Urban Planning: Utopia?

Utopia is a word coined by Sir Thomas More in 1516 as an imaginary island enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc. It is also considered as an ideal place or state or any visionary system of political or social perfection.

This entry is one of my essays submitted to the University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning (UP SURP) in 2014 when I was still a student taking my post-graduate education. I thought it would be interesting and informative to share this essay.

Utopia in the context of Urban Planning

Utopia is a word coined by Sir Thomas More in 1516 as an imaginary island enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc. It is also considered as an ideal place or state or any visionary system of political or social perfection (Dictionary.com). Utopia is based on the imagination and discontentment of Moore to the present situation. Thus, several people crafted and designed an ideal place (utopia) that later became popular and the basis of effective urban planning.

Ebenezer Howard (1898) introduced the Garden City. It is a settlement designed with the central business district (CBD) in the middle of the city and its outer rings composed of greenbelt and residential areas, respectively. The center is accessible with road networks and railways along its periphery. The concept is a combination of town (urban) and country (rural) perceived advantages.

Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City

Jane Jacobs (1961) on the other hand was critical of the Garden City idea due to its insensitive planned development. She put emphasis on the importance of people looking after each other in one’s neighborhood and their important role in planning.

Daniel Burnham (1890s) on the other hand, focused on creating big plans. He emphasized orderliness and harmony of form usually on a grand scale. Burnham is famous for his quote to wit:

“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die.” “Make no little plans. They have no Magic to stir Men’s blood.”

Based on Howard, Jacobs, and Burnham; it is easy to conclude that there is no definite definition, design or concept of a Utopia. It is based on the actual needs and preference of the people, the resources available, and the political will of leaders. Therefore, the concept of Utopia is different from person to person.

My Personal Utopia

My definition of Utopia comes close to my definition of my “home”. A home is where I feel comfortable, happy, satisfied, safe, and a place to enjoy the company of my loved ones. It includes my immediate family, neighborhood and community. It is a place where I am free to develop and cultivate. It is a place where I am protected from external threats. It is more of my emotional feeling than the physical building itself. My home (my utopia) fulfills and satisfies my needs and provides tranquility. With this in mind, allow me to explore my perceived needs in different timelines so that I may understand and appreciate my utopia as an individual before I try to recommend a possible utopia for the city or country.

Twenty five years ago, I would have imagined my utopia as a place where I can be with my friends / classmates / family. A place where we can have fun either swimming in an ocean or a clean river or enjoying a game of basketball in a covered court. I am thinking more of a suburb with complete facilities and friendly neighbors. I could have also wished then for a near high quality school (University) to learn and explore both my strengths and weaknesses in the academic field and be involved in extracurricular activities.

At present, my priority is to establish a good future for my 3 kids. I want an unpolluted and safe environment that is free from criminality. I want good schools for my kids with good and available scholarship programs. I want to participate in community development. I want to be involved in how the government decides on things that will affect my family’s well-being. I want to have access to quality basic social services. I want to have a good source of livelihood to support the needs of my family and prepare for our future needs.  I want to raise well-rounded smart kids. My utopia at present is more of a mixed use site with access to schools (preferably a university town), source of livelihood, and safe residential areas. I have no issue with mixed use buildings in a central business district (CBD) but I prefer to live in a suburb with good access to the CBD (thru roads and efficient public transport system).

Fifteen years from now, my kids will have already finished their college education and probably starting to establish their individual lives. I am imagining myself spending more quality time with my spouse with a more than modest source of livelihood and busy in volunteer work. It will surely be the period of giving back to the community and playing a more active role in its management and development. I might run for public office (who knows?) or travel and enjoy other places in the world. Still I look forward to a safe and secured environment with friendly neighbors. I may want to be near/or have access to health institutions and the houses of my kids.

