Megacities

C HA P M A NU N I V E R S I T Y

P R E S S


P R E S S


P R E S S

P R E S S

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY PRESS



P R E S S

P R E S S

2014

Primary author: Joel Kotkin

Contributing authors: Wendell Cox, Ali Modarres, Aaron M. Renn

Editor: Mandy Shams

Research: Clinton Stiles-Schmidt, Haley Wragg , Grace Kim,

Zohar Liebermensch, Dylan Cox

All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented,

without written permission from the Publisher and the Center for Demographics and Policy.

Special thank you to Roger Hobbs, Ann Gordon and Lenae Reiter

THE PROBLEM WITH MEGACITIES 1

“Demographics is destiny” has become somewhat an overused phrase, but that does not reduce the critical importance of population trends to virtually every aspect of economic, social and political life. Concern over demographic trends has been heightened in recent years by several international trends —notably rapid aging, reduced fertility, large scale migration across borders. On the national level, shifts in attitude, generation and ethnicity have proven decisive in both the political realm and in the economic fortunes of regions and states.

The Center focuses research and analysis of global, national and regional demographic trends and also looks into policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time. In addition it involves Chapman students in demographic research under the supervision of the Center’s senior staff. Students work with the Center’s director and engage in research that will serve them well as they look to develop their careers in business, the social sciences and the arts. They will also have access to our advisory board, which includes distinguished Chapman faculty and major demographic scholars from across the country and the world.

R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N

Center for Demographics and Policy










WILKINSON COLLEGEof Humanities and Social Sciences




R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N




C HA P M A N U N I V E R S I T YC HA P M A NU N I V E R S I T Y


C HA P M A N U N I V E R S I T Y



2 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY • CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND POLICY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Author and Contributors .........................................................................................................4

Student Research Assistants ....................................................................................................5

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................7

Urban and Economic Context ...................................................................................7

The Evolution of Megacities .......................................................................................9

Health and Quality of Life ..........................................................................................12

The Problems of Gigantism .....................................................................................14

The Infrastructure Challenge ..................................................................................14

The City of Disappointment .....................................................................................15

Is there a better alternative? ...................................................................................16

Footnotes and Sources ............................................................................................................22


AUTHOR:Joel Kotkin is an internationally-recognized authority on global, economic, political andsocial trends, Joel Kotkin is the author of the forthcoming THE NEW CLASS CONFLICT, to be published by Telos Press Publishing. His last book THE NEXT HUNDRED MILLION: America in 2050 explores how the nation will evolve in the next four decades. His previous, also critically acclaimed book, was THE CITY: A GLOBAL HISTORY. Mr. Kotkin is the Roger Hobbs Distinguished Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University in Orange, California and Executive Editor of the widely read website www.newgeography.com. He writes the weekly “New Geographer” column for Forbes.com. He is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Civil Service College in Singapore. He serves on the editorial board of the Orange County Register and writes a weekly column for that paper, and is a regular contributor to the Daily Beast.

CONTRIBUTORS:Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, a St. Louis based international public policy consulting firm. He is co-author of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas. He has conducted research on demographics and urban policy and is a frequent commentary contributor, having been published in the Daily Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal, the National Post (Toronto), the Los Angeles Times and others. Wendell Cox is also author of the Evolving Urban Form series in newgeography.com. He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county officials as the only non-elected member. He was also appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council and has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (CNAM), a national university in Paris. Photos on pages 12-15 courtesy of Mr. Cox.

Ali Modarres is the Director of Urban Studies at University of Washington Tacoma. He is a geographer and landscape architect, specializing in urban planning and policy. He has written extensively about social geography, transportation planning, and urban development issues in American cities.

Aaron M. Renn is an analyst and writer on urban affairs who publishes the Urbanophile (www.urbanophile.com) and runs the urban data analytics platform Telestrian (www.telestrian.com). He was formerly a partner at the global consultancy Accenture.


Wilkinson College of Humanities and Social Sciences is committed to the larger university effort aimed at providing students with access to key researchers. Undergraduate research encompasses both scholarship and creative activity, and has the ability to capture student interest, create enthusiasm for and engagement in, an area of study.

An important aspect of the building undergraduate research networks (BURN) program is to embed students within active research groups engaging students in collaborative research across all disciplines in wilkinson college. This gives students extraordinary opportunities to develop their skills, broaden their knowledge, and participate in research in practical and demonstrable ways. Our desire is to create a framework that allows students to experience, and contribute in, original intellectual or creative research impacting their discipline.

The ethos of BURN is to facilitate research at the individual and group levels.

STUDENT RESEARCH ASSISTANTS:Special Thanks to the Chapman University students who worked on the project:

Dylan Cox, B.A. Economics, B.S. Business Administration. Graduate 2014.

Zohar Liebermensch, BA in Economics and a BS in Business Administration with minors in Computational Sciences and University Honor's Program. Anticipated Graduation ,2015

Clinton Stiles-Schmidt, BS in Business Administration, Double Emphasis: Real Estate and Finance, BA in Economics. Anticipated Graduation, 2015

Haley Wragg, BA in Business Marketing and Entrepreneurship. Anticipated Graduation December, 2014.


Executive Summary

No phenomenon more reflects the sheer power and appeal of urbanism than the rise of megacities, which we define as an urban area with more than 10 million residents (defined as areas of continu-ous urban development)1. Until recent decades there were only three — Tokyo and New York, joined by a third, Mexico City, only in 1975. Now the megacity has become a global phenomenon that has dispersed around the planet. There were 29 such cities in 2014 and now account for roughly 13% of the world’s urban population and 7% of the world’s total population (Figure 1).

Urban boosters such as Harvard’s Ed Glaeser suggest that megacities grow be-cause “globalization” and “technological change have increased the returns to be-ing smart.” 2 And to be sure, megacities such Jakarta, Kolkata (in India), Mumbai, Manila, Karachi, and Lagos — all among the top 25 most populous cities in the world — present a great opportunity for large corporate development firms who pledge to fix their problems with ultra-expensive hardware. They also pro-vide thrilling features for journalists and a rich trove for academic researchers.

Like Mr. Glaeser, many Western pundits find much to celebrate about the megacities mushrooming in low-income countries. To them, the growth of megacities is justified because it offers something more than unremit-ting rural poverty. But surely there’s a better alternative than celebrating slums, as one prominent author did recently in Foreign Policy bizarrely entitled “In Praise of Slums”3.

As demonstrated in our new paper on global cities developed with the Civil Service College of Singapore, many of these emergent megacities in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world lack of an economic basis sufficient to substan-tially compete beyond their national or

nearby regional markets. As a result, the rise of megacities in the developing world may be laying the foundation for an emerging crisis of urbanity, where people crowd into giant cities that lack of the economic and political infrastruc-ture to improve their lives. At the end of this paper, we try to suggest that they may be better solutions that steer growth to smaller cities and towns, and even seek out ways to improve the life in rural villages.

