 The second in our views of the way forward for the world's great cities will come from Andy Altman, who has been the sometime planning director for Washington, D.C. Does that work? Okay. Thank you very much. I guess my talk today is not going to be so much, and not at all, in fact a critique of the vision or visions that have been put forward about the future of Mumbai, but I've been asked to reflect on the power of visions to shape cities, the powerful hold on their imagination, on politics and on urban form. And I thought to start this session as a quote from a mentor and a great leader of mine who's here in the room today, Mayor Anthony Williams, who used to say before we would go out to community meetings and present our great plans, he would say that vision without action is a daydream, but action without vision is a nightmare. And I thought that was a very powerful way of framing the importance of vision to the shaping of cities. I think it's important to recognize that powerful visions have shaped cities in our recent history. The reaction to the industrial city, garden cities, the broadacre city of Frank Lloyd Wright, the skyscraper city of Lord Le Corbusier have had powerful power effects on urban form and on cities that are with us to this very day. So visions matter. They're not just a matter of sort of abstract notions, but very much reflect what our society is saying about cities, about us as a civilization, about our values at particular times. So I thought before looking at visions of global cities as we've traveled the world, we've seen that the urban age is not only a statistic, it's not only a matter of the numbers and the graphs and the powerful images we've seen, but it's also an aspiration. It's an aspiration to be global. It's an aspiration for a certain position in the world and what that entails in terms of status and benefits. So let's go back for a moment. I'd like to step back in history so that as we look at these visions, we can put them in the context. What were we saying about cities back in 1939? And I have a brief clip here from the World's Fair of 1939 that looked forward to what the future of cities would be in 1960. And I'd like to show that today. I could narrate it with the sound, but I'll narrate it since the sound isn't here. This was a vision that said in 1939 that the future of the city in 1960 was to be a city of three million people. This was shown to hundreds and hundreds of people at the World's Fair what this future city would be like. It showed the vertical city. It talked about the segregation of uses that we had to clean up the city. We had to separate commerce from industry. We had to have parks and open spaces that would better reflect what was called the efficient city at the time. And it laid out this vision, as you can see, that was very much different than the form and the fabric of the city of the 20th century that existed. The very dense, tight network of cities in the United States and in Europe and replaced it with a much different kind of form of the city that was intended to, in a way, facilitate movement, facilitate transportation, facilitate a more efficient organization of the city. And this, unfortunately, you can't hear it because it has this great voice of those times that speaks to, we must replace the old with the new. And that's kind of the last image that one actually sees of the city. So, unfortunately, we didn't have the sound, but I think the imagery that was used was very powerful because it looked completely futuristic. It said, we're going to have a completely different form of this city in a mere 20 years. And the power of that, as we look forward of what that vision was, presented as a fair that people may have thought was fantaisical at the time, in fact resulted in an enormous impact on the American city. And we can see here just the collage of what the city was on the upper left, to the replacement of the old city with exactly that vision of the towers, to the destruction recently of those towers as we learned that the replacement of the old sections of the city did not work anymore, that the social networks that had been destroyed, the very fabric of the city had been destroyed. And we had to replace it with what is now almost a replication of a suburban form, maybe not the high rise, but certainly not what the city was. So we go through evolution in period of thinking about how cities transform and how they grow. We see here in San Francisco that same powerful image that we saw in that video of roads and highways and great systems of movement actually resulted in the cities of the building of the freeways and recently now destruction of those freeways as we realize those aren't the best way to move people in and out of cities and being replaced with light rail. So we go through tremendous periods where these powerful conditions actually have extraordinary impact and we start to learn from them. We also learned from very good examples. We saw Central Park before, the impact it's had on over 300 years of New York's history and affecting urban form, which back then seemed like a very long and distant future. So we can learn a lot. So let's fast forward to today. What are the global cities today saying? These are the slogans, the