Urban planning in Dezevau

Urban planning in Dezevau is the planning and design of cities in Dezevau. It has a history that stretches back two thousand years or more, though modern urban planning only emerged after Dezevauni independence in 1941. It is a key academic, governmental and political concern, influenced strongly in the present day by the nature of local and federal power, and by the ideal of a democratic and socialist economy. The most significant urban planning agencies are the district planning commissions, but like many other political processes in Dezevau, consultation with and input from both higher and lower governmental strata are crucial.

History

Medieval city-states

The concept of the city had great cultural and political significance in premodern Dezevau. In some sense, the city's magnificence and history legitimised the city-state's position among other states (or boga) in the region; settlements which were not the capitals of city-states or a province of the Aguda Empire are generally not referred to as cities in premodern Dezevauni history. As nexuses and seats of power, there was significant attention paid to ensuring cities were defensible, functional and beautiful. The city-state's ruling council or monarch generally had significant involvement in the city's design, layout and construction.

Perhaps the defining feature of the medieval Dezevauni city was the city wall. It was not only the most important line of defence, but was also the most symbolic delineator of the city, as opposed to its hinterland. It generally surrounded the city on all sides, including on sides facing water, as naval warfare was common. The placement of the gates in the wall oriented the city's psychological sense of place and direction, and in some cases, gates had strictly prescribed uses; commonly, there was a single main gate for the waterfront. Despite the importance of the wall, however, there were usually some areas just outside of the walls which were nonetheless urban in character, though they were at times temporary in nature. These included military camps, quarantine facilities, markets (sometimes set up to avoid regulations which only applied within the walls), port facilities, tanneries, slaughterhouses, or simply overflow urbanity from an overcrowded city. When extending city walls, the city government was able to sell the newly enclosed land to generate funds, but also saw it as an opportunity to guide the development of the city.

Within the city itself, it was generally densely built up and populated, with little or no greenspace. There were generally identifiable districts, which governments encouraged the development of for utilitarian purposes. For example, markets tended to be located near the port and/or gates. Near the centre of the city was generally an open area, the civic ground, around which the city's most important civic institutions were located. Though normally just the most important thoroughfare, it was used for meetings, demonstrations and ceremonies; popular involvement in government was largely through this venue. The most powerful people in the city often lived in residences just behind the buildings surrounding the civic square, though in the later medieval period, and in cities where inequality was greater and civic feeling weaker, there was a tendency to move to the edges of the city, where land was more available and more defensible, luxurious residences could be constructed.

Land ownership was semi-formalised, and depended significantly on custom, though generally private alienation was possible. On death, real property was generally not distributed by will, but by the appointment of a ngamuigounau, who would distribute it among the deceased's friends, supporters and relatives, with need being a significant consideration. In this way, significant holdings did not concentrate in private hands over time, though renting and landlordism were by no means uncommon. Prominent and long-lived families often had a building or area which was associated with them over many generations, as did some institutions such as businesses. However, governments did compulsorily acquire private property for public purposes at times (such as when it was necessary to widen a congested road, or to strengthen the city walls), especially when it was seen as being improperly used or unused; compensation, if provided, might be negotiated in the form of land elsewhere, certain rights, or money. It was furthermore an everyday function of government was to prevent private protrusions onto public spaces such as roads. Buildings were generally built of stone, and thus long-lived; this also played a role in fire prevention.

Urban civil infrastructure was a key concern of urban governments, and included the paving and cleaning of roads, the maintenance of canals and port facilities, the provision of clean water, and dealing with traffic congestion. Water (apart from collected rainwater) was usually sourced from a nearby river, and was sometimes pumped to fountains or canals in the city to aid in its accessibility. The management of the water supply was closely tied to drainage and sewage systems, which consisted of stone or brick-lined trenches (or sometimes pipes) which discharged outside the city, generally downstream at a river. This system was comparatively advanced in the world for its time; ample combined sewers and drains both mitigated flooding and aided in sanitation, especially where pumped running water kept them clear. Private waste and that which accumulated on the roads could disposed of by sweeping into channels.

