Bogota and Curitiba Revolutionizing City Life

Many cities in our world have been changing the way in which people live. These urban areas have revolutionized the way a multitude of people live with one another. Curitiba and Bogota are two cities that have modified “city life” in recent years. Despite their dissimilarities, Curitiba and Bogota are prime examples of urban areas where politicians and citizens were able to come up with sustainable solutions to the issues of a city.  

At first, one might think that other than being on the 
same continent, the cities of Curitiba and Bogota have nothing in common. Upon further investigation, one is able to realize that these two cities actually have some similarities. In the last 50 years both of these cities experienced massive population growth. “In the 1960s, the population growth in Curitiba reached the highest growth rate of the country, an average of over 5% per year” (Carballo 2010). As stated in one of the videos, Bogota faced similar growths in its population as well. As a result of the drastic rise in the number of people living in these metropolises, the cities were beginning to face other problems that in turn hindered the landscape, infrastructure, health, and welfare of the area and its people.

As multitudes of people were migrating to Curitiba, more and more automobiles were being found on the streets. In the 1970’s, when the now-renowned planner Jaime Lerner became mayor, he was challenged with an issue. Developers in the city had planned to expand the road network in Curitiba, thus causing the city to be less “pedestrian friendly.” Bogota had also been experiencing issues with cars during its rise in population. When Enrique Penalosa was mayor he encountered a problem where the Japanese International Cooperation Agency proposed that seven elevated highways be built within Bogota. During the 20^th century, these cities in South America were beginning to encounter the phenomena of the luxuries of automotive transit. Sadly, the consequences of these automobiles were altering the face of the cities in negative ways.

One of the biggest problems of Curitiba and Bogota is the slums that surround the periphery of the urban areas. These slums are full of poor people that live wretched lives. More often than not, these individuals resort to violence and crime to survive. Both mayors in these cities recognized this as a problem. Instead of disowning these people, they believed that by improving the lives of the poor they could quite possibly also enhance the city life for all citizens. For example, in Curitiba Lerner put forward a program where slum dwellers were able to receive food in exchange for cleaning/collecting the garbage. Penalosa tried to improve the lives of the poor in Bogota differently. He improved their lives by enhancing the facilities that many citizens used for recreation. The two progressive mayors in Bogota and Curitiba realized that the problems in the slums needed to be fixed, and they did their best to improve the conditions for all within their cities.

Yet, despite facing similar issues, the two cities of Bogota and Curitiba are different from one another in several ways. Even though both countries are found in South America, these two cities are found in countries that have distinct cultures. Curitiba is found in Brazil, whose way of life is based mostly on Portuguese culture while the lifestyles of the people in Bogota, which is found in Colombia, is influenced by Spanish culture. Another difference is the importance of each city in their respected countries. Bogota is the capital city of Colombia, so it is recognized by many as being an epicenter of many things within the country. Sadly, unless they know about its link to urban planning, many people might not know about Curitiba. Unlike Bogota, it is not the capital city of its respected country, Brazil. These two cities are also drastically different in size. In terms of population, both are large cities, but Bogota almost has 7 times as many people living in it than Curitiba. In 2010, there were 7,363,782 people living in the city of Bogota  itself (excluding the larger metropolitan area) while the city of Curitiba had a population of 1,764,540 (City Data 2010).  

How is Jefferson Park?: Analyzing My Neighborhood

Known as the “city of neighborhoods,” Chicago is comprised of many communities that are diverse and distinct. Each of these neighborhoods allows Chicago to be the unique metropolis that it is. The neighborhood I live in is Jefferson Park.

            Nicknamed the “Gateway to Chicago,” Jefferson Park is one of the major transportation hubs in the city of the Chicago. The Chicago El rapid transit system, the Metra commuter line, and CTA buses can all be found at the main terminal in the area. All of these modes of transportation can be used to get to the Loop. Most of the residents work either within the Loop or on the outskirts of the Loop. Being an important transportation hub, a majority of the residents commute to work via public transportation. 
           It isn’t a problem to walk around the neighborhood. Although the neighborhood is walkable, Jefferson Park is quite large, so it may take one a while to walk anywhere. Despite this being case, the bus system is quite interconnected, so if the walk to the neighborhood’s stores and shops is too far, one can get there by using public transportation (CTA bus). Most of the main streets in the area are pretty “complete.” These streets have center-turn lanes and bike lanes. Most of these streets are “complete,” but not all of them. I think it would be a great improvement to my neighborhood if more streets in Jefferson Park were “complete.” In my opinion, “complete” streets would benefit all of the parties that use them (pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers). Although Jefferson Park has a lot of great modes of transit, it does not have a lot of green infrastructure within its boundaries. There is a forest preserve, but it is found on the edge of the neighborhood. Personally, I wish there were a lot more forest preserves like this one and other components of green infrastructure within my neighborhood.

