When I think of the term urbanisation, I tend to associate it with positive effects. I use to think that urbanisation creates opportunities for people in the rural areas. It gives these rural migrants a chance to become better off due to the greater job opportunities available. On top of that, there are better health care facilities in the urban areas and thus better healthcare can be provided to the rural migrants. I had this idea that urbanisation is all good. It was only after learning more about the social problems, then did I discover that urbanisation is not all good. Urbanisation seems to be the one of the root causes of some social problems, such as crime and inequality. Yet, urbanisation is able to bring a country one step closer to modernisation and globalisation, as well as encourage economic development. The question is how do we exploit these positive effects of urbanisation and reduce the negative consequences? Is it even possible, or does urbanisation always have to be ‘evil’?

            I know it is undeniable that urbanisation plays a part in social problems such as crime and inequality. Crime, for instance is a large part due to urbanisation. When the rural migrants move into the urban areas, they are living in the same community as the rich. Some of the rural migrants are not well educated and hence may not be able to find employment in the urban areas. These unemployed rural migrants have no money and thus cannot afford to stay in proper housing. They have no choice but to put up in slums, where most of the people living there are probably in the same situation as them. As these rural migrants are living in the same community as the richer city dwellers, they might develop low-self esteem. In extreme cases, they might even harbour anger or hatred towards the richer city dwellers. This visible inequality might then lead to crime. The rural migrants are pushed to their wits ends and may see crime as an opportunity, and not as something which is negative. This is probably how urbanisation results in crime.

            However, there are models of urbanisation which are successful, like in the case of Curitiba. When professor showed us the video, I found myself wowing at every scene. I think Curitiba is indeed an excellent role model with regards to their urbanisation plans. What sets them apart from the urbanisation of the other cities is that, they are people oriented, instead of being economically oriented. Their urban planning actions are built around individuals instead of being built around economic growth. In some cities, the people are seen as means to bring about economic growth. Perhaps that is why in some cities, urbanisation results in the many social problems. What I admire most about Curitiba is that they consider those who are not as well-off. The exchange program is a great solution to help those who are less well-off. With this solution, the government is able to render help to them, without turning into a welfare state. I admire the way in which they turn problems into solutions.

            What I feel is that, urbanisation is not necessarily evil. Yes, the negative effects of urbanisation are obvious in some cities, but this does not mean they are necessarily evil. I think the effects of urbanisation depend on how the government carries out their plans. In the case of Curitiba, urbanisation seems to be very successful. Their philosophy of ‘transforming problems into solutions’ have shown the world that we are able to exploit the positive effects of urbanisation and at the same time, reduce the negative consequences.

References

1. Orienting urban planning to sustainability in Curitiba, Brazil —http://www3.iclei.org/localstrategies/summary/curitiba2.html