Three months ago, in October 2016, a team of researchers from the New
York University, Lincoln Institute of land Policy and UN Habitat presented a
global analysis of the urban expansion in cities at the Habitat III Conference in Quito, Ecuador. Their
work, Atlas of Urban
Expansion, measures the historical growth of built up area in a global sample of
200 cities. The atlas covered three Pakistani cities Karachi, Lahore and Sialkot. The study found
that in a space of 22 years, from 1991 to 2013, total built up area of Karachi
grew from 18,057 hectares to 45,327 hectares, i.e. by a factor of 2.5. For the
same period, size of built up area in Lahore increased from 11,518 hectares to
35,018 hectares i.e. by a factor of 3. Similarly, Sialkot expanded from a mere
2,038 hectares to 9,620 hectares, by a factor of 4.7. What is more impressive
here is that, in a span of twenty-two years, Lahore and Karachi added a
combined urban area of around 50 thousand hectares to their size. In other
words, an area roughly five times larger than present day Sialkot city was
added in Lahore and Karachi in the last two decades.
To get more complete and recent figures, I decided to map the urban
footprint with the latest data from NASA’s freely available Landsat satellite. I covered entire district areas for
this analysis so that the results may be comparable at the administrative
level. Results from this exercise are quite revealing and thought provoking.
Lahore city district has an urban footprint of approximately 63,800 hectares.
As the official total area of the city district is 173,700
hectares, it means that around 36 percent of its land is occupied by some kind
of urban development such as buildings, roads, urban parks, etc. On the other
hand, city district Karachi has an urban footprint of approximately 74,000
hectares. With a total city district area of 365,000
hectares, urban development in Karachi city district covers around 18pc of its
total land.
Urban
footprint in the city districts of Lahore and Karachi, in year 2017
Horizontal expansion demands more infrastructural resource and thus
becomes less efficient when resources are scarce and contested. Without any
visible signs of actions taken to stop this low-density sprawl, it seems that
more productive land will fall prey to the residential development.
Two conclusions can be drawn immediately from these figures: First, that
at city district level, Lahore is more urbanised than Karachi in terms of
percentage area being used for urban development. Secondly, it shows that
Lahore is not far behind Karachi in terms of total area of urban development as
well. Difference between both districts is only around 10,000 hectares and who
knows how long it will take Lahore to cover this gap? Keeping in view the scale
of recent infrastructural and industrial commitments,
it seems realistic to say that in a decade or two, Lahore’s urban development
area might surpass that of Karachi, potentially making it the district with
largest urban area in Pakistan. A review of the old data would shed more light
on the rate at which urban development occurred in both city districts.
Provincial government statistics referred to above show that city
district Karachi has an estimated current population of around 9.5 million
whereas city district Lahore has a population of 6.5 million. If we calculate population
density in the areas of urban development only, we find that Karachi houses
approximately 135 people’s per hectare of built land, while for Lahore these
figures reach merely 102 persons per hectare. These statistics show that that
land consumption might be more efficient in Karachi than Lahore.
These urban patterns and differences are not without underlying causes
and consequences. A significantly lower (by one third to be precise) built up
population density in Lahore is an aftermath of choices its city
managers and developers have made for the city over decades. Lahore’s
urban development is
often criticised for
favouring low-density sprawl and not
allowing high-rise development.
On its causes, it can be said that Lahore has benefited from stable
geopolitical and economic circumstances.
It has enjoyed greater political stability and a better urban governance over
the last few decades. It was also successful in reaping the benefits of
classical urban giantism theory that explains how large cities prosper by
getting bulk of the public resources. Lahore has enjoyed a strong presence of
urban-villages in its economic and geographical hinterlands. These villages
have also grown in size along with the city, resulting in the agglomeration and
conurbation of settlements in the city district.
On the other hand, Karachi scored negative on the same points on which
Lahore prospered over the years. A volatile political climate, poor urban governance and sever
security environment meant that the benefits of urbanisation were not fully realised in Karachi.
This ongoing process of continuous outward expansion provides an
opportunity and a threat for both cities. There is good news in the sense that
being the second largest city in the country, Lahore, can now easily boasts its
status as being the most urbanised city district in the country. On the
negative side, Lahore should be worried about its low-density sprawl, which is
engulfing its vast agricultural lands. Horizontal expansion demands more
infrastructural resource and thus becomes less efficient when resources are
scarce and contested. Without any visible signs of actions taken to stop this
low-density sprawl, it seems that more productive land will fall prey to the
residential development. Gentrification and exclusion of local residents from
the area when new gated communities suddenly
emerge and stop the ‘outsiders’ from mixing or enjoying their
neighbourhood, should also concern our social scientists and government
departments. Good news for both cities is that a vast portion of their area is
still undeveloped. They can learn from each other’s past and improve their
future course of actions to materialise the dreams of a more sustainable,
loveable and prosperous society.
No comments:
Post a Comment