Comment [25]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

• <<
• 1
• 2
• 3

• Very interesting read. This article, as well as the comments beneath, are excellent glimpses into the future of urbanization.

  Priyanjali makes a great point regarding the potential net loss of arable land. In order to support the increasing population, I envision existing cities growing outward at a faster rate than growing upward. Even now, suburban areas surrounding large cities are expanding at a fast rate, annexing arable land along the way. Granted, those moving into cities may be leaving rural areas, which could open up new land for agriculture. But we must also consider the formation of new cities, with their new metropolitan areas. Regardless, the author states in his response to Priyanjali that it is likely that there will be agricultural advances over the next 100 years to mitigate the loss of arable land, and to support the increasing population. Humans do tend to be innovative creatures, and necessity is the best motivator.

  Of course, this issue could be largely averted if urban centers possess the ability to go vertical on a large scale. Let’s use the “black box” of human innovation, for a moment, to assume that urban centers will grow vertically at a much faster rate than horizontally. New advances in architecture and engineering allow for mega-structures that are taller and deeper than ever before. Superhighways are hundreds of feet off the ground, and transportation networks are carved deep into the underground. However, in a cultural sense, this can be a dangerous notion.

  The issue of urbanization vs. cultural preservation is bound to be a hot topic for at least the next 100 years. It would be atrocious for a city like Paris – or almost any city in Europe, for that matter – to turn into the aforementioned, archetype megacity of the future. Imagine the towering monuments, the gorgeous parks, and the small buildings that are characteristic of Paris. What if all of that were to give way to a new megacity, where everything that exists serves a distinct functional purpose? Obviously, this scenario takes urbanization to an extreme, but I think the concern is real. New cities, or those without a history of cultural tradition, have no reason to resist becoming the technological peak of urbanization. And when that happens, will cities like Paris be able to survive without making significant sacrifices?

  I wanted to discuss the preservation/loss of language as well, as I am a bit of a linguist myself, but I’m beginning to get too philosophical for my own good, so I’ll cut myself off here. Again, thanks for the read.

  Posted 14 March 2009, 02:32 by Matthew Shofnos

• Thanks Robert. Another great insight.
  No, I am merely hoping that the excitement in those cities continue to take place. I have not thought about it from the perspective of re-balancing of power, political or otherwise. Those certainly will play a role. All, I mean is: “Boy, I sure don’t want to see have the excitement of walking the many streets of N, P, and T disappear. Its too much fun.” The best would be if several more cities become as fun, albeit in their own unique ways.

  Warmest

  Posted 11 March 2009, 23:25 by Janamitra Devan

• Actually, a bunch of yelling traders on the NYSE already seems a bit anachronistic. As I understand it, the only reason that there are still traders on the floor is simply because they enjoy yelling so much. Technology has not only made it possible to trade electronically from a computer terminal, but maybe even faster and easier as well. We have seen over the years that technology advances exponentially, fitting more and more computing power onto smaller and smaller microchips (Moore’s law, etc). This would lead me to believe that highways in the sky are only the beginning.

  But it’s hard to believe that virtual conferences, and online networking will ever be a substitute for direct, tangible, human interaction. And I agree with the author that cities will always be the epicenter of social networks. The proximity to millions of other talented and interesting individuals, that one can form mutually beneficial relationships, whether for business, friendship, or romance, is one of the main draws of city life. As more people flock to the opportunity offered by the city, does more opportunity the city offer? Perhaps this helps to explain the increasing rapidity of urbanization. As language barriers erode (as you hypothesize), I too can envision vast urban-to-urban migration. With the U.S. financial system collapsing, many young, aspiring bankers have made their way abroad to seek more fertile pastures. Again, people flock to opportunity.

  You end the piece with “…I hope, of course, that we will always have New York, Paris, and Tokyo.” Do you mean to imply that, in the next 100 years, the Big Apple could go the same direction as Rome? (or even worse…Detroit?) And would this be a result of the shift of economic, political, and military power to China and India? I was under the impression that globalization is not a zero-sum struggle, and that the successes of these bustling new superpowers would be to the benefit to all?

  Thank you for the great article.

  Posted 10 March 2009, 22:26 by Robert Lu

• Priyanjali: I am the author of this little piece. Thanks so much for responding with those very thoughtful comments. I can’t say I disagree with any of them. The future is for the young to make them; my views are only guesses on the basis of past follies, foibles, and successes of the human race. So follies can easily be converted to successes. In this regard, if there are ways to prevent the erosion of languages, then we could very well see the survival of so many more languages over the next 100 years. And like you, I am also an enthusiastic linguist and pray that as a human race, we do preserve the enormous richness in these languages that literally took thousands of years to develop.