Twenty five years from now, I believe I will already be a grandfather with a very different set of needs. I still want to live in a safe environment that is near my kids and grandchildren’s houses. I want to have another house closer to nature (beach, farm, etc.). I may also need to be near hospitals. I hope (that’s the plan) that I have prepared and accumulated enough resources to provide for my needs in my ageing days. I may have an advocacy or may have already written and published books on different topics of interest. I still want to travel and enjoy the beautiful things in other parts of the planet. I sure would want to be still adept in that time’s latest technology (that would be exciting!).

My Utopia at the City/Country Level

Just like me, I believe every person envisions his/her own form of utopia and this vision changes as his/her need changes. However, as a city planner, I cannot exclude certain segments and must try to bring a desired utopia for all age groups. Thus, I would like to describe my idea of a Philippine Utopia both from a user’s and planner’s perspective. My hypothetical utopia is a combination of Howard’s and Jacob’s basic principles with the grandeur of Burnham. I would like to describe my utopia per sector with the belief that a clear and detailed plan turns into clear objectives which facilitate the increase of chances of its achievement. The said sectors are economic, social, technological, political/legal, environmental, and physical.

Economic activities in the utopia involve a good combination of agriculture, manufacturing, and services activities. There are ample job opportunities for both blue collar and white collar types of work. Big and small businesses are both thriving and are working together in providing quality jobs and goods to the people.  Due to the stronger financial position of the constituents, they have the option to pay for private goods or avail of public services / goods from the government.

Social services in the utopia include access to quality education (public and private) and free or subsidized health and education services to the lower income groups. Everybody should have access to education and health services. There are ample policemen and community personnel maintaining and securing the peace and order situation of the city. People are aware, trained, and ready for natural and man-made disasters. There are also recreation and sports programs for all segments in society.

In this utopia, all sectors are connected to the internet. A person may choose to conduct business, pay bills, pursue and study a full course (university), work, etc. in the comfort of his/her own home with the latest technology or go out and conduct these things personally. Information is accessible to all at minimal or no cost to the people.

People in this utopia have a say on government policies that affect their lives. Government is democratic with active people taking part in good governance. Government is willing to listen to its constituents and proactively include them in the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of public projects. Government also conducts capacity building for the civil society organizations in order for them to be skilled and knowledgeable partners in developmental projects of this utopia. A citizen can also transact business with the government through technology in the comfort of their homes.

This utopia observes sustainable development policies and practices. There are areas reserved for nature and adequate clean water for everybody. This utopia has responsible citizens that practice good stewardship of the environment. There are bike lanes, electric (solar) cars, electric (solar) trains, and power comes from renewable energy sources. There are policies crafted with and supported by the people in terms of solid waste management, wastage, sanitation, etc.

In terms of physical / infrastructure manifestations of the stated sectoral objectives of this utopia, I imagined it initially with Howard’s design but with some modifications. Howard’s design focused on one (1) CBD whereas my utopia is composed of several CBD’s (multi-nodal). Each node/CBD is separated by ample green space and is connected to good road networks and accessible via railway operated by renewable energy. Each node has its own suburb as defined in the American societies (so people have options). The node itself is composed of mixed use green buildings (residential, commercial and institutional). The development of the node is vertical to save space and with ample parks and other multi-purpose spaces.  Though there may be specialization (manufacturing, services, education, tourism, etc.) per node, it is expected that each node can survive without depending on the other nodes (economic activity, social services, renewable energy, food, solid waste management, etc.). However, inter-nodal arrangements should be carefully pursued and implemented in tackling sensitive issues that may affect the respective territorial boundaries of adjacent local communities (i.e. pollution, watershed, peace and order, etc.).

My preferred utopia expands the options of the people in a way that empowers them on how to choose the way they live. They may opt to live outside the CBD (suburbs) or in a mixed-use building in the CBD. Since they have a good source of livelihood they can choose to pay for private services/goods or avail of government public services. The government listens and involves the people in pursuing new policies and development. Religious affiliations are respected. All segments of the society are considered in the development. People are the users, the owners, and the planners in the city development. The government and other private technical people only guide and basically act only as implementors of the goals and needs of the people.