Urban and economic context

Cities have grown exponentially in size and population since 1800. Then, approximately 5% of the world’s popula-tion lived in cities.4 By 2015, the world’s urban population will approach 55%. In 1800, only Beijing had a population exceeding 1,000,000. Today, that number has increased to more than 450, and the largest, Tokyo, exceeds 35 million.5

Cities have played a critical role in increasing the standard of living for peo-ple who, in rural isolation, often barely existed little above a subsistence level.6 This process accelerated rapidly in the years following 1800, when the scientific,

# GEO City 2014 Population in Millions ‘00–’10 growth

1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%

7. CN Guangzhou-Foshan 18.32 43.0%

8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%

World Population by Urban Area Size: 2014

Urban Population Areas in Millions • Megacities: 2014Sources: See Demographia World Urban Areas (demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf)

7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

IDJP IN KR PH CN PK US MX BR CN CN IN JP RU

F1F3 F5

F4

F2

World Urban Population by Urban Area Size: 2014

13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on

Urban Population: Latin AmericaSouth and Central America 1950 – 2050

19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion

GEO City GEO City CN Chengdu CN Hangzhou CN Dongguan CN Wuhan CN Tianjin CO Bogota CD Kinshasa IN Ahmedabad IN Bangalore ZA Johannesburg-East Rand IN Chennai US Chicago IN Hyderabad PK Lahore PE Lima VN Ho Chi Minh City

1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9

Megacity, Other City & Rural PopulationShare of National Populations: 1950 – 2010

1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns

Projected Population GrowthMegacities & Other Large Cities 2014 to 2025

Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th

Sources: See Demographia World Urban Areas (demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf) Sources: See Demographia World Urban Areas (demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf)

Fastest Growing Megacities: 2000 – 2014 Probable Future Megacities: 2025 and 2030

Urban: Not Megacity Megacities

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7

Brazil Egypt India Mexico Turkey United States

Megacity & Smaller City Growth: 2000–2010Large Nations with Greater Smaller City Growth

Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M

❰ Shantytown - Rio de Janeiro


technological, industrial and medical advances nurtured the growth of cities. As urban economist Edwin Mills has shown, urbanization brought in its wake improved incomes, more employ-ment opportunities, and created condi-tions that made business investments more lucrative. 7

How cities develop will shape life even more in the future. Over the next 35 years, all world population growth will be in cities. Today, there are nearly 4 bil-lion dwellers, and by 2050 there will be 6.3 billion, according to United Nations (UN) projections. Rural populations are expected to decline by 300 million.8 Nearly 95%of the city growth is expected to be outside the more developed world. This places enormous importance on megacities that are rising in these places. Even with the substantial progress in reducing world poverty, 9 the concen-tration of growth in lower income cities presents formidable challenges for both policy makers and those who live there.

As suggested in our aforementioned global cities paper, many of these cities are not well-suited to compete not only with established global hubs as New York or London, but also with much smaller, more efficient and productive global cit-ies such as Singapore, the San Francisco Bay Area, Hong Kong, and even Seattle.

This lack of global reach — and the extensive poverty often associated with such developing world places — suggests that perhaps the enthusiasm about the emerging megacuities expressed in some accounts may be misplaced. A recent National Geographic article, for example, celebrated the entrepreneurial spirit of Kinshasa’s slum dwellers, which is under-standable, but underplayed the misera-ble conditions in which the majority of Kinshasa’s 9 million residents are forced to live. That city, which Belgian research-ers described as an example of “aborted urban development,” suffers from high crime, poor drinking water, and perva-sive informal housing. Similar conditions


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2World Urban Population by Urban Area Size: 2014

13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F60

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%S

hare

of

Nat

iona

l Pop

ulat

ions


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


exist in many of Africa’s largest cities, which are growing as fast as any in the world.10 Even in those megacities — for example Mexico City, SaoPaulo Mum-bai, Kolkata — that have enjoyed strong growth in recent decades, the pace of expansion seems to be slowing. This is particularly evident in the once much heralded BRICs countries — Brazil, Rus-sia, India, China and South Africa. Many of these countries over the past 2 years that have seen their growth rates slacken, often by as much as 50%, from a decade earlier. This can be seen most notably in places such as Istanbul, whose long property boom, both in residential and commercial construction, appears to be winding down. Some analysts compare the situation in some of these countries to that faced in southern Europe, and the United States, leading up to the bursting of the property bubble. 11

Yet, despite these problems, we should urban growth to continue to be strong as hundreds of millions of people

are poised to move from the countryside. United Nations projections indicate that India’s urban population will increase nearly 250 million in 20 years, while China’s will increase 200 million, even as national population growth rates slow and even stall (in the case of China).12

The evolution of megacities

The modern megacity may have been largely an invention of the West, but it’s increasingly to be found largely in the East. The seven largest megacities are located in Asia, based on a roundup of the latest population data. The largest megacity remains the Tokyo-Yokohama area, home to 38 million, followed by the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, Delhi, Seoul, Manila and Shanghai (Figure 2).

With roughly 21 million inhabitants, the New York urban area was the world’s largest urban agglomeration from early in the 20th century until Tokyo sur-passed it in the 1950s, now ranks eighth.


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


The only other western urban areas among the 29 megacities now are Mos-cow (15th), Los Angeles (16th), Istanbul (23rd), Paris (27th), and London (29th). Instead, the fastest-growing megacities over the past decade have been primarily

in the developing world. Karachi, Paki-stan, has led the growth charge, with a remarkable 80% expansion in its pop-ulation from 2000 — 2010. The growth economies of China and India dominate the rest of the list of most rapidly grow-ing megacities.

China, not surprisingly, has the most megacities of any country, four. The second fastest-growing megacity over the past decade, Shenzhen, was a small fishing village not long ago that became a focus of Deng Xiaoping’s first wave of modernization policies. In 1979 it had roughly 30,000 people; 13 now it is a thriving metropolis of 13 million whose population in the past decade grew 56%. Its rise has been so recent and quick that the Asia Society has labeled it “a city without a history”.14

Older Chinese cities are also growing rapidly. Shanghai, a cosmopolitan world city decades before the Communist takeover of the country, expanded almost 50% since 2000. The ancient capital Beijing and the southern commerce and industrial hub of Guangzhou grew nearly as rapidly.

India matches Japan with three megacities, but they are all growing much faster. The population of Delhi, the world’s fourth-largest city, expand-ed 40% over the past decade; Mumbai, almost 20%; and Kolkata roughly 10%, a relatively low rate for a city in a devel-oping country.

Other rapidly growing megacities are scattered throughout the developing world. In Nigeria, Lagos saw its popu-lation swell by over 48% over the past decade; the Thai capital of Bangkok and Dhaka, Bangladesh, both grew some 45%. The world’s second-largest megac-ity, Jakarta, expanded 34% and is now approaching 30 million (Figure 3).

As in the rest of the world, the rise of megacities in Latin America paral-lels rapid urbanization throughout the


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


region. The UN Population Division estimates that over 80% of the Latin American population now resides in ur-ban areas and that 87% will live in cities by 2050. Argentina will reach the highest urbanization rate by 2050, at 95% . Put into perspective, this means that more than 19 of every 20 Argentines will live in cities. The urbanization rates of other Latin American countries will not fall far behind: Chile, Brazil, Venezuela and Uruguay will also surpass 90%, and Méx-ico, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, and Suriname will exhibit urbanization rates above 80% (Figure 4).15

In contrast, high-income countries in Europe and the United States, where population tracking is more reliable, grew relatively slowly. The only megac-ities with a purchasing power adjusted GDP of over US$40,000 that registered population growth over 10% between 2002 and 2012 were London and Moscow, which has expanded rapidly as the center of Russia’s resource-led boom. The popu-lation of Paris grew 8%; Los Angeles, 6%; and New York, barely 3% over the past decade.16

Japan, one of the world’s most ur-banized major countries, has also logged slower growth. Tokyo, the great outlier in that country’s stagnant population pro-file, expanded 7%, Nagoya grew 6%, and Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto a weak 2%. The rapid population depletion in the rest of the country and a lack of immigrants suggest that Japan’s great cities will grow even slower in the years ahead, as the country runs short on migrants from rural areas and young people in general.17

So what do the numbers tell us about the future of megacities? For one thing, it’s clear that the most rapid growth is taking place in countries that still have large rural hinterlands and relatively young populations. These poor plac-es — most with median incomes be-tween Dhaka at US$3,100 per capita and

Bangkok at US$23,000 — will continue to grow, at least until their populations begin to see the results of decreasing birthrates.

