After Coronavirus, a New Kind of Urban Planning Must Be Born

As a pandemic such as the current one, i.e., the COVID-19, is not a single problem; and it is a set of interrelated problems, the agenda for an adapted planning thinking and planning practice to define these problems and evaluate potential solutions -- but not just the substantive and procedural aspect of urban planning and problem-solving -- but also the underlying polity of planning and problem-solving.

In many aspects as the private sector financial resources has diverted the resources that if it was in the hands of responsible public sectors with “public welfare” as their main agenda, could be allocated to:

• The much-needed housing for the lower income groups and groups of people with no incomes, i.e., those considered to be “homeless”; to build luxury housing and out-of-demand shopping malls. Homelessness and Housing is considered a crisis 40 within the crisis of COVID-19 pandemic.

• Providing welfare systems that could guarantee decent jobs, full employment and unemployment benefits for the whole population.

• Providing decent welfare services for the population, instead of wasting public money to embark on luxury projects.

• Integration: an integrate urban planning, urban management, and disaster- response approaches.

• Reinforce the planning and decision support systems: integration of smart technologies in urban management.

• Information systems: decision support systems (DSSs), planning support systems (PSSs), Geographic Information Systems (GIS) plus setting up urban dashboard45. Are all necessary tools for an adapted planning system and health monitoring and management of human settlements?

• Pursuing purposeful urban research and urban planning: diverted to considering socio-economic and cultural inequalities and due regard for the more vulnerable sections of each society.

• Avoiding speculation as it disables urban planning for the welfare of the totality of population and diverts precious resources (financial and else) to private beneficiaries and devoid a community of the public services needed during disasters/hazards as well as normal situations.

• Many communities have goals to increase resilience of physical infrastructure and public services, plus resilience to economic shocks and disasters. If planning is seeking ways to incorporate resilience and flexibility into it, it must encompass such strategies as:

• Infrastructure redundancy (e.g., ensuring that have multiple access routes, diverse transport systems, multiple water and energy sources, plus emergency supplies for communities).

• Well-defined emergency plans.

• Robust communications systems.

• Ability to re-prioritize.

• Diversified economic structure that can maintain employment and business activity despite economic shocks.

• De-privatization of public services: If the resilience is to cope with such disasters or any other form of a disaster in the foreseeable future, the new system for planning and managing human settlements publicly owned and democratically controlled public services.

• Eradicate the individual economic insecurity: “What this crisis has also exposed is that many people do not have the financial resilience to deal with an unexpected hardship imposed upon them. The new society must eradicate the individual economic insecurity that comes.