I assume that most developments are government initiated. In this new age, governments are mostly democratic in a sense that it is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. With that in mind, development or specifically urban planning and development should also be people centered. A project implemented without the people’s support may fall short to its intended use or worse may become a white elephant project. Technical people tend to put the wishes of the people last, they assume they know what the people wanted already, or worse they do not believe that the people know what they want. The era where leaders establish pyramids and other edifices depending on their whims has ended thousands of years ago. It is only ethical and moral to ask people their priorities and preferences in pursuing development since they are the owner, the users, and the ones paying for it with their taxes.

Though, it may be difficult to synergize the different views on utopias of all the people, one needs skills in squeezing out their common or general sentiments. With my earlier analysis of my needs, this includes having a safe and secured community with access to basic services (basic).

In closing, I appreciate Howard’s intention of a balanced living, Jacob’s emphasis on the important roles of people in urban development, and Burnham intention of grand plans. This is my utopia and hopefully the desired utopia of my country.

For me, a home is what you make it. I believe that you choose where you want to live first and make it your home. An urban plan or an urban area is not a utopia or a home unless people are empowered to get involved and make it their own.

References:

Howard, Sir Ebenezer George, Garden Cities of To-morrow – 1902, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (June 29, 2008)

Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities – 1961,Vintage; Reissue edition (December 1, 1992)

Inspired by the Lecture Slide Presentation of Prof. Jed Gomez on “Utopias, Dystopias, and Everything in Between” delivered on September 2, 2014 during the Plan 201 Class at the University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning

Meaning of “utopia” downloaded at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utopia in September 5, 2014

The Social City image downloaded at http://www.mediaarchitecture.at/architekturtheorie/garden_cities/content/the_social_city_1898.jpg in July 28, 2021

Local Citizens and Non-Citizens in the Middle of the COVID 19 Pandemic

Everything stood still during the Pandemic Lockdown. Schools, restaurants, businesses and public transportation, among others, stopped or operated in a limited capacity. Most of the people waited for the government to provide support in terms of financial assistance and food packages. The situation revealed two types of inhabitants (Beneficiaries) living in local governments (communities): the local non-citizens and the citizens.

First let us define what are citizens. Citizens are those who are living or resides in the community that are registered voters and/or included in the masterlist (whether as senior citizen, person with disability, solo parent, etc.) of the local government. Non-citizens are those living in the community who are not registered voters and does not directly deal with the local government. Usually these are the transient workers, company workers, stranded people, and those who by choice doesn’t want to engage or be part of the community.

During the pandemic (or any other disasters), the local government procures and prepares supplies for distribution and formulate programs to support its people. The local government uses the masterlist in identifying the number of food packages or the budget to prepare for the relief operation. However, during the pandemic, many inhabitants took to social media their cries of being excluded from the support. Sometimes, they air their complaints even before the actual distribution of support to the point of accusing local leaders of politicking, corruption, and discrimination.

On the government side, they cannot just allocate resources not based on actual data while on the side of the non-citizens, they are also part of the community contributing to its economy and development. Both sides have strong points. I do not want to decide which is the right argument. I only hope that this incident brought learnings on both sides. This way we can prevent this from happening again when disasters occur (and disasters will definitely occur whether we like or not).

If a person is a non-citizen by choice, he/she should be ready if he/she is not included in the masterlist of beneficiaries. However, being a non-citizen does not exempt him/her from government services such as peace and order, health, environmental programs, etc. Other non-citizens can easily be included in the local government masterlist if they just register in the local Commission on Election (COMELEC) Offices available in all local governments. This is a strong document that you are part of the community. However, take note that if a person fails to vote two consecutive times, he/she will be written off from the COMELEC masterlist. Another way is to get identification card from the local government Social Welfare and Development Office if you are a senior citizen, person with disability, solo parent, etc. There are many ways to become a citizen of the community which requires very minimal effort.