United Nations growth projections to 202518 suggest that the future list of megacities (Figure 5) will be dominated by such lower-income cities. In fact, 10 more megacities are likely to emerge by 2025, including Lima (Peru) , Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Tianjin, Chengdu and Dongguan (China), Chennai (India), Bangalore and Hyder-abad (India), Lahore (Pakistan) and Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam). If the project-

ed population growth rates are sustained through 2030, six additional megacities could be added to the list, including Chi-cago (United States), Bogota (Colombia), Johannesburg-East Rand (South Africa), Wuhan and Hangzhou (China), and Ahmedabad (India).19 (Figure 5).

But this rapid growth can not always be taken for granted. Some megacities in the low and middle-income world


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


already seem to have reached a point of saturation. A generation ago, it was widely predicted that Mexico City would become the world’s largest city, with some 30 million people by the beginning of the 21st Century. Yet its growth has slowed to a modest rate, and is current population is 20 million. Lower Mexican birthrates and the development of other urban alternatives have made La Cap-ital far less of a growth hub than once imagined.20 Similar processes can be seen elsewhere in Latin America, where fertility rates have been dropping to levels closer to American and Northern European norms , but not yet those of the ultra-low Japan or Southern European countries. Over the past decade (2000-2010) population growth was 15% in Sao Paulo, 12% in Mexico City, and 10% in Rio de Janeiro. These are huge declines from their peak growth rates between 1965 and 1975 when Sao Paulo grew 75%, Mexico City 60%and Rio de Janeiro 40%.21 These cities will continue to grow, but at reduced rates.

The best-positioned megacities in the coming decades are likely to be Chinese, and (to a lesser extent) those in India. China’s megacities all enjoy per capita incomes above US$20,000 and the vast scale of the country’s rural population suggests there is still room for growth. It will be perhaps another decade or so before the country’s low birthrate catches up with it, and slows urban growth down to western or Japanese levels.

India’s cities, notably Mumbai and Delhi, are not as wealthy as China’s, but are clearly getting richer, with Delhi getting close to the US$10,000 per capita income level. With a somewhat high-er birthrate than its Chinese or South American counterparts and its continu-ing rural to urban migration, Indian cities can be expected to continue more rapidly at least for the next decade or so.

These trends, of course, may be altered by any number of developments, including the possible threats to cities from wars, environmental challenges or other large-scale disruptions. But we can say, with some confidence, that the world’s megacities will continue to become increasingly dominated by Asia and Africa , reflecting the protean nature of an urban growth pattern that contin-ues to de-emphasize slower-expanding regions in the Americas, Japan and, of course, Europe.

Health and Quality of life

Increasinglythe megacity is increas-ingly a phenomena of countries that are struggling to find their way in the modern world economy. Size used to be more correlated with economic and po-litical success and dominance on a global scale. Today, some of the largest cities are disproportionately poor, and seem likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Such problems are often ignored or minimized by those who inhabit what commentator Rajiv Desai has described as “the VIP zone of cities”, where there is “reliable electric power, adequate water supply and any sanitation at all”. Outside the zone, Mr. Desai notes, even much of the middle class have to “endure inhuman conditions” of congested, cratered roads, unreliable energy and undrinkable water. 22

These conditions reflect the inabil-ity of such megacities to handle rapid growth. Places like Dhaka, which gains as many as 400,000 new migrants from the villages annually, grows mainly in its slum, whose residents move to the megacity not for the bright lights, but to escape hopeless poverty, and even the threat of starvation, in their village.23 Some argue that these migrants are better off than previous slum-dwellers

❰ Dhaka


since they ride motorcycles and have cell phones. Yet access to the wonders of transportation and “information technology” is unlikely to compensate for physical conditions that are demon-strably worse than those endured even by Depression-era poor New Yorkers who at least could drink water out of a tap and expect consistent electricity, something not taken for granted by their modern day counterparts in Manila or Mumbai.24

More serious still, the slum-dwellers face a host of health challenges that recall the degradations of Dickensian London. Residents of mega-cities face enormous risk from epidemics and unsafely built environments. Traffic, as anyone who has spent time in these cities easily notices, poses particular threats to riders and pedestrian as alike. According to researchers Tim and Alana Campbell, developing countries now experience a

“neglected epidemic” of road-related in-juries accounting for 85% of the world’s traffic fatalities.25

This can be seen by examining one of the world’s most intriguing, important and, in many ways, highly challenged megacities — Mumbai. One telling indication of the difficulties the new-comers face is the relatively low level of life expectancy in the city — roughly 57 years — which is nearly seven years below the national average.26 Gaps in life expectancy could be found in other developing world megacities, including Tehran, Cairo, and Buenos Aires.27

Even with solid economic growth, megacities have not have become better places to live. In 1971, slum-dwellers accounted for one in six Mumbaikers; now they constitute an absolute majority. Inflated real estate prices drive even fairly decently employed people into slums. A modest one-bedroom apartment in the Mumbai suburbs, notes R. N. Sharma of the Mumbai-based Tata Institute of

Social Sciences, averages around 10,000 Rupees a month, double the average worker’s monthly income.

Similar, if somewhat less dire prob-lems, can be seen in the megacities of the other great rising global power, Chi-na. Dense urbanization, notes a recent Chinese study, engenders more obesity, particularly among the young, who get less exercise, and spend more time desk-bound. Stroke and heart disease have become leading causes of death.28

Perhaps the best known result from intensified urbanization can be seen out-side any window: pervasive air pollution. This problem has become so severe that it has led, even in authoritarian China, to growing grass-roots protests, many of them targeted at new industrial plants and other facilities located near cities such as Shanghai, Dalian, and Hang-zhou. High degrees of pollution have led at least some affluent urban Chinese to move back towards the countryside as well as to cleaner, less congested regions in Australia, New Zealand and North America.29

The health situation is even worse in poorer megacities. Nearly two-thirds of the sewage in the megacity of Dhaka, with 15 million people, is untreated.30 Overall, the developing world like those of the early industrial era, pose a major health hazard to its residents. As Dr. Marc Reidl, a specialist in respiratory disease at UCLA, puts it, “megacity life is an unprecedented insult to the im-mune system.”31

Denizens of these cities also live in an environment with very little exposure to nature. This (exposure to nature) has both mental and physical health implica-tions, studies have shown, with substan-tial benefits to city-dwellers. Sadly, many developing cities have little such open space, which itself has both negative mental and physical health implications.32

Los Angeles ❱


The Problems of Gigantism

Not surprisingly, the massive growth in many emerging megacities — often ac-companied by rapid densification and the loss of cherished places — often occurs in places that lack responsive structures to deal with residents’ concerns.