            In my opinion, Jefferson Park has an identifiable center. I think the center of the neighborhood is the area surrounding the transit center (near the intersection of Milwaukee and Lawrence). All of the different modes of transportation converge at this transit center. A lot of restaurants, businesses, and a park (Jefferson Park) surround the transit center, thus people are drawn to go there. Even though, the neighborhood has an identifiable center, I don’t think it has edges that are noticeable. It can be a blur where Jefferson Park begins and ends. As I stated earlier, most of the neighborhood is walkable. For example, I go on strolls all the time in my neighborhood. I enjoy walking around my neighborhood and seeing everything that it has to offer. I usually walk to the main park, Jefferson Park, but there are a lot of smaller parks where people can walk to and just relax (like Dunham Park and Austin-Foster Park). These parks are a few of the spaces in my neighborhood that I consider third places. 

            I would hope that in 50 years my neighborhood of Jefferson Park would be a community that relies less on automobiles. Even though Jefferson Park is a transportation hub, a lot of people still use automobiles to get around. I would hope to see in the future that residents will only use cars for immediate emergencies or extremely long journeys. I would hope this would be the case, but sadly I don’t think it will happen. Most Americans have a strong connection with automotive transit. Due to this fact, it seems to me that it will be a difficult task for Jefferson Park residents to transform the neighborhood to an almost “car-less community.” I think the same would be said of green infrastructure. I would hope more green infrastructure would be developed in the neighborhood, but it seems to me that people don’t have very strong feelings about nature. Hopefully if more people learned about the importance of the foundations of sustainability and how it can benefit us all, then such neighborhoods like mine could become places that compliment urban sustainability. 

A Common Tragedy, The Tragedy of the Commons

The other day I was checking the news on the BBC website. While I was looking at the leading stories of the day, I came across a story about the worst traffic jams in the world (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19716687). The article noted several cities around the world to have some of the worst traffic jams. These cities ranged from Jakarta in Indonesia to Kampala in Uganda. Upon reading these accounts of congestion, I was reminded of Hardin’s concept of the “tragedy of the commons.” In other words, I came to realize that this article on congestion was a perfect example of a resource on our planet that is used by many, yet not owned by anyone.

Hardin’s paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” documents the drastic and startling truth about common resources. The paper spells out the tragedy as “the results that come about when a single resource is owned and accessed by everyone, and regulated by no one. Without some type of self-policing, this resource will disappear.” Although it might not seem apparent, the congestion that is found in major cities around the world is a result of the “tragedy of the commons.” The interstates and highways in most, if not all, of these countries is a public good that can be used by anyone with a car. That is, anyone who possesses a vehicle is able to drive onto these transportation systems and travel about. As a result of this fact, these transportation systems get overused. This is not always the case. There are times where the number of automobiles on the interstate system does not have drastic effects on people’s travel times. But as more and more vehicles enter these transportation systems, there is less room for people to move about. With less space for all of the cars on the road, the velocities of the cars will decrease. This increase in the number of vehicles on highways and interstates causes the travel times of vehicles to slow down, which in turn causes congestion.

Space on highway systems can be obtained by anyone with a vehicle. In other words, as stated before, anyone with a car can drive onto these transportation systems. No one really owns the space on the highway systems, so as a result of it being owned by no one yet used by many, the space on highway systems is a resource that gets overused and exploited. But one might ask are there any solutions to this problem? One solution that people propose is for individuals to carpool to work. Advocates to this solution believe that more people should travel to work together. They should carpool because it seems as if there are many cars on the road that are occupied by only one person. If more people began to carpool, then one can argue there will be fewer cars on the road. Another solution that some individuals propose is to stop using automobiles to get around a city. Advocates of this proposition believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to use other modes of transportation. People should either ride their bicycles to work, ride the local commuter rail line, use buses to travel around, or just walk.

            Personally, I believe that the solution about people finding other means of transit is the better solution to the problem. Not only will it fix the “tragedy of the commons” with space on the highways, but it will also lessen other issues. This solution will diminish the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as well as reduce our dependence on oil. Even though I think this is the better solution, I don’t think it is the solution that will work right away, especially not in the United States. Sadly, most Americans have a strong connection with automotive transit. Due to this fact, it seems to me that it will be a difficult task for Americans to transition to other means of transit. With that said, I think the solution that will work for now would be the proposition for individuals to start carpooling. Hopefully, once people begin to carpool, they will gradually transition to other means of transportation.