  With regards to your first point. Yes, I’m afraid you are right. There will be arable land loss. This could be mitigated by much greater productivity of agriculture so that at least the world’s food security could be better guaranteed. To the extent that cities can efficiently go vertical without extreme impacts on the environment, that would certainly be an option. But it is indeed a complex topic. Not all countries and cities are alike. In China the move towards concentrated urban development is indeed justifiable, but elsewhere, well, I am not sure.

  Love your questioning what future businesses would be like. I agree, there may be whole businesses that would not require physical space in the same way they are required to now. A bunch of yelling traders on the floor of the NYSE would certainly seem anachronistic in the next century wouldn’t it?

  Dev

  Posted 8 March 2009, 03:55 by Janamitra Devan

• A very interesting, hopeful, and frightening article.

  Clearly, the world is heading toward gigantic, well-planned, and well-managed urban centers, with dual intra- and cross- cultural blending. Governments will have to adjust to manage their larger constituents, and the importance of good diplomacy be double and triple underlined.

  It makes sense that with more people on Earth, more people will shift into cities. Not only because of the physical migration toward opportunity and convenience, but because our conceptual understanding of a “city” will be skewed; villages will become towns, towns cities, and cities megacities. Along these lines, I’m assuming higher urban populations will cause cities and towns to spill into more rural areas, unless the growth we’ll witness will be evident through towering high-risers and vertical development. Without huge architectural advances, the possibility of “movement of people from the countryside would free up arable land and allow larger-scale agriculture” diminishes. Though inhabitants are migrating, won’t some land be requisitioned for city development, so that rural areas might even be less available for agricultural development? In other words, what if the net personal property relinquished by urban-headers minus land acquired for cities is negative?

  It is important that we don’t understate the impact of the “technical” changes, though I understand this is not easily estimated within a few paragraphs. “Advances in agriculture, energy, and water technologies” will not only “keep up” with the population, but at their current trajectories, will surpass, stay ahead, and allow for continued (albeit slower) population growth.

  One can’t bring up technology without discussing the internet. I like how we’re talking in decades, so let’s think of where the internet has taken us in the last decade—from dial-up to DSL, e-mail to live video conferences, mobile updates, multiple-location & real-time document revisions, GPS mapping, satellite images of your house, news headlines to blogging and microblogging. What will the impact of this extensive virtual social network have on the intricate physical city structures and implications? Would it be silly to suppose that an office building, business meeting, or stock exchange hall become obsolete in a century? That any in-person business discussion would be needed at all? Would people even need to convene within city walls if the infrastructure existed to connect city to suburban to rural— for the simple distribution of groceries or the more advanced, education? The growth of the internet seems to be steeper than even the population growth; and some might speculate that innovation won’t experience the same plateau. As the United States strives to increase internet accessibility to citizens in the most rural areas, I can only imagine the relationship between city and virtual reality when an Indian farmer logs on to book a rice transporter.

  Lastly, I’m a little hesitant to accept that languages will become extinct, dwindling the overall count to about one twentieth of the current total. Maybe it’s because I’m a bit of a linguistic enthusiast, but to me, some values, such as tradition of language—though perhaps difficult to propagate outside of the family unit, and maybe even difficult to win value within the family itself—are still easy enough to instill and survive subsequent generations. If one generation is roughly 25 years, would we really lose all those traditions in about four generations?

  Thanks for the great ideas presented in this article. I fully enjoyed this adventure into the future.

  Posted 3 March 2009, 02:44 by Priyanjali

• <<
• 1
• 2
• 3

Commenting is closed for this article.

• The new normal

  The business landscape has changed fundamentally; tomorrow’s environment will be different, but no less rich in possibilities for those who are prepared, argues McKinsey's worldwide managing director Ian Davis.

• China takes aim at dollar

  The Wall Street Journal reports on China's call for a new currency to replace the dollar as the world's standard.

• Zhou Xiaochuan's speech

  The full text of the essay by Zhou Xiaochuan, China's central bank governor, in which he calls for a new world currency, is available here.

• A New Deal for Globalization

  Rising wage inequality in the U.S. is threatening a protectionist backlash that will hurt everyone. The best way to avert the problem, argue Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter in Foreign Affairs, is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. (Article requires registration)