In 2013, this issue came to a head in Istanbul, which is the most rapidly growing megacity in Europe. Faced with plans to bulldoze parts of Gezi Park near Taksim Square that is one of that ancient city’s most beloved spots, major protests erupted. This development was part of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s grandiose vision of the city as, “the financial center of the world,” and the park’s neighbors and supporters took to the streets. The protests were direct-ed against what has been described as

“authoritarian building”— the demolition of older, more-human-scaled neigh-borhoods in favor of denser high-rise construction, massive malls, and other iconic projects.33

Other protests, usually more peace-ful, but sparked by a similar revulsion against gigantism, have erupted in the megacities of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo. There, local residents have accused the Government of putting mega-projects ahead of basic services such as public transport, education, and health care, particularly in the run-up to the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.34

Excessive concentration and ul-tra-rapid development also accentuates the health problems discussed above. Air pollution increases with density. 35 This is most evident in Asia, which accounts for half of the world’s most polluted cities. Among the ranks of megacities, Beijing and Shanghai rank among the most polluted, with Delhi now suffering the worst air conditions of any major city in the world.36 High-density is associat-

ed with higher rates of coronary disease, as well as psychiatric disturbances, notes a 2006 article evaluating the ecological consequences of the land use changes in Asia.37 In cities such as Manila, roughly one in three residents lives in shan-ty-towns, with high degrees of infectious diseases, including pneumonia, measles and cholera, which far more rarely are lethal in higher income countries.38

The Infrastructure Challenge

Arguably the biggest challenge facing the emerging megacities lies in lagging infrastructure. In the ultra-dense en-vironment of developing country meg-acities, inadequate sanitation and poor hospitals exacerbate the health prob-lems.39 Traffic congestion is also worsen-ing. Nearly half of Mumbai commuters spend at least one or two hours to get to work, far more than workers in smaller rivals such as Chennai, or Hyderabad. 50% of formal sector workers in Mumbai expressed the desire to move elsewhere, in part to escape brutal train or car com-mutes; only a third of workers in other cities expressed this sentiment.40

This suggests that megacities will need massive new infrastructure de-velopment. This extends beyond simply transportation. Many of these cities are low-lying and prone to flooding. In-cessant rain also causes drainage prob-lems in megacities such as Mumbai and Kolkata. The threat of higher sea levels, according to some, suggests even greater threats to these cities, as well as other coast-hugging megacities such as Jakarta, Manila and Lagos. Some experts project flood losses worldwide are projected to grow from US$6 billion per year in 2005 to in 2050 to US$52 billion.41

These cities continue to add popu-lation, without the infrastructure that paralleled the growth of earlier western cities. Sao Paolo, notes urban historian

❰ Beijing


Peter Hall, has three times the popula-tion of London in its most dynamic peri-od during the early 20th Century, yet has a far less well-developed urban transport system. In megacities such as Mexico City, much of the growth has been in less formal areas such as Nezahualcóyotl, where titles to property were irregular and basic services, such as water and sewer , are regularly not provided to all households.42

Under any circumstances, these burgeoning cities will require enormous investment. A recent McKinsey study suggests that developing countries will account for the bulk of US$10 trillion more of capital investment required to keep them running, even given slower overall growth in their populations.43

The City of Disappointment

Historically, cities have served as engines of opportunity. Yet, as we demonstrated our global cities paper, many of the largest cities in the high-in-come world, such as New York, are also the most unequal.44 And Gotham’s great rival, London, according to one re-cent study, now may be the most unequal major city in the Western world. Overall, in both the developing and high-income world, notes a recent Euromonitor Inter-national study, (larger) “city size remains the key explanatory factor for income inequalities across the world’s urban agglomerations”.45

These disparities are even more keen-ly felt in the developing world. Unlike the burgeoning cities of the last century

— New York, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles — the many new megacities lack a com-pelling economic logic. Industrial growth paced much of the development of cities in the high-income world, followed by an explosion in business services. Industrial growth also drove the development of those in East Asia. In contrast, manufac-turing is far less prevalent in places like

South Asia; its share of Indian GDP is half that of China. 46

As a result many of the megacities — including the fastest growing, Dhaka — are essentially conurbations dominated by very low income people; roughly 70% of Dhaka households earn under US$170 a month, and many of them far less. “The megacity of the poor,” is how the urban geographer Nazrul Islam describes Dha-ka, his home town.47 If they didn’t offer more hope than the rural areas from which the urban migrants have come, these megacities would not be growing.

Although not generally as impov-erished, many other megacities that we might refer to as “middle income” are also failing to create a better life for their burgeoning populations. Places like Tehran and Istanbul can be described as “cities of disappointment”. In many cases, high housing prices and a lack of space have already reduced the birth-rate to well-below the replacement level. Increasingly, many women are choosing to remain single—heretofore something rare in these countries. 48

In poorer countries — where much of the most rapid urban growth is now taking place — the sense of disap-pointment may be even more profound.49

Indeed, much of the population of most developing country cities — such as Mexico City, Cairo, Jakarta, Manila, Lagos, Mumbai, and Kolkata (all meg-acities) —continue to live in “informal” housing that is often unhygienic, danger-ous, and subject to all kinds of disasters, natural or man-made. Moreover, many of these unmanageable megacities — most notably Karachi — offer ideal con-ditions for gang-led rule and unceasing ethnic conflict.50

These pressures are further enhanced by a lack of social mobility in many of these cities. In Mexico City, only four out of 100 persons whose parents belonged to the 20%poorest sector of the population

Manila ❱


have been able to join the most wealthy 20%. Close to 50%of those who were born in the poorest level have not been able to ascend socio-economically, and close to 60%of those who were born in the richest level have not descended.51

Similarly, the trajectory of Mumbai’s middle class remains uncertain. One scholar, Jan Nijman, suggests that most gains in recent years have accrued to the upper echelons of the middle class while

“the ranks of the lower middle income classes have shrunk, and the ranks of the poor have expanded rapidly”. Much of the growth in a perceived middle

class, Mr.Nijman argues, is based not on income but on consumption driven by credit.52 As in Mexico, much of the new employment is in the “informal sector”, that is, jobs that frequently lack any real social benefits. The informal sec-tor — drivers, stall-owners, repair-peo-ple, household industries — account for much of the employment growth in both Mumbai and Mexico City. 53

Researcher Vatsala Pant estimates a

monthly total household “middle class income” in Mumbai at 40—50,000 Rupees; equivalent to less than $1000 US dollars. Yet monthly salaries for teachers, police officers and other mid-level jobs are often half that amount. Not surpris-ingly, even these kinds of workers often find themselves — given the city’s high housing prices — living in slum neigh-borhoods, which are also known as jho-pad-patti, jhuggi-jhopadi or busties. “It’s the dream of an immigrant for a place in Mumbai… and ends up with a slum”, she notes.54

Is there a better alternative?

Given these realities, perhaps we might consider a different approach to urban growth. It is clear that urbaniza-tion will continue, but in what form? Future urbanization does not need to be a choice between rural hopelessness and urban despair.The rise of a mass of poor slum-dwellers — estimated as a high as 1 billion — threatens the social stability not only of the countries they inhabit, but the world, as they tend to generate high levels of both random violence and more organized forms of thuggery, including terrorism. 55

Planners often link density with community, notes British social critic James Heartfield, but maintaining that

“physical proximity that is essential to community is to confuse animal warmth with civilization”, It may well be that a more dispersed approach to urban devel-opment might make more sense. Many megacities suffer from the impact of what Lewis Mumford defined as “meg-alopolitan elephantitis,” a total loss of human scale.56

Fortunately, an alternative structure of urbanization is beginning to emerge, one that emphasises a diversity of cities as opposed to concentration in gigan-tic agglomerations. An impressive new


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


study by the McKinsey Global Institute, called “Mapping the Economic Power of Cities,” has found that, “contrary to common perception, megacities have not been driving global growth for the past 15 years”. Many, the report con-cludes, have not grown faster than their host economies. 57

The growing disconnect between people and planners is illustrated by the oft-ignored fact that around the world the great majority of growth continues to occur on the suburban and exurban frontier, including the fringes of virtu-ally all of the world’s megacities.58 This, notes New York University (NYU) professor Shlomo Angel in his landmark book A Planet of Cities, is true both in developing and developed countries.59 As the World Bank has noted: “Cities be-came more packed and more sprawling at the same time”. 60

There needs to be a far-greater emphasis on smaller cities. After all, worldwide megacities account for only 13%of urban residents. More than twice as many people live in the middle-sized urban areas with from 1 million — 10 million population, while 28%live in urban areas with populations between 100,000 — 1 million. Finally, 29%of urban residents live in urban areas with fewer than 100,000 residents (Figure 6).61

Thus, the population of our now half-urban world does not typically live in the largest cities, but rather in smaller towns and cities with fewer than 500,000 residents. Nearly four times as many people live in smaller cities that few are aware of, such as, Modesto (United States), Gaoyou (China) , Kakinada (In-dia) , Dire Dawa (Ethiopia) and countless others. (Figure 6)

In the future, the biggest urban trend may be away from megacities to smaller, arguably more manageable, ones. In the coming decade, McKinsey predicts meg-acities will underperform economically

and demographically, as growth shifts to 577 “fast growing middleweights,” many of them in China and India.