taglines of what it means to be a global city. For Calcutta, it's an industrial and an actual hub. For Delhi, it's a global metropolis and world class city. For New York, it's a greener city. For Mumbai, it's a city of the millennium. For Berlin, the city of change. For Bangalore, the city of the future. In London, an exemplary sustainable world city. And these are reflected in visions and master plans that are put forward. You can see here the master plan for Bangalore toward the vibrant international city. Berlin, Mumbai, the world class city. Johannesburg, the plan for New York, the plan for London that we spoke of. So what do all these plans tell us? What do they say about the vision for the city, about the global city? Well, we see often that these images, these futures of cities are very tied to, five minutes, oh, sorry, okay, very tied to a physical form. Let me quickly, since I just have a few minutes, go into some case studies of a few cities. What's that? Oh, how much do I actually have? Oh, sit five and my whole presentation just went, between the video not running and the timing. I thought, well, let's see. So let's step back. Let me look at just for a moment, since I have a minute, the tension between the image that's often directed at what is the global city and these are what are often put forward as the aspiration toward the modern city and how that's juxtaposed with the city that actually exists today, the city of people, the city of the shanty towns of predominant form. How do we reconcile these tensions in these different cities? I'm going to look at four cities very quickly to sort of go a little more in depth from what Ricky started to key off of. In Shanghai, which is often looked to as that Mumbai aspires to and competes with in many ways and ground the globe as Shanghai because of the great power, we see that this model, as Ricky said, this is a model in the city planning exhibit, was actually built. And as one architect said when we were in Shanghai, he said, we know that we are building today the mistakes we are making will have to be corrected in 10 years. And they're very powerful images. It is a case study of the power of the state to actually determine a vision and to implement it. Here's the industrial zones that were determined. Here's the growth that has happened in Shanghai to over 16 million people. Here's the growth in the economy. Here's the growth in the urban form in a small period of time from 1995 to 2004, dramatic growth. Thousands of skyscrapers built in a 10-year period. What New York took 100 years and London 100 years took 10 years in Shanghai. Rapid transit systems, 10 new subway lines, freeways being built throughout facilitating movement. So what is the lesson of the power of Shanghai? And I think it's exemplified here between the contrast between this enormous amount of growth and the vertical city and what is actually lost. You can see here this one slide shows going up is the amount of private housing and going down is public. And what that's really a proxy for is how the neighborhoods, and you'll see here that are being lost in the very rapid, rapid growth of Shanghai. And I think it's something that causes us to reflect that in the pace and velocity of urban change, how much do we lose? How much of the new replaces all of the old? So even in the power of Shanghai, there's a cautionary note. New York, we move quickly to the success of New York, which only 20 years ago in the United States was looked at as apocalyptic. It was not viewed as an ideal city. It was viewed as you want to escape from New York. Today, dramatic transformation. 8 million people growing to 9. But with that transformation, we have a complete loss of the middle class. What this graph shows is the extreme of wealth and poverty. Only 8% of New York is classified as middle class. That is what the result of New York has been. And so today, New York has put forward a very progressive plan. The plan for New York City, which has tied its future to a greener, greater New York. Which means more transit, more parks, the reclamation of brownfields, the building of hundreds of thousands of units of housing. A visionary plan in many, many respects. And one that's very powerful. Yet even with that plan, even with a strong vision, even with the economy, it cannot keep pace with the rate of change and with the loss of housing and the stability that comes from the middle class and the mixing. Here you see a product of a previous era in New York. Over 10,000 units of housing that are now going to be lost as affordable housing. Very hard to keep change. And why is that? Because there is not the alignment between the federal, the state, and the city that's needed to truly have a sustainable city. So New York is a case of it can go it alone, it can have a vision, but it's ultimately constrained by the lack of place and extreme building of density and skyscrapers that are needed in order to support the fiscal stability of that city. Maybe not the ideal urban form, but one that is skewed nonetheless because of the very nature of governance that morphs that vision. In Washington, D.C., the capital where the mayor and I worked for many years was maybe not a mega city in the United States, powerful in the world for its