"Cities are enormous libraries filled not with books but with people."

What is the future of cities? Why is it important to invest into cities? What changes should we make in our investment policies in cities? Twelve leading European thinkers about cities answer these three questions.

Read here the thoughts of Alain de Botton: The City as a Cure for Loneliness. "Cities are, as it were, enormous libraries filled not with books but with people." 
 

Philosopher Alain de Botton is fascinated by cities. He looks at them from a lay point of view, without the “burden” of any academic training in urban development. De Botton was born in Zurich and lives in London. As a city-dweller, he is aware that some cities work better than others. For example, Amsterdam and Zurich - where he grew up - work much better than cities like London.

De Botton believes that good cities are also the result of good architecture. Many cities with a pleasant feel look normal. A simple concept that is repeated regularly possesses a certain intelligence and beauty. For example, everybody will recognise the apartments of Paris and the grid structure of Manhattan. They result in good orientation and a basic “urban language”. De Botton believes this is important because of the impression cities make with their size, complexity and chaos. “The role of architecture and urban planning is to limit the risk of a lack of connectedness.”

"In a good city, transport and architecture link up with each other,” pursues De Botton. “This linkage provides many opportunities for exchanging ideas and establishing contacts. So the car should not be, become, or remain a dominant factor on the streets of our cities. Pedestrians, shops and restaurants generate the lively atmosphere that people like to see. The problem of modern society is that the things people value, like shops and harbours, are disappearing from the city centres. As a result, the cities themselves are much less lively and cities fail to inspire as you wander through them. There are encounters in poor cities, but not the right ones. Poor cities probably do manage some things well, but not enough.”

De Botton sees cities as centres of knowledge. That is why people want to meet each other there. Cities are, as it were, enormous libraries filled not with books but with people. Despite this, large numbers of people are moving out to the suburbs, in part because of the possibilities provided by cars, the internet and other mass media. So does this mean that cities are becoming redundant? De Botton does not think so. “Cities are not for everybody. But internet, the telephone and ordinary mail can’t replace the city, because these channels can only do certain things. Meeting people face-to-face is, and will remain, important.”

“There are conflicts between, for example, commerce and other functions such as art and culture,” he admits. “Because cities are centres for artistic exchanges. But if cities become too successful, they become so expensive that important groups such as artists and students disappear. We have to find a way of curing cities of their excessive success. We are facing the issue of how to make economically prosperous cities cheaper when cities becoming cheaper is generally a sign of decline.”

De Botton sees another type of tension: between private players and the city administration, between community spirit and the interests of businesses and individuals. “Private, commercial players have become so large that they can intimidate city authorities. If a company wants to build a large building, but the city administration is not in favour, the company will threaten to go elsewhere.” Commerce involves another danger, for example in the retail sector. Large chains push out interesting local shops. This makes cities less attractive and public life more monotonous. A good public life requires attention and investments.”

De Botton thinks the question should not be “Why is it so important to invest in cities?” but “Why is it so important to invest in people?” Ultimately, the issue is why investments are made in people in one place rather than in another. Take the example of Berlin. “After the fall of the wall, a lot of money was put into refurbishing the city, but the city doesn’t work.

The locals are moving out. The cosmetic changes required are not a solution on their own. You have to dig deeper. Urban regeneration must go beyond the purely physical: it also has to be psychological and cultural. Investments must give individuals the opportunity to develop. That is the area government should be putting much more money into.”

He believes that thinking about urban regeneration in England is good, but that the strength to put it into practice is often lacking. “Here also, you need authoritarian government with the power and strength to get development rolling. At present, there are too many bureaucratic layers. So we need a more authoritarian approach to planning.”