Local Government is tasked to promote the general welfare of its inhabitants (whether citizens or non-citizens). Thus, local governments formulate plans, programs, and activities in promoting what is best to the community. Masterlists are outdated the very time it is submitted and adopted. Everyday a person is being born (die) or transfer to and from the community which is not captured real-time in the masterlist. Local government should be adept in developing projections or actually capturing the number of its inhabitants on a regular basis. The Philippines has a lower level of local government below the city/municipal level. This is the Barangay (Village) local government unit. The duties of its barangay secretary are to keep an updated record of all inhabitants of the barangay containing the following items of information: name, address, place and date of birth, sex, civil status, citizenship, occupation, and such other items of information as may be prescribed by law or ordinance; and to submit a report on the actual number of barangay residents as often as may be required by the sangguniang barangay. Hence, it is the duty of the local government to have an updated record or masterlist. They should also promote the COMELEC registration of the inhabitants by making it accessible and convenient to the (qualified) people.

The Pandemic revealed this simple issue that created a big impact during the incident. I feel that it is both the duty of the inhabitants and the government to reach out to each other. The inhabitants to fulfill its moral duty of registering and voting and the local government to carry out its mandate, improve planning tools, and reach out/encourage its inhabitants to participate in local activities and governance.

I hope we learned from this experience and I hope that as a community, we are all prepared and focused on our next/future challenges.

Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP) Supports the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by Promoting Good Governance through Governance Hubs in Provincial Road Projects

Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP) Supports the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by Promoting Good Governance through Governance Hubs in Provincial Road Projects

EnP. Ermin Lucino, MPM, AICP, PMP®

“ROADS” literally and figuratively pave the way for development. It both serves as a link of the people to basic services and foundation and catalyst for economic development. It means that inadequate and dilapidated roads hinders the people’s access to basic services and economic development and opportunities.

“Paving the Roads to Sustainable Development Goals through Good Governance (Roads2SDGs)” is a national governance reform program in local roads management (LRM) and public financial management (PFM) targeting different provinces in the country. Roads2SDGs is an initiative of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). DILG together with the Department of Budget and Management oversee the Conditional Matching Grant to Provinces (CMGP) project. It aims to improve the quality of the provincial local road network across the country by matching the fund from the national government with good governance practices at the provincial level.

The construction and rehabilitation of roads is aligned with the SDGs. The Philippines is one of the signatories committed to the achievement of these goals.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The goals are interconnected and interdependent. It promotes partnership and pragmatism in making the right choices now to improve life in a sustainable manner. The SDGs provide clear guidelines and targets. It is an inclusive agenda.

Improving access and socio-economic development through construction and rehabilitation of roads supports the following SDGs:

SDGs Contribution of Roads to SDG
SDG 1 No Poverty Connecting communities to basic services and economic opportunities
SDG 2 Zero Hunger Enhancing food security by improving business of markets and profit and productivity of farms
SDG 3 Good Health and Well Being Connecting communities to health services and in turn health services to medicinal warehouses / suppliers
SDG 4 Quality Education Increasing safe access to educational institutions and opportunity for the youth and adults to develop new skills
SDG Gender Equality Ensuring gender responsive roads such as safe lighted pedestrian walkways
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth Increasing employment and economic access for all including the youth and persons with disability
SDG 9 Industry Innovation and Infrastructure Ensuring that the people living in rural areas live within 2 km of an all-season road. Promoting innovative road design.
SDG 13 Climate Action Ensuring resilient designed roads that will better withstand the effects of climate change
SDG 16 Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions Mitigating corruption, increasing transparency and ensuring responsive institutions through citizen participation
SDG 17 Partnership for the Goals Building multi-stakeholder partnerships for effective implementation and maintenance of roads

Blog 1

To get funding from the Conditional Matching Grant to the Province (CMGP), provincial governments are required to formulate and submit a Provincial Governance Reform Roadmap (PGRR) covering the year 2017-2022. The PGRR illustrates the performance targets for each reform area and the strategies to achieve and sustain these agendas. There are seven (7) Reform Areas in the PGRR. Four (4) reform areas are under Local Road Management (Local Road Information Management, Local Road Network Development, Local Road Construction and Maintenance, and Local Road Asset Management) while three (3) reform areas are under Public Financial Management (Internal Audit; Budgeting, Revenue Generation and Expenditure Management; and Procurement).