symbolic position because it's also looked to as the urban laboratory of where all ideas are tested in the United States. A city of great contrast you see in the red, the poverty in the city and the eastern section. But it's also a great planning tradition. So we look back and say how do we in a planning sense and the poverty on the other? What does it mean in 2004 to engage people in a future for their city so that it's not just the city of the monuments but the other Washington on the other river and using this river to actually transform the city, a whole part of the city that's not on your map of Washington and shows the power of the vision and leadership to take a part of the city and use it to reconnect it physically, economically, socially, you see here a way to drive change. What was then the public housing very dilapidated and now the replacement of neighborhoods, a whole part of the river restored but this is the important slide. It is less interesting in so many ways than architectural drawings but the power of that vision was that land that was previously under the federal government was transferred to the city on the strength of that vision and the leadership of the mayor presented hundreds of acres but it's now finally concluded Mexico City and a couple of observations about Mumbai because Mexico City in a way does not have a singular vision of its future, of the global city to city that is the horizontal city that as we heard is sprawling that has consumed its water base that continues to go outward and outward as we saw the slides that Ricky showed. So it put forward at our conference this is an area that has 79 different legislative bodies and as the federal city it has the regional city it put forward a vision for transit it put forward visions for housing it put forward visions for open space put forward visions for how the systems of the city were going to be transformed the problem was none of them connected there was no sense of what that vision was because as it was promulgating these visions policies were being promulgated completely contradictory not to the fall of Mexico City because of the state of how it was organized so policies to have density in the core were being challenged by policies facilitating double-deck freeways out to the periphery from the historic center to Santa Fe its vision and symbol of the modern city sit juxtaposed to the poverty just next to it as an enclave so there's tremendous tension in Mexico City between trying to have a coordinated vision with the same time trying to reconcile its own contradictions of its form and its growth and here in Delhi we see put forward this was actually the New York Times the master plan which looked to as we can see here the guiding principles of obliterating slums taming traffic and importing the Manhattan like skyline so what do we learn from all of this in my remaining minute is to really reflect what these visions are and how do we begin to reconcile prosperity, sustainability inclusivity and I think a few things from Mumbai to think about because it is very important that there not be a singular vision I think for a city that this tension of how to capture the DNA what Ricky calls the DNA of cities so you understand what is it that makes Mumbai so special the mixing of uses the intensity of uses what is organized what is organic about the city in the video that we saw there are no people there and often these slides are devoid of people so our visions have to incorporate a heterogeneity we have to remember that often we must think not to save the city we need to destroy the city we must be very careful as we look and discuss Dharavi later Dharavi is not simply a matter of the slum eradication that Dharavi is as Bandra Kunra expands will that become integrated or separate will we develop as enclaves or as integrated places will the vertical city of Mumbai that's developing also done in a way that has the neighborhood and the texture and the streets and the fabric of Mumbai that give it such a unique quality as Rahul Marotra said to us yesterday we don't need to revitalize Mumbai we need to make sure we don't use its intensity of urbanization as we look to areas like the eastern waterfront to integrate that into the city or taking a transit and bringing it to different places so that the sprawl that now sees Pune and Mumbai almost as one agglomeration can begin to see the way that can become a more integrated and sustainable city and to not lose the democratic forces that mediate between the powerful images of the global city on the one hand such as we saw in Shanghai which can lead to remarkable results but do not mediate the form of the city that also brings the community the diversity of voices and interests that make a city interesting and are in its life and its DNA and to conclude that are really the soul of the city and that to me is what's most important about vision and what we must learn about visions is that we have to uncover that very special soul what Siketo Mehta referred to in his text as the bird of gold to which Mumbai Mumbai is and aspires to so with that I'll conclude and hopefully that will open up the discussion about what the vision for Mumbai is in its future. Thank you. Well we now have four . . . . . . .