Aguda Empire

The Aguda Empire generally saw the continuation of medieval urban trends, albeit in a context of accelerated population growth, commercial activity and urbanisation. The capital, Dabadonga, was exemplary of this, and had a significant impact on later urban planning. Significant alterations to the general layout of the city occurred in connection to the demands of imperial administration and defence, however. In the core regions of the empire, furthermore, the importance of the walls decreased, as they saw little use in a context of military strength and political stability.

The relationship between the empire and its subjects was reflected in the trend of the construction of citadels, which provided an extra level of defence and control over the city. They were areas of the city which were separate and more fortified than the rest of the city, often constructed at the edge of the city where there was space. In case of attack or revolt, they were secure areas from which the administrators of the province could operate, in relative isolation from the rest of the city. Citadels were not built in all cities, however; they were more common near the frontiers, where subjects were more restive and the possibility of foreign attack was more real.

In some regions, depending on local conditions, only provincial capitals had the privilege of maintaining city walls; other settlements, though they might have a citadel, were deprived of that level of defence and status. In some cases, existing settlements' walls were razed, usually as a response to some provocation or slight, such as a rebellion. Another way in which the Aguda Empire hamstrung unwanted urban development was by having the civic ground (if one existed) built over, depriving the populace of its traditional avenue of expression. This was rare, however; generally, it was effective at assimilating existing urbanisms.

A related trend was the retreat of the ruling classes from public life, or the retreat of governance from public engagement. Where they did not live in the citadel, many of the richest and most powerful people, families and institutions came to occupy areas near the edge of the city, which were more isolated and defensible from the rest of the city. Some even came to live beyond the cities, in the countryside, as urban unrest became more of a threat than foreign attack. Further from the centre of the city, it was also less crowded and more comfortable; much of the grandest and most refined Aguda architecture that survives was a result of this trend. Overall, urban configurations reflected cities which were increasingly ruled from beyond, rather than which were polities in their own right.

Dabadonga was the zenith of Aguda Empire urban planning, being its planned capital, and for a time, its biggest city. Its relatively orderly layout was both an organisational boon, as well as allowing grander architecture. It had the most advanced system of water supply and drainage of any city in the empire, as well as the most advanced canal system. Its internal walls were a kind of extension of the logic of city walls in other cities, and were an important feature of the city's configuration. The central walled governmental district reflected where power lay. Dabadonga influenced other cities in the empire, and other successive cities.

The dying days of the Aguda Empire saw deurbanisation and a decline in its governmental capacity. Despite this, its city governments largely continued to function until they were taken over by a greatly pared-down colonial government, which largely left the old cities alone outside of strategic areas such as ports, government buildings and fortifications.

Colonialism

Though they retained formal importance, provincial capital cities were neglected in terms of governance by Saint Bermude's Company. Attention was paid mainly to securing key facilities and areas, such as fortifications, ports, administrative offices, canals and such. The Aguda Empire's political and economic decline saw urban governance become unable to carry out basic functions such as the maintenance of roads, while the cities themselves experienced deurbanisation. The artisanal classes and service workers who congregated in cities reoriented to serve the new Euclean or Euclean-affiliated ruling class, but overall experienced a decline in size and complexity as Euclea became the centre of global trade and manufacturing. Large areas of cities became picturesque ruins, occupied only where they were proximate to colonial activity, largely only by lumpenproletariat unable to be a part of the agricultural economy. Their occupation by bazaars, beggars, brothels, generally non-capital intensive service industries, has been analogised to the situation in the developing world in dependency theory.

Bouches-de-Jouvence (present-day Naimhejia), Saint-Bermude (today a part of New Begia), Mount Palmerston, Crescent Island City and (to a lesser extent) Dhijivodhi were the main cities in Dezevau which were built up and governed in detail by Euclean administration until the 20th century. Centres of colonial governance, entrepots, and even residences or workshops for the Euclean regime, they were an exception to the decline of Dezevauni urbanism. There, urban planning was largely imported from the metropoles of the colonial rulers (Gaullica, except for Estmerish Mount Palmerston). As monuments, exemplars and models of Euclean urbanism, they were influential on later Dezevauni urban planning.

With the nationalisation of Saint Bermude's Company by the Gaullican government, change was slow, but the advent of the National Functionalist regime saw change accelerate. It is controversial what their intentions with regards to colonial policy were, but there are signs that it considered a significant change in the existing policy towards the industrialisation and governance of colonies. In any case, its plans largely went unrealised or were not detailed, owing to internal bureaucratic resistance and confusion, and then its defeat in the Great War.