We can see this already in the shift of industrial growth to smaller cities in India. The national government has established an objective of an addition-al 25 million jobs for the Indian auto industry by 2016.62 It appears most will go to other states, such as Gujarat (home to newly elected Prime Minister Modi), West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, enriching cities such as Chennai and Ahmedabad, but not Mumbai.63


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M

Planners often link density with community, notes British social critic

James Heartfield, but maintaining that “physical proximity that is essential to

community is to confuse animal warmth with civilization”


There are indications of substantially muted megacity growth in some nations. In Brazil, India, Mexico, Turkey and the United States, megacity population growth was less than that of cities with from 1 million population to 10 mil-lion population between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 7).64 The difference was greatest in the United States, where smaller city growth was three times that of the two megacities (New York and Los Angeles).

Indeed, since 1950, today’s megaci-ties have tended to grow at a somewhat lower rate than other, smaller cities enjoying a growth rate 10% greater than that of megacities. (Figure 8).

There are indications that smaller cities may continue to grow faster than megacities. Currently projected megacity growth rates are somewhat below those for smaller city categories (Figure 9). In addition, growth may be slowing down in the largest megacities of China. Re-cently released 2014 population estimates indicate reductions in the annual growth rates of both Shanghai and Beijing.65

These realities lead some advocates in developing countries to question the logic of promoting megacities. The best way to relieve the migration pressure on Mumbai, and other developing world cities, may be to improve the infrastruc-ture and attractiveness of smaller cities, the suburbs of mega-cities, and even the villages.

Indeed in India, migration to large cities is beginning to slow down, as more potential migrants weigh the costs and opportunities of making such a move as opposed to staying closer to home66 and in response to a national program to provide greater unskilled employment in rural areas.67 the recent (2011) census of India indicated that an unprecedent-ed number of villages had transitioned from rural to urban (predominantly non-agricultural employment).68 This phenomenon has been called “rurban-ization” and was an important provision of the campaign of India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who imple-mented such programs as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat. Mr. Modi speaks of human settlements with the “heart of a village” and developing “the facilities of the city”.69 This phenomenon is also occurring in China, with perhaps the best example being Quangzhou in Fujian, which is transitioning from a collection of villages to an integrated urban area.70 This has occurred at lower population densities and typically occurs when growth is nearly exclusively driven by migration from outside the urban area.

Ultimately, a shift towards disper-sion — both within regions and between them — could have a many positive effects. It would allow people more living space, and if employment also was also dispersed, a quicker and less rigorous commute, with related benefits gained in time and energy conservation. The potential benefits of dispersed economic activity can be seen, for example, in the


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25Lo

s An

gele

s

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%

F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


Netherlands, where a network of small-er cities across the country allows for a dispersion of economic activities.71

One challenge for cities like Mum-bai — economically, socially and espe-cially environmentally — may well be slower population growth. This would lead to a shift to smaller cities where costs are lower and workers’ wages go further. “We are inevitably getting more competition from elsewhere”, notes R. Suresh Kumar, human resource manager at Mumbai-based Associated Capsules.

“2000 Rupees a month means nothing in Mumbai, but in Uttar Pradesh it really is meaningful”.

In the years ahead, companies like Associated Capsules are likely to relocate most operations to these cheaper areas. 72 Yet this process will also create a situa-tion, as has occurred both in London and Mexico City, where de-industrialization will leave many new migrants without decent prospects for upward mobility

R.M. Sharma of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, notes that as manu-facturing and other industries move to smaller, more efficient and cost-effective cities, they remove many middle-income opportunities extending the gap be-tween the megacity’s rich and poor. “The boom that is happening is giving more to the wealthy. This is the ’shining India’ people talk about,” Sharma says. “But the other part of it is very shocking, all the families where there is not even food se-curity. We must ask: The ‘Shining India’ is for whom? “

Ashok R. Datar, chairman of the Mumbai Environmental Social Network and a long-time advisor to the Ambani corporate group, suggests that Asian megacities should stop emulating the ear-ly 20th Century Western model of rapid, dense urbanization. “We are copying the Western experience in our own stupid and silly way,” Mr. Datar says. “The poor gain on the rich. For every tech geek, we

have two to three servants.”Mr. Datar suggests that developing

countries need to better promote the growth of more manageable smaller cities and try bringing more economic opportunity to the villages. One does not have to be a Ghandian idealist to suggest that Ebenezer Howard’s “garden city” concept — conceived as a response to miserable conditions in early 20th Century urban Britain — may be better guide to future urban growth than the current trend of relentless concentration.

The “garden city” alternative could help ameliorate the downsides of mass urbanization in China as well , where the government is seeking to move 250 million more people from the country-side to urban areas over the next de-cade “There’s this feeling that we have to modernize, we have to urbanize and this is our national-development strategy,” said Gao Yu, China country director for the Landesa Rural Development Institute, based in Seattle. Referring to the disas-trous Maoist campaign to industrialize overnight, he added, “it’s almost like another Great Leap Forward”. 73


1. PK Karachi 21.59 80.5%

2. CN Shenzhen 12.86 56.1%

3. NG Lagos 12.55 48.2%

4. CN Beijing, BJ 19.28 47.6%

5. TH Bangkok 14.91 45.2%

6. BD Dhaka 14.82 45.2%


8. CN Shanghai 22.65 40.1%

9. IN Delhi 24.13 39.2%

10. ID Jakarta 29.96 34.6%

11. TR Istanbul 13.19 25.3%



7.2%4.2%

11.3%

4.1%

11.1%

15.7%

46.6%

37.56

29.96

Rural500k –1M

500k –1M

1M – 5M

1M – 5M

5M – 10M

5M – 10M

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k


F1F3 F5

F4

F2


13.4%

7.8%

20.8%

21.1%

7.6%

29.3%

over 10M

100 – 500k

<100k

F6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

24.13 22.99 22.71 22.65 21.59 20.66 20.30 20.27 19.28 18.32 17.67 17.2315.89

Toky

o

Jaka

rta

Delh

i

Seou

l

Man

ila

Shan

ghai

Kara

chi

New

York

Mex

ico

City

Sao

Paul

o

Beiji

ng

Guan

gzho

u-Fo

shan

Mum

bai

Osak

a-Ko

be-K

yoto

Mos

cow

By 2025 By 2030

US

15.25

Los

Ange

les

EG

15.21

Cairo

TH

14.91

Bang

kok

IN

14.90

Kolk

ata

BD

14.82

Dhak

a

AR

13.91

Buen

os A

ires

IR

13.43

Tehr

an

TR

13.19

Ista

nbul

CN

12.86

Shen

zhen

NG

12.55

Lago

s

BR

11.72

Rio

de J

anei

ro

FR

10.98

Paris

JP

10.24

Nago

ya

GB

10.15

Lond

on


19500%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Urb

an S

hare

of

Pop

ulat

ion


1975 2000 2025 2050

F8F9


1950

Rural

MegaCitiesOver 10M

Cities5M – 10M

Cities2.5M – 5M

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sha

re o

f N

atio

nal P

opul

atio

ns


Pro

ject

ed P

opul

atio

n G

row

th




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21.2% 24.7% 22.0%F7



Gro

wth

: 20

00

–201

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Megacities10M+

Cities100,000–1M


Rejecting gigantism for its own sake, “the garden city” promotes, where pos-sible, suburban growth, particularly in land-rich countries. It also can provide a guide to more human-scale approach to dense urban development. The “garden

city”, for example, is a primary focus in Singapore, Singaporean planners are embracing bold ideas for decentralizing work, reducing commutes and restoring nearby natural areas.

