SIEMENS

At the end of October 2011, the United Nations will welcome the Earth’s seven-billionth inhabitant. It’s highly likely that this individual will be born in a developing country or emerging market. After all, that’s where most of the world’s population currently lives. It’s also very probable that he or she will begin life in a city, as more than half of all people on Earth reside in urban areas. Perhaps her name will be Marcia and she’ll be born in the Brazilian port city of Recife. Or maybe he will be called Ramesh and be welcomed by proud parents in Kolkata, India. Alternatively, he might be born in Nigeria, the home country of Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin.

Osotimehin is the Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Her “7 billion actions” program is designed to draw attention to the challenges associated with ongoing global population growth. One of the most important of these challenges involves increasing urbanization. Says Osotimehin: “The world will soon be home to seven billion people, 1.8 billion of whom will be between the ages of ten and 24. Many of these young people will try to make their way professionally in large cities that are still not prepared to meet all of their needs. That’s why we need to promote intelligent planning approaches that ensure cities can offer these people a safe and secure environment, as well as access to health care, education, and jobs.”

Even if — like Osotimehin — the world’s seven-billionth human is born in a small village, it’s still quite likely that he or she will move to a city someday. That’s because urban areas are more attractive places to live when it comes to education and job opportunities, entertainment, and health care. Urban residents are better educated on average and also earn more money than people who live in the countryside. But are they also happier? How attractive is their quality of life? And do they actually enjoy living in cities?

“Everyone has their own subjective view of quality of life,” says urban planner Pablo Vaggione (see “Efficient Cities: Achieving More while Consuming Less”). “These views also differ within a given country and even within a city.” A person’s expectations with regard to the city they live in depend on many factors. Take cities as different as London and Mumbai. A student may like living in the crowded center of London, for instance — but a family of five would probably flee the high rents, lack of playgrounds, and poor air quality to move to a green suburb. Slum residents in Mumbai would want to have access to running water and a direct bus connection to their jobs. Their employers from India’s growing middle class, on the other hand, who already enjoy such basic amenities, might be more concerned with moving closer to areas with better schools for their kids.

Rural Exodus. Mumbai and London offer good examples of the extremely different challenges faced by major cities. Only a third of all Indians now live in urban regions, but those cities, whether they be Mumbai, Kolkata, or Chennai, generate more than two-thirds of the country’s economic output. As a result of the tremendous number of people leaving the countryside, city dwellers will probably make up about half the Indian population by 2030. The problem is that a lack of effective urban planning and insufficient investment in infrastructure, such as subways and water treatment plants, suggest that much of the growth potential of Indian cities might remain unexploited (see ”Infrastructures for Everyone”). However, making the most of such growth opportunities is crucial, otherwise it will not be possible to generate the funds required to build new infrastructure in the future.

The situation is completely different in London, where the world’s first subway was built in the 19th century and many water pipes and sewers were installed during the reign of Queen Victoria. London has always been a model for infrastructure that other big cities have tried to follow — but investment has fallen behind the city’s requirements over the last few decades. The metropolis on the Thames must therefore now address 21st century challenges with a core infrastructure that’s more than 100 years old (see “Better than Broomsticks”).

London is not the only city facing this problem; many cities in highly industrialized nations are dealing with similar issues. Instead of basic infrastructure investment, what they really need is intelligent modernization and selective improvements. Tel Aviv, for example, has an automated toll collection system that flexibly adjusts prices in line with actual traffic volumes — a feature that helps to boost the efficiency of the road infrastructure (see “Fast Lane to Dynamic Pricing”).

Experience to date shows that cities stand to benefit the most when they employ holisticsolutions rather than setting up piecemeal schemes that address only some of their problems in isolation. This conclusion is confirmed by the Megacity challenges — a stakeholder perspective study. For example, by providing everything from rentable electric vehicles to low-floor streetcars (see v“Build Your Own Train”), integrated traffic and transport planning can help to efficiently link personal and public transport in order to meet the mobility needs of a modern society (see “Flexibility in Motion”).

Like London, many U.S. and Canadian cities also developed their infrastructures at a relatively early stage in their development — but the edge they gained has since become a disadvantage, as many of their rail lines, bridges, and parts of their power grids are no longer modern.

Their settlement structures also mirror the urban planning visions of the past. For example, their city centers are often surrounded by many residential areas in suburbs that offer a green environment but can only be reached by car. This may superficially enhance quality of life for some, but a price is paid in the form of energy consumption, as the US and Canada Green City Index shows. According to this index, which was presented at the Aspen Ideas Festival in June 2011 by the Economist Intelligence Unit, European cities generate some five tons of CO2 per year per resident, while cities in the U.S. produce around 16 tons per capita. Others produce even more carbon dioxide emissions. In rural regions of the U.S., for instance, the average per capita emission level is approximately 20 tons. This is mainly due to the higher number of miles driven by individuals in sparsely populated areas (see “And The Winners Are…”). In other words, city people can manage with less energy.

This comparison illustrates that urbanization in and of itself can generate an environmental benefit. Back in the 1970s, Canadian urban expert Jane Jacobs postulated a vision of a green metropolis in which people live very closely together in skyscrapers and walk short distances to work, thus avoiding the energy-intensive and environmentallydamaging automobile culture of suburbia. Whether most people want to live in such a compact urban environment is a different issue. In any case, Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard University provocatively puts the concept in a nutshell in his book Triumph of the City, in which he states: “If you love nature, stay away from it.” This precept partly explains why densely populated New York did so well in the US and Canada Green City Index, taking third place behind San Francisco (first) and Vancouver.

Urban Districts under Water. These cities are already displaying a trend that may further reduce inner-city driving in the future — the development of new forms of interacting withwork, such as telecommuting, that are being driven by communication technologies (see “Untethered but Online”). Many people regard the ability to more or less decide where they work as an enhancement to their quality of life.

Nevertheless, environmental pollution still remains the biggest challenge facing cities around the world. Climate change could become very expensive for coastal cities in particular. For instance, approximately 20 percent of Jakarta’s land area is below sea level. As a result, dams will have to be built or raised if ocean levels rise. And if things get really bad, entire districts may have to be abandoned.

Says Dr. Joan Clos, Director of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT): “Urbanization was viewed for too long as something bad that had to be slowed down or stopped. But that’s not possible. Now, people are beginning to understand that cities can be a positive force for change. They could even play an important role when it comes to combating global warming and promoting socio-economic development.” (see “Why Cities Are Becoming a Positive Force for Change”).

Urbanization is more than just an abstract phenomenon. It’s also the sum of individual stories of people who live in a city in order to pool their creativity and productivity with others. It’s not just buildings, streets, railways, water mains, or parks that make a city. As Gaeser says, “We must free ourselves from our tendency to see cities as their buildings, and remember that the real city is made of flesh, not concrete.”

Regardless of who the seven billionth person on the planet will be, one thing is already certain. His or her life expectancy will be higher than that of previous generations. Moreover, the growing demand on the part of older people to continue to live in their own homes will likely be met in many cases with the help of sensor and communication technologies. That such a scenario is possible is being demonstrated by the Smart Senior field test in Berlin (see “Intelligent Solutions for Tomorrow’s seniors”). It’s also highly probable that the next generation’s level of education will be higher than that of their parents, as will their income. Most of these trends will take shape in cities. And one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century will be to make urban environments worth living in — places, in short, where people can expect to enjoy a high quality of life.