Governmental and consultative framework

Urban planning in Dezevau is a process carried out by a variety of institutions with differing roles to play. Efforts are made to seek input from all relevant stakeholders, so that consultation is extensive compared to the processes adopted in other systems around the world. The primary urban planning bodies are the district planning commissions, but they are significantly beholden both to certain state and federal bodies and to municipalities, in specified subject areas such as intercity transport, industrial land use, eviction, and so forth.

Districts

Districts are administrative units of varying size, generally formed by the voluntary confederation of municipalities, though state governments have indirect powers to induce municipalities to merge into or disassociate from districts. Districts are approximately contemporaneous with cities' metropolitan areas, though being the result of legally voluntary association, boundaries can be inconsistent; district populations range between from the tens of thousands to Bagabiada at 5.1 million. Districts cannot cross state lines, but special quasi-districtal structures exist for interstate cities. Most municipalities are part of districts, but those which are not retain most of the powers normally held at district level. Considerable power is held at the district level, including most of the responsibilities that fall under urban planning, such as arterial roads, commuter transit and public plumbing. District councils (districts' top-level governmental body) are filled by the delegates of municipalities.

District planning commissions

District planning commissions are the bodies with primary responsibility for most aspects of urban planning. Appointed by district councils, they are executive agencies mainly staffed by professionally trained urban planners, designers, architects, etc. Though district councils have oversight and retain delegated powers, district planning commissions have the legal power to carry out their plans otherwise. District planning commissions do not themselves operate most systems of the city, but rather have a privileged position among the other district agencies (such as those managing water, sewage, parks, drainage, roads, etc.) They are usually the coordinators of construction at the district level where resources are needed from higher levels of government. The head of a district planning commission is often known informally as the chief planner.

While district planning commissions are the vehicles for urban planning in urban districts, many non-urban districts have them as well in a similar capacity—their role is often similar in terms of managing land use and spatial organisation, though the practical functionality is very different in non-urban contexts.

State and federal commissions liaison

District-level planning is significantly imposed on by federal and state policy, mainly in spheres where governance at greater scale is deemed appropriate. These spheres are dealt with through liaison staff (on both ends) between the district planning commission and the relevant state or federal agency. This structure creates a degree of "vertical" continuity for particular policy areas (as opposed to "horizontal" integration between different levels of government, such as the federal or municipal); the internal structure of district planning commissions may also reflect the different areas. Such a structure has been assessed both positively and negatively, as maintaining continuity and institutional robustness by cross-bracing against friction between different levels of government, or as unnecessary duplication and complexity in government. Efforts to reduce federal-state conflict can benefit districtal governance by reducing the duplicative liaisons they must undertake.

Relevant areas of state power include non-strategic industries (e.g. logging, light manufacturing, civil construction), regional roads, healthcare and employment. Water (as in rivers, canals, dams) was traditionally a state responsibility, but as a result of interstate disputes and a growing recognition of a global water cycle, has increasingly become a federal responsibility. Electricity has also increasingly become a federal responsibility as integration and economies of scale have intensified. Relevant areas of federal power include defence, telecommunications, and interstate and international transportation. Generally, state agencies have more impact on urban planning than federal. Not all agencies have liaisons, while some districts may vary in terms of what they liaison about; for example, crematoria, though a state responsibility, might require very little attention in a small district.

Historically, state and federal government were more able to dictate to district governments, doing so mostly through the state economic commissions, which were preeminently agencies for industrialising, imports and exports, and maintaining agricultural and other extraction. However, districts gained standing relative to state governments after the Cultural Revolution, and a more continuous, decentralised, consensus-based model was adopted even in key areas of economic management.

Though not an executive commission in the same way, interactions between the judiciary and district planning commissions largely follow the same model.

Municipal government and liaison

Municipalities are formally the lowest level of government, with their creation and subsistence being constitutionally protected where they are voted upon by their residents; decisionmaking is substantially direct-democratic in municipalities. In an urban context, they are roughly equivalent to a neighbourhood or suburb, and they generally confederate to form districts, as aforementioned. Many municipal powers are thus exercised by district government, but municipalities retain significant power locally, and are also important for their ability to affiliate to or disaffiliate from districts, and their legal ability to subsist or come into existence without the approval of higher administration.