These ideas may be most relevant to cities on the cusp of rapid growth, such as Hanoi. As we walk through the high-density slums on the other side of the dike that protects Hanoi from the Red River, Giang Dang, founder of the nonprofit Action for the City, tells me that rapid growth is already degrading the quality of Hanoi’s urban life, affect-ing everything from the food safety to water to traffic congestion. Houses that accommodated one family, she notes, now often have two or three.

Expanding Hanoi’s current 3 million people — already at least three times its population in the 1980s — to say be-tween 10 million and 15 million — may thrill urban land speculators but may not prove so good for city residents. Like Mr. Datar, Ms. Dang favors expanding conditions both smaller cities, and the

Vietnamese countryside. “The city is already becoming unlivable,” Ms. Dang insists. “More people, more high-rises will not make it better. Maybe it’s time to give up the stupid dream of the megac-ity”. Such voices are rarely heard in the conversation about urban problems. But they embrace an urban future with radi-cal new thinking. Rather than foster an urban form that demands heroic survival, perhaps we should focus on ways to cre-ate cities that offer a more a healthful and even pleasant life for their citizens.

This leads us to suggest we find new ways to continue population de-con-centration policies through dispersing employment and better distribution of urban amenities throughout a country. In building or expanding new localities, we need to value and pay attention to human dignity, and not the latest urban design and planning fad.

The primary goal of a city should not be to make wealthy landlords and construction companies ever richer, or politicians more powerful. Nor should it be to elevate particular urban designs or strategies above the well-being of people. Urbanism should not be defined by the egos of planners, architects, politicians, or the über-rich, who can cherry-pick the best locales in gigantic cities. Urbanism should be driven above all by what works best for the most people.

The primary goal of a city should not be to make wealthy landlords and construction companies ever richer, or politicians more powerful. Nor should it be to elevate particu-lar urban designs or strategies above the well-being of people.

Seoul ❱


1. Urban areas are the city in its physical form, and include only developed areas. This is in contrast to the city in its economic or functional form, which is called the metropolitan area (the labor market). Metropolitan areas include areas outside the urban area (largely rural areas) from which employees are drawn to jobs within the urban area. There are no internation-al standards with respect to delineating metropolitan areas. Urban areas are called “built up urban areas” in the United Kingdom, “population centres” in Canada and unité urbaines in France.

2. Glaeser, Edward L . “Why Has Globalization Led to Bigger Cities?.” The New York Times. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/why-has-globalization-led-to-bigger-cities/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1& (accessed June 21, 2014).

3. Kenny, Charles . “In Praise of Slums: Why millions of people choose to live in urban squalor..” Foreign Policy. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/in_praise_of_slums (accessed June 21, 2014).

4. United Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. “Patterns of Urban and Rural Population Growth.” United Nations. http://esa.un.org/unup/Archive/wup-archives/studies/United%20Nations%20(1980)%20-%20Pat-terns%20of%20Urban%20and%20Rural%20Population%20Growth.pdf (accessed June 21, 2014). .

5. “Demographia World Urban Areas.” Demographia. http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (accessed June 21, 2104).

6. See for example, http://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/obstfeld/wu.pdf, http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/macro_online/ms/ch5/del28487_ch05.pdf.,and Gregory Clark (2007), A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World (Princeton Economic History of the Western World).

7. Mills, Edwin S. Urban economics. Glenview, Ill. Scott, Foresman, 1972.

8. “World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision.” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section. http://esa.un.org/unup/ (accessed June 21, 2014).

9. Cox, Wendell. “Alleviating World Poverty: A Progress Report.” Newgeography.com. http://www.newgeography.com/con-tent/003325-alleviating-world-poverty-a-progress-report (accessed June 21, 2014).

10. Odede, Kennedy. “Slumdog Tourism.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10odede.html?_r=0 (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Draper, Robert. “Kinshasa, Urban Pulse of the Congo.” National Geographic. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/kinshasa-congo/draper-text (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Lateef, A. S. A., Max Fernandez-Alonso, Luc Tack, and Damien Delvaux. “Geological constraints on urban sustainability, Kinshasa City, Democratic Republic of Congo.” Africa Museum. http://www.africamuseum.be/publication_docs/2010_Lateef-Kinsha-sa-PDF.pdf (accessed June 21, 2014).

11. Vela, Justin. “Cities of Dreams.” The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303425504577353460769167448; (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Thomas Jr., Landon. “Alarm Over Istanbul’s Building Boom.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/realestate/commercial/after-istanbuls-building-boom-come-worries-of-a-bust.html?_r=0 (accessed June 21, 2014).

12. “World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision.” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section. http://esa.un.org/unup/ (accessed June 21, 2014).

13. Shenzhen Municipal E-government Resources Center. “Overview.” ShenZen Government Online. http://english.sz.gov.cn/gi/ (accessed June 21, 2014). /

14. Tam, Winsome. “The History of a ‘City Without History’.” Asia Society. http://asiasociety.org/business/development/histo-ry-city-without-history (accessed June 21, 2014).


15. “World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision.” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section. http://esa.un.org/unup/ (accessed June 21, 2014). One caveat: Estimating population for comparably defined urban areas, particularly in the developing world, can be difficult. For example, there is considerable disagreement about the population of Lagos, where local officials claimed there were twice as many people in 2005 as were counted in the 2006 Nigerian census. Add the “missing” 8 or more million people and the population would be 22 million this year. The higher local count, however, has not been broadly accepted. The population of Karachi is also disputed, with some claiming a somewhat lower population than reported. Part of the problem is that the latest completely reported census in Pakistan was in 1998 with only spotty data released from the most recent count.

16. . Istrate, Emilia, and Carey Anne Nadeau. “Global MetroMonitor 2012: Slowdown, Recovery, and Interdependence.” The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/11/30-global-metro-monitor (accessed June 21, 2014).

17. Cox, Wendell. “The Evolving Urban Form: Tokyo.” Newgeography.com. http://www.newgeography.com/content/002923-the-evolving-urban-form-tokyo (accessed June 21, 2014).

18. From the United Nations, national census authorities and other sources.

19. Projection rates derived from the United Nations, national statistical agencies and US Conference of Mayors data.

20. “Mexico City Population 2014.” World Population Review. http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/mexico-city-pop-ulation/ (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Kandell, Jonathan. La capital: the biography of Mexico City. New York: Random House, 1988.

21. Calculated from data at “World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 Revision.” United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section. http://esa.un.org/unup/ (accessed June 21, 2014).

22. Desai, Rajiv. “Incredible India Indeed.” The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Incredible-India-Indeed/articleshow/5232986.cms (accessed June 21, 2014).

23. German, Erik, and Solana Pyne. “Disasters drive mass migration to Dhaka.” GlobalPost. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/asia/100831/bangladesh-megacities-part-three-migrant (accessed June 21, 2014).

