Lessons from history.
Something darker, but there is light. Very long, hence the quotes, but worth reading in full.
I like the notion that we need, not only watchdogs, but barking dogs as well.
https://www.iwm.at/closedbutacitve/corona-focus/john-keanedemocracy-and-the-great-pestilence/
Open plan offices might be history:
and surveillance more prevalent:
A couple of interesting points and a lot of motherhood statements. Here folks is the opportunity you were all looking for to right all those wrongs over the last few decades - just stitch your campaign on to COVID recovery.
It puts me in mind of Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality, about a beauty pageant where she has to give a speech to prove she is not just a pretty face. She waffles a bit and then adds in ‘oh and solve world peace’.
What needs doing has needed doing for quite some time. The pandemic has shed light and provided opportunities.
Now, if only they can bring more cities onboard.
Is the point here that Australia’s cities are not on board? Or does Australia function differently?
C40 mayors issue call for a healthy, equitable and sustainable economic recovery to COVID-19 pandemic.
Statement endorsed by mayors of Los Angeles, Athens, Austin, Barcelona, Bogotá, Boston, Buenos Aires, Chicago, Copenhagen, Curitiba, Durban, Freetown, Hong Kong, Houston, Lima, Lisbon, London, Medellín, Melbourne, Mexico City, Milan, Montréal, New Orleans, New York City, Oslo, Portland, Quezon City, Rotterdam, Salvador, São Paulo, San Francisco, Santiago, Seattle, Seoul, Sydney, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Vancouver
Aussies know that the Sydney and Melbourne City Councils are minnows. They represent a small fraction of the populations of Sydney and Melbourne. Something not self evident from the PR. Hence the need for clarification as to the purpose of C40 and it’s relationship with Australia.
Wikipedia said
Created and led by cities, C40 is focused on tackling climate change and driving urban action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks, while increasing the health, wellbeing and economic opportunities of urban citizens.
For Australia, health, well being and economic outcomes are shared across all levels of government. A little different to some other nations where local government has greater independence and control.
Australia’s largest City Council has some similar objectives and is not part of C40.
Australian population stats for the three councils mentioned.
1.2% Sydney CC
0.6% Melbourne CC
4.8% Brisbane CC
The situation is the same in many other countries. Greater Los Angeles includes several different municipalities such as Orange County - although LA County is probably the most populous. If you visit Southern California, there is no obvious border between it and San Diego - so it can sometimes be difficult to define what constitutes a city.
Is that the point? Are the aims therefore not desirable? Bear in mind the title of this topic.
Sorry - squirrel!
It is definitely good that cities are calling for a more equitable world. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how their words will translate into actions taken by the more powerful state and federal governments.
One of the economics podcasts to which I described suggested that the current pandemic will be a blip on the radar of carbon emissions. China’s emissions dropped enormously, but have since picked up to business as usual. Unless there is something to drive changes beyond the current emergency I suspect we will all return to business as usual (in some form or another) after the crisis ends unless it becomes far more pernicious and long-standing than is currently indicated.
In principle, all things are possible. In practice, defeatism makes worse outcomes more probable.
An article about the Chief Medical Officer’s advice regarding persons going to work when ill.
And an article regarding winding the Jobkeeper and Jobseeker payments down.
Whilst talking with my sister the other day, she said she believes that the greatest risk after the current wave of coronavirus will be caused by the gig economy.
Persons without sick leave entitlements will go to work when sick and risk further outbreaks of coronavirus like the Newmarch Home and Cedar Meats as they will not be able to access Jobkeeper or Jobseeker payments when they are sick.
The only realistic way to avert this is to provide assistance so these workers are not left with no choice other than to work when sick.
An article regarding greedy shopping centre landlords in line for a well overdue wake up call.
The cost of the Jobkeeper program was slightly overestimated.
Oops.
I have decided to place an ‘economist’ hat firmly on my head and make a few predictions that will undoubtedly be wrong but can be explained away by external factors that were impossible to predict.
Of course, these changes will be not just national but international, and will be supported by large technical projects that are currently under development such as Google’s Loon balloons and SpaceX’s ten thousand satellites delivering seamless connectivity wherever you are.
There are some industries that will not support working from home, and these will gravitate to hubs that were previously the centre of civic life or to regional bailiwicks in the case of heavy industry.
In short, a lengthy pandemic will kill the modern city. Caveats apply, only valid within certain jurisdictions. If symptoms persist, see your doctor.
I like much of what you say but I have some problems with it too. In no particular order:
Whether COVID19 behaves the way you describe is uncertain. The bug is related to the common cold. So far it is more harmful than the CC but is that because it is transmitted more easily, is intrinsically more harmful once you get it (and will remain so) or is it only more harmful because of its novelty and we have no immunity? Will a vaccine or recovering from the disease be effective in making you immune, in reducing the severity or have little effect? All of these questions have been asked and there is much research going into them but I don’t think we have solid answers to any yet.
