> Innovation in Cities: Solving Problems Indirectly
By: Rhythm Conurbation
Tags: Parking, Urban Planning, Housing, Cities, Corruption

Cities, quite unlike Russian families, are happy in their own ways but alike in their unhappiness. The toughest challenges — universal concerns like traffic, housing, and pollution — remain, generally-speaking, entrenched and unsolved. In fairness these are complex, interdependent problems that are simply hard to fix. Nonetheless, part of the impediment to innovative solutions is that policymakers tend to focus on the obvious targets while ignoring the indirect, unexpectedly critical path.

In many cases, policy interventions cause more harm than good. In Los Angeles, for example, billions spent to relieve road congestion has led to traffic increases. One reason for such counter-productivity is that cities try to solve problems too directly, too literally. Policies focus on the most obvious agents of change — parties whose actions are, in fact, determined by broader market conditions. Policymakers in LA chose to expand the notoriously-congested 405 freeway to give drivers more space; but that logic ignored the actual levers of the transport market, and the congestion soon returned.

Of course, some cities have overcome systemic problems. And one innovative tactic has been reframing — addressing a seemingly indirect aspect of an urban challenge. Here are several examples of cities around the world that have pursued unexpected solutions to resolve issues like car-dependence, housing shortages, and government corruption.

Reducing car-dependence

Cities large and small struggle with an excess of cars clogging streets. Levels of delay can vary, but most cities interested in improving quality of life, environmental conditions, and travel efficiency realize that a central challenge is citizens’ dependence on private cars.

The obvious way to solve this is to build better alternatives. If Atlanta just had a better subway network — I hear you say as you recall Janet Jackson’s “All for You” video — people wouldn’t need to drive so much. And yet, the Georgia capital has about 76km of metro rail in a metropolitan area of 5 million — roughly the same ratio as in Toronto. But the Canadian city has 800% more public transport use and 20% less car use! The discrepancy suggests that policymakers need not focus exclusively on expanding transit.

“All For You”, Janet Jackson’s paean to public transport, perhaps should have been staged in a parking garage.

An alternative could be to focus on drivers. In most cases, driving is cheap, convenient, and pleasant; its societal costs are hidden or subsidized. Innovative research has revealed, for example, that under-priced and excessive urban parking comes at a huge cost. Cities like Buffalo and San Francisco have taken the novel approach of eliminating parking minimums in new developments. These initiatives won’t work in isolation; but without them, improving transit service won’t work.

Increasing the housing supply

Another common urban challenge is the paucity of affordable housing. Given the sky-high rents in many rich cities, some might assume this to be a “first-world problem.” But it isn’t: the data suggest that none of the 10 least affordable cities in the world are in rich countries (Caracas, Kiev and Hanoi top the list). All over the world, there appears to be no shortage of upscale housing while middle- and lower-classes options remain scarce. What to do?

It seems obvious to focus on developers of housing: simply tax expensive real estate (to cross-subsidize) or require affordable housing add-ins (aka inclusionary zoning). But does that work? The debate rages between activists and economists; meanwhile, urban housing crises continue.

Reframing the problem may offer more fruitful solutions. Instead of honing in on developers and homebuyers, why not address properties that aren’t being developed enough? Low-density developers, single-family lots in central cities, and absentee landowners are more inventive policy targets. Some municipalities have taken up the mantle with novel tax regimes. Instituted in Harrisburg, PA (and hinted at in San Francisco and New York City), split-rate property taxes separate levies on land and buildings to encourage more development. Research has shown they can increase the number and density of housing units. Similarly, the tax regime in Bogotá, Colombia, has for years charged under-developed properties sky-high rates to spur development.

Curb local government corruption

Governments can’t invest in any solutions at all if they don’t have resources. In 2016, for example, 1/3 of Kenya’s national budget was lost to corruption. Cities are particularly vulnerable given the concentrations of public investment. Embezzlement, bribery, nepotism, and the like are found in cities across the world (although comparison is difficult).

It might seem logical to focus solutions on government: improving public salaries or punishing deviants. And this is needed. But some cities have taken the innovative step to focus on citizens, making their interactions with government easier, safer, and more transparent. In Uganda, the eCitie system helps residents of the capital Kampala to pay for their public services via web platform, reducing cash transactions and circumventing potential payoffs. Since its 2013 introduction, the platform has reduced perceptions of corruption and increased tax receipts. A similar initiative for small businesses, Horeca1, has had great success in Amsterdam. Targeting private citizens in this way builds faith in the process and helps to reinforce cultural change.