Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Classrooms stand empty, floors fill with rubble, and any remaining, forgotten books in the shelves gather dust. This is a widespread phenomenon in Pakistan – ghost schools; structures where students and teachers alike decided, one day, to never return. In Karachi alone, circa 2013, over 100 schools were ghost schools, with a handful on their way there given poor infrastructure and load shedding. During COVID lockdowns, this number reached higher. Students who dropped out during COVID did not necessarily return once lockdown was over. Education is a necessary right for all, and the SDG 4, Quality Education, as well as SDG 5, Gender Equality, are some of the SDGs that Pakistan has been officially working towards. These ghost schools, their causes (poor infrastructure), their current states (sites of criminal activity and squatting), and their consequences (lack of decent work and economic growth – among other SDGs), greatly affect how productive, cohesive, and healthy Pakistani society is, and can be, as a whole.
What I envision, through not only the sort of regeneration of empty, abandoned land as I exercised in the previous post, but additionally through an organically grown new system, through a network of hubs of socioeconomic and educational activity, connected via public transport routes linked to one another, is a version of Pakistan that fulfils the potentials it has, by putting these ghost schools to work – in ways perhaps a bit more diverse than originally intended than when these schools were first constructed.
One of the foundational texts, one could say, in this program, pops up at the beginning of the curriculum. The New Urban Agenda, the mouthpiece of the ever-reliable UN, outlines requirements and makes demands on what makes a real 21st century city sustainable, and therefore equitable. Fair enough.
The handbook outlines its objectives, stating clearly that, given the interdisciplinarity of urban development at large, the recommendations, strategies and concepts covered would “require coordinating various sectors to achieve sustainability and success.” It continues that the NUA intends to leave no one behind, ensuring as ever sustainable urban economies – that are also inclusive – and doesn’t stop there. In fact, the NUA goes on to establish its legitimacy, citing the process and work done extensively that lead to the production of this handbook, actionable in any country-wide, regional, and local context.
If that is so, then this means the handbook can be applied – with some tweaks and modifications – to any geography, any sociopolitical context. The NUA says so. Then why are the systems of cultures not as close to the Eurocentric norm accepted (and propagated*) by the UN not treated with the same level of possibility and dignified language?
Why does it not bear mentioning that some of the different land management systems were a result of UN in position through IMF, remnants of colonial systems, and other vestiges the UN has not raised a finger to help relieve, despite the bodies’ apparent mission of promote equitable opportunities for growth throughout different nations?
Planning for typical urban renewal with strategies that have heretofore been applied to (and not even always worked for) a Western city standard, and now expecting these strategies to be simply transplanted on possibly different climates, and definitely different cultures, which would have shaped city – to some extent – differently, with spaces built for different purposes and functions.
Why does the language dismiss these practices and norms? Why does it not take the perceived difficulties as challenging contexts that the NUA should mold to? Instead, we get this address that seems to sweep these contexts to the side; no note of work on going to understand the intricacies and come up with localized solutions – the way the NUA boasts it can for other places – perhaps even all other places.
If the language in this post has seemed biased so far, or too demanding, let me go further. While the NUA was introduced in Evaluating Sustainable Lands and Cities, this next point comes from a case study presented in another course, Envisioning Sustainable Lands and Cities. One of the case studies covered was on REDD+, a UN program dedicated to positive climate efforts – in developing countries. That premise alone is two-toned; it seems understandable that a developing country would focus and prioritize improving more imminent facets of health, housing, economy and self-reliance issues through education, easily acquired energy, and so forth, as soon as possible. Trying to get there fast might overlook sustainable practice. Having a somewhat ‘global’ task force from the UN would help to keep such efforts aligned with sustainable practice, which, as we all know, has lasting impacts not only locally, but worldwide. But is this what REDD+ truly is? Continue reading “1.”→
