Increasingly, we are becoming a world of human anthills. The modernization of our world, both in developed and developing countries, has resulted in the creation of the megalopolis, giant cities with millions of people crammed together in comparatively small spaces. It’s hard to say which part of this equation drives the other. Does the migration to the cities prompt modernization or does the modernization tempt the people to come? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In either case, the two parts feed off of each other and the cities continue to grow, stretching the resources that provide infrastructure and covering the land with concrete. The result is a lifetime of waiting in long lines on the streets and in the shops, a landscape of infinite buildings, a disconnect with the natural world and with our fellow citizens through sensory deprivation in the former case and sensory overload in the latter. In our haste to be great, we have become bogged down by the massive pressure of millions of people all trying to do the same basic thing at the same time. Quality of life, the very thing that modernization promises to increase, becomes just another ideal that we dream about.

Our large city models have many positive attributes, to be sure. They offer diversity and variety in business and industry, and any number of recreational and educational opportunities. But they also bring traffic congestion and slums and blight. And yet each year, the largest cities in the country continue to grow as more and more people flock to them in search of prosperity. The suburbs become metropolises in their own right and like a cancer, the culture of concrete envelops the natural world until it is but a shadow of its former self. How is it that we have forgotten our connection with the natural world? As we build our buildings and pave our streets, we have no thought to either ourselves or to our environment.

The current standard of multiple residential suburbs around a greater metropolis doesn’t really fit the needs of a technological society that can network many jobs from multiple locations. While the populations increase, public services become more taxed upon and the quality is diminished as the costs go up. In many cases, these effects are already being felt as hospitals become overcrowded or schools become less effective or commutes to business sectors become unbearable. And don’t forget the increase in air and water pollution created by a larger population coupled with the deforestation of natural plants in favor of development. Or the inability to maintain existing roads, pipes, and public buildings, even as new ones are connected to the suburbs. Or the inadequate number of fire and police personnel to protect such large populations. The list could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that this model for civilization is no longer conducive to a higher quality of life, nor is it necessarily economically or ecologically the wisest course to continue.

In addition to the aforementioned problems, our suburban model creates an environment of unnecessary competition between the suburban cities and the metropolis, and an overlapping of governmental regulation and enforcement within a region. Often, cities within this megalopolis structure find themselves at odds with each other, sometimes to the detriment of the region as a whole, and certainly to the detriment of the taxpayers.

So, if this model is no longer acceptable, what model is? Some regions of the country have created so called urban growth boundaries in an effort to constrain the spread of suburbia, but these efforts have only slowed the growth, not changed its pattern. But at least it is a step in the right direction. If there is one thing to be gained by our experiment with suburbia, it is the concept of master planning. While its present application gives us identical residential sections and look-alike strip malls, at least the concept has promise. Just because we are stuck in a rut with regards to creative land use doesn’t mean we have to stay there. City planning and land use measures should reflect an attitude of efficiency for both citizen and business, recognize the importance of coexisting with the natural world, and promote better regional planning.

The first place to start is by creating regional development zones. Each zone could have a maximum population limit to decrease the negative social effects of overcrowding and a maximum growth boundary to maintain a better grasp on infrastructure management. In this model, a central zone, or hub, could act as a central manufacturing, governmental, and public resource focal point, with services for the region being coordinated and disbursed from this general location. Surrounding the central hub could be an area of development for shopping centers, higher education facilities, entertainment centers and high-density, vertical residential units. Beyond this “nucleus” would be a mandatory “green space” separation of at least 5 miles but no more than about 20 miles, which would provide natural parkland spaces for outdoor recreation as well as ecological preservation and wildlife habitat. Beyond this “green zone” would be smaller sectors for residential living, schools, hospitals, and all the other small businesses that are necessary for daily life. Farther out, more “green space” would separate regional developments from each other, creating natural buffer zones between settlement areas.

High-speed, efficient commuter transportation would be established to transport people to and from the central zone for work while the outer sectors would be connected to each other with more conventional transportation structures. Separate regional developments could be connected by highway systems similar to those in place today as well as by rail operations. Such transportation techniques could help alleviate lengthy commutes and also diminish air pollution problems. The time and money saved by individuals and governments alike could contribute to better services and a more sustainable pace of life for everyone.

Of course, this kind of regional model would necessitate a change in attitude among our leaders both in business and in government. More jobs would need to be done by employees working from their homes through telecommuting. Regions could decide to specialize on certain industries in their central hubs, creating regional economies rather than the mega-economies of our current city structures. Each regional zone could become a piece of a larger economic puzzle, rather than the whole puzzle itself. But the upshot for individuals would be less time standing in lines and more time spent with each other. The upshot for our environment would be more concentrated development in smaller areas with less overall expansion and encroachment. And the upshot for our tax dollars would be a more focused plan for infrastructure and a lessening of duplicated services and irrational competition between neighbors of a region.

The thing to remember is that this is only one idea to address the problems with our urban model. It represents an effort to rethink the path of our future development with quality of life and efficiency being the primary forces driving development rather than simple profit. It requires a determination to coexist with our natural world while eliminating the stresses that overpower daily life in megalopolises. It requires a dedication to the development of new methods of transportation and infrastructure delivery. But as our cities continue to grow and become more impersonal and fatigued, it may be time to try something new.

This country has plenty of open space where new city models could be tried. Cooperation between government, business, and citizens could begin to establish these areas, drawing city dwellers to new opportunities and effectively allowing existing over-populated areas to thin out in time. By adopting a long
view towards development, we can increase the quality of life for ourselves today and for future generations to come, and also begin to reverse some of the damage we’ve done to the natural world.