24. Tortajada, Cecilia. “Challenges and Realities of Water Management of Megacities .” Journal of International Affairs 61, no. 2 (2008): 147. http://atl.imta.mx/aguadf/images/docs/10%20Challenges%20Mexico%20City.pdf (accessed June 21, 2014).

25. Campbell, Tim, and Alana Campbell. “Emerging Disease Burdens and the Poor in Cities of the Developing World.”Journal of Urban Health 84, no. S1 (2007): 54-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17453349 (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Nepram, Binalakshmi. “Ending violence against women from Northeast India.” Tehelka.com. http://blog.tehelka.com/ending-violence-against-women-from-northeast-india/ (accessed June 21, 2014). ;

26. Tembhekar, Chittaranjan. “Mumbaikars die younger than other Indians: Study.” The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mumbaikars-die-younger-than-other-Indians-Study/articleshow/5190726.cms?referral=PM (accessed June 21, 2014).


27. Fleming, Amy, and George Arnett. “Interactive map: do city residents live longer?.” theguardian.com. http://www.theguard-ian.com/cities/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/feb/24/interactive-map-do-people-living-in-cities-live-longer?CMP=twt_gu (accessed June 21, 2014). ; population stats from “Demographia World Urban Areas.” Demographia . http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (accessed June 21, 2104).

28. TheHuffingtonPost.com. “China’s Young Adults Are Becoming More Obese.” The Huffington Post. http://www.huffington-post.com/2013/08/06/china-young-adult-obese_n_3711059.html (accessed June 21, 2014).

29. Dong, Liu. “Public outrage derailing China’s growing number of needed plants.” Global Times. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/803913.shtml#.UiN8Wj_9W1h (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Wong, Edward. “Urbanites Flee China’s Smog for Blue Skies.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/world/asia/urbanites-flee-chinas-smog-for-blue-skies.html?_r=1& (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Brinkley, Joel. “China’s Looming Crisis: Daunting Troubles Mount.” World Affairs. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/china%E2%80%99s-looming-crisis-daunting-troubles-mount (accessed June 21, 2014). ; ; Johnson, Ian. “Wary of Future, Professionals Leave China in Record Numbers.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/wary-of-future-many-professionals-leave-china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed June 21, 2014).

30. Desouza, Kevin C.. “Our Fragile Emerging Megacities: A Focus on Resilience.” Planetizen: The Urban Planning, Design, and Development Network. http://www.planetizen.com/node/67338?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=02182014 (accessed June 21, 2014).

31. Critser, Greg. “A Pill For Los Angeles? Medicating the Megacities.” Newgeography.com. http://www.newgeography.com/content/001742-a-pill-for-los-angeles-medicating-megacities (accessed June 21, 2014).

32. Paddock, Catharine . “Green spaces have long-lasting benefit for mental health.” Medical News Today. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271109.php (accessed June 21, 2014). ; “City Parks Boost Mood, Study Suggests; Moving to greener urban areas was associated with mental-health improvements..” Consumer Health News [English] January (2014). http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA355622748&v=2.1&u=chap_main&it=r&p=I-TOF&sw=w&asid=b24cccb4b028d6c2711cf2ab60ed4fa0 (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Paddock, Catharine. “Green Spaces Boost Wellbeing In Cities.” Medical News Today. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259495.php (accessed June 21, 2014).

33. “Istanbul Gezi Park plan to proceed - Turkish PM Erdogan.” BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-eu-rope-22801548 (accessed June 21, 2014).; Kenyon, Peter. “In Booming Istanbul, A Clash Between Old And New.” NPR. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146153016/in-booming-istanbul-a-clash-between-old-and-new (accessed June 21, 2014).; Foxman, Simone, and Roberto A. Ferdman. “At the heart of Turkey’s political upheaval is a whirlwind of authoritarian building.” Quartz. http://qz.com/90304/at-the-heart-of-turkeys-political-upheaval-is-a-whirlwind-of-au-thoritarian-building (accessed June 21, 2014). /

34. Cox, Wendell. “Smart Growth (Livability), Air Pollution and Public Health.” Newgeography.com. http://www.newgeography.com/content/002462-smart-growth-livability-air-pollution-and-public-health (accessed June 21, 2014).

35. Qiu, Jane. “Megacities pose serious health challenge.” Nature.com. http://www.nature.com/news/megacities-pose-seri-ous-health-challenge-1.11495 (accessed June 21, 2014).; “WHO most polluted cities list sees New Delhi smog trump Beijing.” The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/who-most-polluted-cities-list-sees-new-del-hi-smog-trump-beijing-20140508-zr6k4.html (accessed June 21, 2014).

36. Qiu, Jane. “Megacities pose serious health challenge.” Nature.com. http://www.nature.com/news/megacities-pose-seri-ous-health-challenge-1.11495 (accessed June 21, 2014)


37. Shuqing, Zhao, Peng Changhui, Jiang Hong, Tian Dalun, Lei Xiangdong, and Zhou Xiaolu. 2006. “Land use change in Asia and the ecological consequences.” Ecological Research 21, no. 6: 890-896. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 20, 2014).

38. Kleeman, Jenny. “Manila: A megacity where the living must share with the dead.” theguardian.com. http://www.theguard-ian.com/world/2010/oct/15/philippines-overpopulation-crisis (accessed June 21, 2014).

39. Boseley, Sarah. “Sanitation, swift action when battling pandemics in megacities.” Taipei Times. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2014/03/02/2003584664/2 (accessed June 21, 2014).

40. Nangia, Vinita Dawra. “Is commute time taking over your life? - The Times of India.” The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/Is-commute-time-taking-over-your-life/articleshow/3508745.cms (accessed June 21, 2014).

41. Hallegatte, S, C Green, RJ Nicholls, and J Corfee-Morlot. n.d. “Future flood losses in major coastal cities.” Nature Climate Change, no. 9: 802-806. Science Citation Index, EBSCOhost (accessed June 20, 2014).

42. Hall, Peter. “Urban Land, Housing, and Transportation: The Global Challenge.”Global Urban Development Magazine, Novem-ber 2007. http://www.globalurban.org/GUDMag07Vol3Iss1/Hall.htm (accessed June 21, 2104).

43. Dobbs, Richard , Jaana Remes, James Manyika, Charles Roxburgh, Sven Smit, and Fabian Schaer. “Urban world: Cities and the rise of the consuming class.” McKinsey & Company. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/urban_world_cities_and_the_rise_of_the_consuming_class (accessed June 21, 2014).

44. “New York, New York, A Most Unequal Town.” Inequalityorg. http://inequality.org/york-york-unequal-town/ (accessed June 21, 2014).

45. Adomaitis, Kasparas . “The World’s Largest Cities Are The Most Unequal.” Euromonitor International. http://blog.euromon-itor.com/2013/03/the-worlds-largest-cities-are-the-most-unequal.html (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Doughty, Steve.

“London is most unequal city in Western world with gap between rich and poor widest since slavery.” Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267778/London-unequal-city-Western-world-gap-rich-poor-widest-slavery.html (accessed June 21, 2014)..

46. Zhong, Raymond, and Saptarishi Dutta. “As Growth Slows in India, Rural Workers Have Fewer Incentives to Move to Cities.” The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304732804579423221004363850 (accessed June 21, 2014).

47. German, Erik, and Solana Pyne. “Dhaka: fastest growing megacity in the world.” GlobalPost. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/asia/100831/bangladesh-megacities-part-one?page=0,1 (accessed June 21, 2014).

48. Khouri, Rami G.. “A bad day for four leading Arab cities.” The Daily Star Newspaper. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2013/Aug-17/227591-a-bad-day-for-four-leading-arab-cities.ashx (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Telegraph Media Group. “Iran attempts to reverse falling birth rate.” The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10554866/Iran-attempts-to-reverse-falling-birth-rate.html (accessed June 21, 2014).

