Mayor of Bogotá Looks to Democracy to Repair the Urban Fabric of Cities Rich and Poor

It's very exciting to be with you. This is, to me, what American democracy is all about, much more than many other things. This participation in civic organizations is really marvelous. Participation creates a better society.

I would first of all like to emphasize that Bogotá is not a good example for you. Bogotá is a very poor city; it would take more than 100 years for us to have the same income per capita as Los Angeles if we do very well in terms of economic growth. Our example may be relevant in some areas-but maybe not relevant in many. What I think is relevant is that we can all dream. . . .

The most difficult thing is to create a shared vision. Most of us have a clear idea of what the ideal home that we wish for would look like. . . . But, if we asked them what the city is they wouldn't have such a clear idea. And we spend more of our waking time out of our houses. Most people don't really know what the ideal height of buildings would be, what the ideal width of sidewalks, or whether they would want a network of pedestrian streets, or how they would mix residential and commercial establishments, or how transport would work. Therefore, I would say that our exercise today is simply one more exercise trying to advance the construction of our shared vision, because we really have to know where we want to go. . . .

I would like to talk about transport. I am often invited to talk about transport because of our successful bus system and our many bikeways; our bus system was copied from Curitiba, Brazil. Can we decide on a transport system without knowing what kind of city we want? I think it is impossible because it is very different if we have something closer to a city like Amsterdam or Zurich in mind rather than Houston or Atlanta.

The transport system must be adapted to the kind of city. But also, a transport system generates a kind of city. So, I would say that any time we make transport decision we have to make that those decisions are more powerful in the urban structure we are creating than even for transport itself . . .

•

City creation is the last realm of ideology, because there is not a scientific or mathematical way to prove that one city is the "best;" this is more akin to art or architecture than science or technology. For example the height of this ceiling: it could be much lower, but we would feel something different in our soul. That's what architecture is about. It is different from engineering, which says, if these columns don't have the steel it requires, or the foundation, this building would collapse. . . .

But when we are talking about the ideal city, it is difficult because we have no perfect or correct way to decide what it is; yet, we have to make decisions for society through government. We cannot let everyone decide the height that they want. We cannot let anyone do whatever width for sidewalks that they want. We have to agree on something, and then we have to enforce it, despite the fact that there are no proven technical parameters.

So what is a good city? I like the tradition of Jan Ghel, who is a wonderful Danish urban expert. He says, "a good city is one where people like to be out of their home." They want to be in the public space, walking, being with people in parks, plazas, and cafes. This is all because we have two special needs, not for survival but for happiness.

When you are in an economically backwards society such as mine, we have to find a measure different than simply production or consumption to measure a society's success. . . . So the real measure for success is happiness. For example, if I asked Colombians, "what would your life be like if you lived in Germany?" They might answer, "I would get into a BMW 55 and go 330 km/h on the highway." Well, actually, the German is dreaming of having just two or three weeks a year of the weather that most Colombian cities have all year so that they could hop on a bicycle and ride along a river. . . .

I'm not a car-hater, but I think anybody that designs a city will have to choose between a city that is friendly to cars, or a city that is friendly to people. There are contradictions. You don't want to walk with a three-year-old next to an eight-lane highway where cars go 100 mph. It is much more comfortable if you walk in a pedestrian-only street where there is no threat. It is not nice to walk next to an open-air parking lot. You have many of those here in Los Angeles, which shows that the land is too cheap, if they are able to have these low density uses. . . .

Today, when we think of London 1800, we think that was a horrible environment. It was crowded; it was polluted. I hope that in 200 years, people will say, "what a horrible environment those people in 2006 lived in!" Mainly because we live in fear of getting killed, especially children. If you think if I am exaggerating, take a three-year-old child and say, "watch out a car!" And the child will jump in fright with very good reason.

About 200,000 children are killed by cars every year in the world. We still talk about wolves because we were afraid of wolves when a few wolves ate a few children during the Middle Ages in Northern Europe. But I would guess that on any given month today, there are more children killed by cars than were killed by wolves all through the Middle Ages. It is amazing how we get used to that. We think it is totally normal that our children grow in fear of getting killed. . . .

How would your life change if a few blocks from your house there was a 40-mile pedestrian street? Imagine where you could go, take the baby, ride a bicycle, sit and read a newspaper, people watch, or jog. These are the types of things that can improve our quality of life radically.

Normally, we are ready to use eminent domain-and the United States has used eminent domain all through its history to make room for roads for cars. They have demolished houses and they go through the middle of everything. Of course, every society has used eminent domain if it is necessary to make room for things that society needs: for airports, for roads, etc. Maybe it would be useful to use eminent domain to open up space for pedestrians . . . .

