Pandemic and the planning of resilient cities and regions

Abstract

The emergence of the coronavirus pandemic motivated this paper, which revisits the nexus of public health and the city, itself a main source of a pandemic which similarly threatens the lives and properties of the world population gradually one glacier at a time: climate change. We argue that pandemics expose both the vulnerability and resilience of the urban system expansively, from rooftop to the region, but also serve as change agents for the planning of resilient cities and regions globally. The discussion of the urban system and the pandemic is comparative, with the recent coronavirus and climate change, a persistent, long-lasting pandemic. The historical and critical review and synthesis of the durable concepts of the urban system at the kernel of the theories and practices of urbanism is highlighted by place matters, cyberspace, density, access, and the city-region. We note the implications for reconfiguring the resilient urban system of the future effectively with pandemic as change agent and the comprehensive plan and its regulatory zoning ordinance as implementation tool.

A Good Practice for Integrating Stakeholders through Standardization—The Case of the Smart Mature Resilience Project

“…The topic of city resilience is an important one and has been brought to the forefront due to the current pandemic (e.g., [84]). To support research on city resilience, this paper investigated various resilience-related projects and with SMR one case study more deeply.…”

Towards an antifragile urban form: a research agenda for advancing resilience in the built environment

“…These changes are a hidden cry for measures to support ‘sociable distancing’ (Mehaffy 2020 ) and improve mental and physical wellbeing. Settings allowing for bridging between the private and the public have proven successful, as have more ‘permeable’ public–private interfaces, entailing doorsteps, canopies, porches, balconies, courtyards and the like (Banai 2020 , pp. 2–3).…”

“…Behind such fundamental changes from below and draconian top-down measures, pivoting on individual choices is the acknowledgement that, before the pandemic, city development and management had left cities ill-equipped to cope with crowd illnesses viral spread. Despite Patrick Geddes’ early call to ‘act locally, think globally’ and recent World Health Organization advice specifically for reducing pandemics impact (WHO 2020 ), most planning and urban design practice today fails to take into account measures with more-than-local effects and respond to a fragmented approach to managing urban features (see also Banai 2020 , p. 1) which leaves localities unable to resist and/or swiftly recover from major crises (e.g. earthquake, floods, pandemics and so on), the more so when different threats are combined.…”

“…Our limited understanding of spatialised behaviours during the pandemic offers a glimpse of an urban future where local public spaces are being celebrated, communities are effective support systems, and local institutions and businesses provide a crucial underpinning for social welfare—a world where COVID-19 can be ‘the driver of positive change’ (Banai 2020 , p. 5). But alongside progressive views with the potential to lead to radical changes in the way we think of, and design the condition for, urban public life and sociability, there are also regressive scenarios summarised in both citizens’ and market actors’ behaviours, seeing the return of single occupancy car-based forms of mobilities, of residential sprawl, of empty city centres and altogether retreating to individualistic solutions.…”

Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA

“…The attractiveness of a place of residence is influenced by many factors, such as harmoniously shaped spatial arrangements and the availability of safe public spaces [5], proper relations between the typology of buildings and the morphology of the urban space [6], access to green areas, the availability of necessary service infrastructure and a system of bicycle and pedestrian paths [7], biodiversity and climate resilience and ecosystem services, including access to clean water (filtration) and clean air (urban greenery) [8]. The pandemic has revealed the resilience of the urban system [9] to risks arising from poor hygiene and sanitary conditions, inappropriate distribution of services [10] and growing social inequalities [11]. The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a process of changes in behaviour and social habits, especially those related to the use of urban spaces and transport [12,13].…”