49. Samanian, Faezeh. “Iran’s silent fertility crisis.” Asia Times Online. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-171213.html (accessed June 21, 2014).

50. ; Shaw, Annapurna, and R.N. Sharma. “The Housing Market in Mumbai Metroplos and its Irrelevance to the Average Citizen.” In Indian cities in transition. Chennai: Orient Longman, 2006. 284-5 .; Das, Gurcharan. “At last, good news about poverty.” Times of India Blogs. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/men-and-ideas/at-last-good-news-about/ (accessed June 21, 2014).


51. Agha, Ambreen . “Pakistan: Gangsters Rule In Karachi - Analysis.” Eurasia Review. http://www.eurasiareview.com/19082013-pakistan-gangsters-rule-in-karachi-analysis/ (accessed June 21, 2014). ; Berube , Alan. “Ka-rachi, Pakistan as an “Instant City”.” The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2011/11/11-karachi-pakistan-berube (accessed June 21, 2014).

52. Espinosa, Julio, and Rosa Casanova. ¿Nos movemos?: la movilidad social en México.. Primera ed. México, DF: Fundación ESRU, 2008..

53. Nijman, Jan. “Mumbai’s Mysterious Middle Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30, no. 4 (2006): 758-777..

54. Barta, Patrick. “The Rise of the Underground.” The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123698646833925567 (accessed June 21, 2014).

55. Advani, Mira. Interview by author. Personal interview. California, January 1, 2014. .

56. “Megacity Slums and Urban Insecurity.” The International Relations and Security Network (ISN). http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=175893 (accessed June 21, 2014).

57. Mumford, Lewis. In The city in history: its origins, its transformations, and its prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. 237.

58. Dobbs, Richard, Jaana Remes, Sven Smit, James Manyika, Charles Roxburgh, and Alejandra Restrepo. “Urban world: Mapping the economic power of cities.” McKinsey & Company. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/ur-ban_world (accessed June 21, 2014).

59. Cox, Wendell. “Dispersion in the World’s Largest Urban Areas.” Newgeography.com. http://www.newgeography.com/con-tent/003468-dispersion-worlds-largest-urban-areas (accessed June 21, 2014).

60. Angel, Shlomo. Planet of cities. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012.

61. World Development Report: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2009.

62. Data from “Demographia World Urban Areas.” Demographia . http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (accessed June 21, 2104). ; Below 500,000 urban population estimated (scaled) from 2000 data in Angel, Shlomo. Planet of cities. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012.

63. Automotive Mission Plan, 2006-2016: a mission for development of Indian automotive industry.. New Delhi: Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Govt. of India, 2006.

64. Dobbs, Richard, Jaana Remes, Sven Smit, James Manyika, Charles Roxburgh, and Alejandra Restrepo. “Urban world: Mapping the economic power of cities.” McKinsey & Company. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/ur-ban_world (accessed June 21, 2014)

65. Calculated from United Nations, US Census Bureau data and Demographia World Urban Areas data.

66. Based on end of 2013 municipal population estimates. Shanghai grew 3.5 percent annually from 2000 to 2010, but only 1.9 percent from 2010 to 2014. Beijing’s growth rates were 4.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respecitvely.


67. Mehta, Suketu. Maximum city: Bombay lost and found. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. ; Luce, Edward. In spite of the gods: the strange rise of modern India. New York: Doubleday, 2007.; Zhong, Raymond, and Saptarishi Dutta. “As Growth Slows in India, Rural Workers Have Fewer Incentives to Move to Cities.” The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304732804579423221004363850 (accessed June 21, 2014).

68. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is reputed to have reduced rural to urban migration by 28% (between 1999 and 2008). See Ravi, Shamika, Mudit Kapoor, and Rahul Ahluwalia. “The Impact of NREGS on Urbanization in India.” Dartmouth.edu. https://www.dartmouth.edu/~neudc2012/docs/paper_299.pdf (accessed June 21, 2014). .

69. Pradhan, Kanhu Charan, Unacknowledged Urbanisation: New Census Towns of India (September 7, 2013). Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar, Shubhashis Gangopadhyay and Shagun Krishnan (2009): “Reforms and Entry: Some Evidence from the Indian Manufacturing Sector”, Review of Development Economics, 13(4); Bhagat, R B (2011): “Emerging Pattern of Urbanisa-tion in India”, Economic & Political Weekly, 46(34): 10-12. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2402116

70. “Rurbanization – Rural Urban Connection.” Sri Narendra Modis Vision for India. http://narendramodivision.com/rurbaniza-tion-rural-urban-connection/#.U4EMrfldUV0 (accessed June 21, 2014). ;

71. Zhu, Yu, Huaiyou Shao, and Kaijing He. “The Evolution of China’s in situ Urbanization and Its Planning and Environmental Implications: Case Studies from Quanzhou Municipality.” In Urban Population-Environment Dynamics in the Developing World: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. Paris: Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography (CICRED) , 2009. 214-245. ; Cox, Wendell. “The Evolving Urban Form: Quanzhou.” Newgeography.com. http://www.newgeography.com/content/002551-the-evolving-urban-form-quanzhou (accessed June 21, 2014).

72. World Development Report: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 2009, p.81.

73. Advani, Mira. Interview by author. Personal interview. California, January 1, 2014.

74. Johnson, Ian. “China’s Great Uprooting: Moving 250 Million Into Cities.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/asia/chinas-great-uprooting-moving-250-million-into-cities.html (accessed June 21, 2014).


Design Notes

The Problem with MEGACITIES and the graphics utilize the following:

To achieve visual harmony a modified version of the grid Jan Tschichold conceived for his book Typographie was employed.

MINION PRO Chapman’s serif family, is a digital typeface designed by Robert Slimbach in 1990 for Adobe Systems. The name comes from the traditional naming system for type sizes, in which minion is between nonpareil and brevier. It is inspired by late Renaissance-era type.

BERTHOLD AKIZEDENZ GROTESK is Chapman’s san serif family. It is a grotesque typeface originally released by the Berthold Type Foundry in 1896 under the name Accidenz-Grotesk. It was the first sans serif typeface to be widely used and influenced many later neo-grotesque typefaces after 1950.

Page 6: Shantytown – Rio image Copyright: <a href='http://www.123rf.com/profile_miragik'>miragik / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Page 21: Seoul buildings Copyright: <a href='http://www.123rf.com/profile_vincentstthomas'>vincentstthomas / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Front and Back Cover: Shanghai at night Copyright: <a href='http://www.123rf.com/profile_wangsong'>wangsong / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Inside Front cover and Inside Back Cover: Copyright: <a href='http://www.123rf.com/profile_miro3d'>miro3d / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Book exterior and interior design by Chapman University professor Eric Chimenti. His work has won a Gold Advertising Award, been selected for inclusion into LogoLounge: Master Library, Volume 2, and been featured on visual.ly, the world’s largest community of infographics and data visualization. He has 17 years

of experience in the communication design industry. To view a client list and see additional samples please visit www.behance.net/ericchimenti.

Professor Chimenti is also the founder and head of Chapman’s Ideation Lab that supports undergraduate and faculty research by providing creative visualization and presentation support, which can include creative writing, video, photography, data visualization, and design. Appropriatly qualified Chapman University undergraduate students staff the lab and help with the design and presentation of complex communication problems.
















R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N R E S E A R C H I N A C T I O N




C HA P M A N U N I V E R S I T YC HA P M A NU N I V E R S I T Y






Megacities

Documents

Transcript of Megacities