharing that perspective. However, I noticed that you focused mostly on the overall high-level political and governmental approach . . . but, following the origins of shantytowns to their main human root-causes, would you also acknowledge the individual choices, behaviours and lifestyles of persons and families? E.g., [a] abstinence versus promiscuity; . . . [b] family-planning versus unplanned pregnancies; . . . [c] contraception; . . . [d] delayed parenthood . . . . [e] financial planning . . . .
[2] Ibukun Ogunfeitime, Everywhere that I have lived, worked, visited, or studied, I have seen a strong connections of [a] persons' having too many children and/or unplanned / unprepared parenthood [See the work of Professor Elizabeth Sawhill, e.g., Drifting into Parenthood], with [b] poverty, financial risks, economic risks, overcrowding, crime, violence, pollution, dangerous housing conditions, et cetera . . .
[3] Therefore, I believe that we all can contribute to a better 21st century: [A] by having, on average, 1 child or none (optimal choice for the growing many in the world who are facing an uncertain labour-market, economic recessions/depressions, financial vulnerabilities, wars, recurring disasters, and such like) . . . and [B] by focusing on improving the life-conditions of those already born, instead of adding to their numbers. Happy holidays!
@@brentshuffler1234 Smart planning is a collective responsibility that involves everyone everywhere globally - thanks Brent for your insights and contributions at all levels 👏.
Megacity is simultaneously comforting and destroying the humankind
We should think more about the planet and nature rather than mankind. Besides, why are cities destroying it? The is better medical help in the cities and more comfortable life.
@@crocus5632 right you are❤️
You must never be in Shanghai, THE BEST city on the planet.