Fencing the cities

There is need to reform building by-laws and zoning regulations with a view to eliminating elite bias.

Nineteenth century England witnessed the culmination of a process described as the Enclosures Movement in social and economic history. State control was used by the elite to fence agricultural holdings and acquire titles to land, which created a class of landless poor. The report of a recent Planning Commission task force on urban development comes close to recommending the fencing of cities. Given the backdrop of a high rate of urbanisation in the past, the report projects that around half of the population will be living in urban areas in 2030. Rural-to-urban migration rates have also been very high. This is a huge challenge for planners, but responding to it by building urban castles, and yet describing the approach as “safe and liveable places for all” is unlikely to make cities the desired engines of growth, especially when it is known — thanks to a revealing study by Reza Ali — that urban population has been underestimated due to definitional changes between the last two censuses. Interestingly, those who criticised the state for attempting, albeit unsuccessfully, to stand in the way of natural movement of cheap labour to urban growth centres, now want the condemned state to build bunkers around the city to make them safe and liveable to achieve higher productivity and growth.

The argument is built around the low density of our cities. However, Karachi and Lahore are already among the high density cities of the world, with some more cities ready to qualify. Citing places like GORs, governor houses and others as prime examples of inefficient land use gives good copy for the media, but these may be among the few surviving lungs of the city.


There is need to reform building by-laws, zoning regulations and rent regulations, with a view to eliminating elite bias. But the report talks about changing rent laws in favour of owners. The Land Acquisition Act, used for acquiring state as well as private land, is seen to be incongruous with the dictates of the market, where serious shortages rule and encroachments have tacit support of various municipal agencies. The report recommends procurement from the owners à la the DHAs. It sees by-laws relating to ‘commercialisation’ of residential areas as opportunities for rent, seeking rather than promoting appropriate land use as  decided by the market. It also notices the absence of a law for the condominiums to clarify rights and obligations. In short, the report seeks, like all good free marketeers, linkages between macroeconomic and urban economic policies to make cities competitive.

Before cities can be competitive, they need to be in control of their own governance to set the appropriate norms and rules of the game to create incentives, attract capital and host workers. A city under siege and controlled from above is hardly the instrument to promote mobility, which is the very essence of change for the better, individually as well as collectively.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 11th, 2011.
Load Next Story