District-level planning must take into account municipal power over matters such as the allocation of housing, buildings' rights of way, childcare, noise and so forth. Ceded powers include those relating to local roads, However, in practice, districts consult municipalities even where not strictly necessary, while municipalities see the necessity of district-level governance for key functionality. To some extent, the dependence of some urban municipalities on built-up district governance is seen as leaving them powerless. However, at times, municipalities have exercised their independence to try and improve their position vis-a-vis districts, often with some success. The most significant cases in which municipalities have been an obstacle to urban development are generally where viable rural municipalities unaffiliated with the urban district have resisted urbanisation, despite their land being important for urban growth. In these cases, the legal status and political organisation of erstwhile urbanising squatters has often taken on an outsized importance, and state and even federal government have sometimes gotten involved. This tendency has driven the density of Dezevauni cities, as it has not been straightforward to acquire land for new urban development even at the best of times.

Urban planners, in practice, have considerable influence on the makeup of municipalities, however. Greenfield development (where rural land has been secured for urban purposes) often provided an opportunity to essentially determine the layout of communities before anyone was actually living there. Furthermore, when densification occurs, district-level governance may take the lead in suggesting lines along which to split large municipalities, though a popular vote is still necessary.

Public consultation

Though there may be the exercise of direct democratic powers at the municipal level, and to a lesser extent at higher levels of government, urban planning generally also involves direct consultation with the public. Direct feedback and communication can help provide clarity and transparency. Direct consultation with the public is more about communication and information than about formal decisionmaking powers, but it nonetheless has considerable significance in the process. Methods of consultation include through media (such as television, posters, the Internet), through meetings in person (often in tandem with municipal, neighbourhood or building meetings), focus groups, polling, temporary information kiosks and so forth; different agencies use different methods depending on the circumstances.

Key principles and ideology

The discipline and consequently the practice of urban planning in Dezevau is aligned with a number of key ideas, some prescribed by government, some variable between urban planners. Internationally, the urban planning consensus model within Dezevau is identified as the Dezevauni school; it is characterised by the prominence of radical elements such as local power and socialist egalitarianism, planned in detail. There is significant contact between Dezevauni and international urban planning, especially the socialist world, such that foreign theory is key. To an extent, the Dezevauni academy and federal government encourage cross-pollination or homogeneity within urban planning in Dezevau. There is, however, significant internal variation, by region, by level of government, by political ideology, and so forth.

Equity

Perhaps the most important principle is that of equity, a key part of the socialist ideological system overall. Its exact application can be difficult because of variation by person and place; the principle is balanced with practical outcomes, which ought not be hamstrung by overzealous ideological fastidiousness. Debates between equality of opportunity and outcome also play into urban planning as they do in politics generally, undergirded by the concept of human rights. In the past, a more productivist ethos has been overtaken by a focus on quality of life, as Dezevau has developed into a demographically stable and industrialised society.

Informed by studies of urban issues around the world including environmental classism and racism, ghettoisation, privatisation of public space, segregation, suburbanisation, urban decay and gentrification, urban planners consider a wide variety of potential impactors on urbanism. Equity in an urban context is closely connected to the concept of the freedom of the city (discussed below), though it raises more points which are specific to the scale of the city, whereas equity is a more general, overarching concern.

Another key concern when considering equity is the differing needs and experiences of different people and groups. Closely related to the concept of pluralism, difference is not necessarily inequality where opportunity was duly afforded. Mobility in employment, residential location, household structure, culture (and generally other aspects of political geography) are therefore important to urban planning, as ideally affording but not determining different urban experiences.

Though not strict categories, urban planners commonly consider characteristics such as age, culture, gender, location, migratory status (i.e. whether one is a resident of the city or not), familial situation and class to ensure that equity is being done. Public consultation is an important way of discovering and raising concerns which might fail to be expressed via government.

Freedom of the city

In principle, any inhabitant of the city has equal and free access to space which is not personal (or otherwise restricted as industrial, military, etc.)

supplanted by freedom of movement

equity at city scale vs others