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the United Nation’s global development network. It advocates for change and connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life for themselves. UNDP help achieve the eradication of poverty, and the reduction of inequalities and exclusion. They help (developing) countries to develop policies, leadership skills, partnering abilities, institutional capabilities and build resilience in order to sustain development results. UNDP Philippines partnered with DILG in the implementation of the ROADS2SDG Program.

Blog 2

The ROADS2SDGs have four major target outputs. These are formulation of quality assurance manual for roads and technical audit tools, governance reforms deliverables by the formulation of guidelines for provincial assessment and PGRR formulation, mentoring/coaching (developing local capacities) in local road management and public financial management, and by promoting citizen participation in road governance.

The G-HUBS (Holistic Undertaking Bridging Solutions for Governance) also known as Governance Hub was initiated by DILG and UNDP to assist in the implementation of the ROADS2SDGs program. The G-HUB is a regional organization that stemmed from a Memorandum of Understanding among the different private and state universities and colleges, Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP), non-government organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs).

The role of G-HUBS in the ROADS2SDG program includes provincial assessment (conduct of courtesy calls, co-facilitation of provincial assessment and promotion of citizen participation), PGRR formulation workshop (co-facilitation of the workshop and promotion of citizen participation), follow-up coaching and mentoring (weaving through the SDGs in the PGRR), finalization of the PGRR until SP adoption (coach CSO participants to lobby adoption of PGRR), PGRR Implementation (organize / mobilize citizens’ monitors and advocate for the institutionalization of citizen-led monitoring), and PGRR Monitoring (advocate for the institutionalization of citizen-led monitoring). The G-HUBs were allocated a modest amount from UNDP to be used in their operation and delivery of outputs.

I belong to the Cavite-Laguna-Batangas-Rizal-Quezon (CALABARZON) G-HUB. Our convenor is from the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), an international NGO. Members of our G-HUB are representatives from Cavite Stare University (CvSU), Dela Salle University – Dasmarinas (DLSUD), through the Lasalian Community Development Center (LCDC), the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners (PIEP) through its Laguna and Quezon Chapters and the Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda ng Luzon, Mindanao at Visayas (PUMALU-MV). I represent the PIEP Laguna Chapter.

The role of the G-HUB in the ROADS2SDGs program is only until the end of 2019. The CALABARZON G-HUB already conducted courtesy calls to different provinces with regards to the PGRR. There are different levels of awareness among the provinces with regards to SDGs. The G-HUBS are now starting to become resource persons in terms of SDG awareness and localization. These proves the interdependency of the 17 SDGs. It is difficult to specifically focus on roads alone without discussing the other aspects of SDGs not directly related to roads. It is also important to aggressively campaign and promote SDGs in all sectors (private, government, and NGOs/POs). As a matter of fact, the CALABARZON G-HUB is being tapped as resource persons by a province in their activity on Planning and SDG Localization.

G-HUBS role beyond ROADS2SDGs is taking shape as the program is being implemented. It serves as an important stakeholder in promoting good governance and mainstreaming/localizing SDGs at a regional level. Its diverse membership gives it both academic and professional expertise (private/SUCs and PIEP) and relevant advocacies (NGOs/POs). It has the potential to serve as the important third actor (aside from the state and the private sector) that will initiate real change in our country.

Blog 3

Note: Most of the explanations provided are part of the different slides presented during the Preparation of Provincial Governance Reforms Roadmap (PGRR) and Training of Trainers on September 24-26, 2018 in Tagaytay City and CALABARZON G-HUB SDG Localization Training and Meeting on May 22-23, 2019 in Silang, Cavite.

Other information are sourced from the following sites:

https://assistasia.org/news/assist-creative-lab-embarks-on-the-roads2sdgs/

http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html

https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/about-us.html