The modern city is the result of some 10,000 years of technological, social and cultural development. Cities once grew in some places but not others because of environmental advantages, proximity to natural resources and trade routes (land or sea) were most important. Trade is significant not just for the economy but for exchange of ideas. Technology has reduced the effect of geography to a degree through transport and communication so that many cities are no longer reliant on proximity to exist.
Broken Hill was founded in a near desert to accommodate a workforce near a mineral reef and the railway made mining worthwhile. When the reef is exhausted the city will shrink and maybe die. Canberra was built on a sheep station in an arbitrary position. There are a few sheep still in the district but its primary industry is administration and government. While ever our leaders feel the need to bloviate in person and to have their public service nearby the city will remain despite having no natural resources.
Sydney had its harbour (a key resource in the days of sail) and a fertile coastal plain and the CBD started where it is over the Tank Stream. Now the comparative economic importance of the harbour is reduced, the plain is covered with houses not farms and the stream is an underground drain. The primary industry is now administration and services, attempts to decentralise by policy have little effect. It exists there because of inertia, the network of supplies and services are there to support any new endeavour and so that is where they start, that is where the new population heads for to find work and where new services grow to support them. Its population and activities are self-sustaining despite the fact that is must bring in almost all its food, water and energy.
Technology can reduce the necessity for geographical co-location. Working from home suits information industries but has distinct disadvantages for social purposes that even nerds need. Many workers find work is a large slice of their need for social interaction. Also it is hard to form networks, get motivated, get trained or influenced remotely. We don’t know where the limits of remote work are yet.
New communicable diseases have happened now and then and have not spelled the end of cities any time in the last couple of thousand years and so far I don’t see COVID19 is so exceptional that it will do the job. It is true that in the days of ancient Rome or when London was called The Great Wen the option to telecommute or to have shopping delivered by drone were not there. When pandemics struck people died in their droves and it took decades to recover.
I can see that if COVID19 or its successor, and there will be a successor, may put more pressure on decentralisation and stem the endless growth of the capitals but kill the city? In a few hundred years maybe the big cities will decline but I don’t see death. If populations are not controlled it will become a meaningless question as each megalopolis expands into lower density areas and eventually they join.
Cherry picking that one thing, will we also become more sensitive to the high quality and reliably quick delivery provided by Auspost, Fastway and most of the other delivery/‘courier’ services. It is a rare day a parcel sent from a few suburbs away in Melbourne gets delivered before one from Brissie or Sydney, and is often 1-4 days longer.
As compared to the US experience our delivery infrastructure may be enough to all but kill-off online if that part of the game is not raised, although our expectations might be minimal enough so it doesn’t matter?
I get the sense that the ‘more’ professional (and more expensive) delivery services are actually fairly good - still probably not as good as one finds in other countries, but at least adequate.
Just maybe, the ‘new normal’ will drive the price of these services down so the thing that gets killed off are the hopeless services 
wishful thinking I know ! I love the term ‘new normal’ … has an Orwellian feel about it …
The observation from ‘postulative’ is interesting. I’m a 63 year old male, and am completely lost when it comes to where humanity is going. I think that the web with all it’s wonderful stuff has also opened a Pandora’s box, never to be sealed again? Genie out of the bottle is another phrase that’s often used.
The various stages of humankind have evolved, gradually. Even the Industrial Revolution, whilst immense, took many years to complete, if that’s the word. It had great benefit to all, but did not affect everyone.You could dismiss the sewing machine, or car, or telephone and live a life as it had been for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
The web has changed everything. It can’t be ignored, it’s intrusive, forcing people into corners to adopt it. A cashless society, unable to speak to a human being, artificial intelligence. Remote tribes around the world were still remote, 30 years ago. They are now part of the ‘global economy’ being socially engineered into this stuff as we all are.
I go back to my initial comment that I’m not sure where this is all heading.
Regards
Sundowner
Some interesting predictions with varying appeal for the future. Are external factors a risk, or should that be more inward looking?
We are mostly social beings. Isolation has shown that in recent time the pressure of distancing is too great for many to bare. Perhaps in the big city centres distancing etc was being observed. My observation, away from the gaze of public cameras, observance was random and haphazard.
Human comfort may be found in returning to life as we knew it, or as close as is possible. Whether it is the better outcome, returning to the office and seeing all those familiar faces, bumping trolleys in the supermarket aisles, or feeling the essence of your favourite walk in store? The first simple test may be how many of us have reverted to the weekly shop vs online order and delivery. More may be inclined to shop on line for groceries. The fullness of the local shopping centre car park suggests we are well short of a sustainable change.
Behavioural change is difficult. All 7 suggestions are reliant on behavioural change. Stalin’s gulags might support the view point that even enforced change is no assurance of an outcome.