Transit is a very peculiar challenge in the Third World, because it is the only problem that gets worse as we get richer. If we were to have three or four times the income per capita that we have today in Colombia, we would have much better health, much better education, much better culture-everything would be better. However, transport would get worse unless we change our model. I think that it is almost the definition of something that is not sustainable: the more developed you are the worse it gets.

Transport problems cannot be solved simply with money. They can only be solved with changes in our way of life. That is very difficult; we know that. It would take Bogotá 100 years to have highways the way Atlanta has highways. Yet, studies show that traffic jams are getting worse in American cities with giant highways . . . . So, it also seems to us that making bigger roads will solve traffic jams. Only a couple of months ago, Canada released some statistics showing that the commuting time in Canada had increased from 54 minutes in 1992, to 63 minutes in 2005, despite giant highways. . . . The only city in Canada where time for commuting did not increase was Vancouver, which has refused to allow highways to be built through its city despite pressure from the national and provincial governments.

To make new roads in order to solve traffic jams is like to put out a fire with gasoline. We are at a time when the market is triumphant. Adam Smith told us that each person seeking their own selfish benefit yields the best results for society. . . However, this does not work for transport: what is good for the bee is not necessarily good for the beehive. There is a contradiction between individual rationality and society's rationality. That is when civic organizations and government must act, because clearly it is rational for someone to use their own private car. . . . but if everybody wants to get into a car at peak hours, it will destroy a city's quality.

We have to think of society. The result of thinking as a society is not the same as thinking as individuals. The fact is, there is no such thing as a natural level of car use. Whatever car use exists, exists because government and society has decided for it. . . . At some point, explicitly or implicitly, New York, Paris, or Zurich decided that they would stop making bigger roads as was needed according to the presence of traffic jams. Rather, they decided to build, simply, more public transport. This is a political decision. It is not for traffic engineers to decide how we are going to solve transportation problems. It is a political decision: How do we want our city to be? How do we want to live?

The most important feature of a good city is quality sidewalks . . . . How wide must a sidewalk be? As wide as possible; there is no measure. Is pedestrian space in Third World countries a frivolity? Do we have more important things to do? On the contrary, during work hours the highest-paid person in a corporation and the lowest person are equally satisfied. It is during their leisure time that there is an enormous difference.

The affluent person goes to a large house, with a garden, and has access to restaurants, to country houses, country clubs, sports clubs, and vacations. The poor person and his/her children have a small house, practically only room to sleep, and no alternative for their leisure time if there is no public space. Therefore, in a democracy, the first place that money should go is to quality sidewalks, parks, and pedestrian streets. I cannot give luxury housing to everyone, but I can give quality pedestrian space to everyone.

That is not out of the reach of any society. Ideally we shall have plazas and great parks. Any quality city must have at least one great public space. What is a great public space? One that is so good that even the rich cannot avoid going there. Because in a public space everybody meets as equals. We usually meet separated by hierarchies; some people are more important than others. . . . When shopping malls replace public space as a meeting space for people it is a symptom that a city is ill. Why do they go to shopping malls? Because they are nice, and they are not like the pedestrian spaces. They are safe for children. But, a lower-income person feels bad in an upper-income shopping mall. . . .

Clearly, public transit is the solution to these problems. But, if we have no density, we can't have high-frequency, low-cost public transit. Whenever people use public transport they don't use it because they love the environment-there may be a few that use it because they love the environment-but normally people use it because they have to. . . .

Bicycles are amazing machines. Any of us could beat a world champion runner if we were on a bicycle. Why don't some cities make better use of bicycles? In Los Angeles it is sunny all the time; in Bogotá it rains all of the time. But, of course, in order for people to use bicycles, people have to be safe and protected. In five years, Bogotá has gone from 0 to 5 percent of people using bicycles. Pedestrian and bicycle paths are important because they are a symbol that someone on a bicycle is as important as someone in a $30,000 car. . . . We need to make it sexier for people to ride these systems.

In all developing cities, at least half of the population spends at least 10 percent of their income on transport. If they can save that, there would be a huge improvement to their quality of life. Bikeways are not something just simply architecturally cute. It's not just nice that cities have big sidewalks and bikeways; I would say it is a right of the people to have safe mobility. . . .

We are showing that democracy works and that priority for road space should be given to public transport. Despite the fact that in Bogotá car sales have increased tremendously, we have been able to lower the percentage of people who drive their car to work. Twenty percent of the users of this system own cars. That is easy to say in an advanced country, but in a developing country that is exceptional. In Mexico, most upper middle class people have never once taken the subway. Our system is fully accessible to the handicapped. People told us that the streets were too narrow in downtown. The buses and car can't go in. I said, "You are totally right. The streets are too narrow. Therefore, the cars cannot go in."

My conclusion: I realize that an advanced city is not one that has great highway infrastructure, but one where a child in tricycle could go safely everywhere.