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, in contrast to its hinterland. It generally surrounded the city on all sides, including on sides facing water, as much if not most warfare was naval. 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 (almost all cities had a marine or riverine port). Despite the importance of the wall, however, there were usually some areas just outside of the walls which were urban in character, though they were sometimes only 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 urbanisation from an overcrowded city. When extending city walls, the city government was able to sell the newly enclosed land to generate funds, but it was also an important way for the government to shape the city's development and leave its mark on it for posterity.

The space within the city itself was generally densely built up and populated, with little or no greenspace. There were generally identifiable districts, which governments encouraged the development of at times, 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 politics weaker, there was a tendency to move to the edges of the city. There, land was more available and more defensible, and more private and luxurious residences could be constructed.

Land was owned by individuals, but private alienation of it was not always possible where restricted by custom or law. There was no concept of artificial personhood as with corporations, but some property was seen as belonging properly to institutions, on whose behalf individuals administered it. On death, the deceased's 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, considering their closeness, need and other social factors. The ngamuigounau had discretion in these duties, but legal proceedings could be brought against them if the discretion were exercised too capriciously. In this way, significant holdings did not concentrate in private hands over time, though renting and landlordism were by no means uncommon.

Some buildings or land became associated with families or institutions over generations, and acquired special significance or status in that way. Most property could be dealt with privately in the ordinary way by individuals, however. Governments sometimes compulsorily acquired private property for public purposes (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. City buildings were generally built of stone, and thus fairly long-lived; this also played a role in fire prevention.

Urban civil infrastructure was a key concern of city 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 or piped to fountains or canals in the city to make it more accessible. 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, often 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 running water kept them clean. Waste from households, business and from off the roads was often disposed off by sweeping into the drainage channels, even though this was often discouraged or prohibited as a nuisance which could contribute to blockages.

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 typical 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 given political stability and the security of imperial hegemony.

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 for and control over the city. They were areas of the city which were separate to and more fortified than the rest of the city, usually built at the edge of the existing walls where there was open space. They projected military power whether the threat was attack or revolt, and were also secure areas which isolated administrators from the rest of the city in a cultural and social sense. Citadels were not built in all cities, however; they were more common near the frontiers, where threats of either or both revolt and attack were more present.

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 the security and status of a wholly walled city. In some cases, existing settlements' walls were razed, sometimes as a response to some provocation such as a rebellion, but also as part of routine governance at other times. 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, and usually a punishment; it seems to have been effective where implemented, though the success of the measure may also have been to do with other policies implemented simultaneously.

A trend related to citadel-building 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, as citadels were. Some even came to live beyond the cities, in the countryside, as urban unrest became more of a threat than foreign attack; this was comparatively rare, as rural unrest was also a serious cause for concern, perhaps one even more difficult to deal with than urban. Further from the centre of the city, it was also less crowded and more comfortable; much of the grandest and most luxurious Aguda architecture that survives was a result of this trend. Overall, urban configurations reflected cities which were increasingly ruled by an empire-wide class, 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 regular and spacious layout benefitted organisation and logistics, and also encouraged grand 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. Uniquely (when it was constructed), it had important internal walls, which were a kind of extension of the logic of city walls in other cities. 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 the lumpenproletariat unable to assimilate into the agricultural economy. Their occupation by bazaars, beggars, brothels, and 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.

Early independence, industrialisation and modernisation

In the wake of the Gaullican defeat, and the turbulence around the different groups trying to take power in the Estmerish mandate, not much attention was paid to urban planning. Some recently displaced peasants were able to return to their villages from the cities, but cities generally grew in size with population growth and the arrival of ethnic and political refugees from outside the proposed borders of Dezevau. Informal settlements sprung up haphazardly where there were jobs, such as near industry or port facilities. These were also the locations most crucial to those seeking to take power in Dezevau, and so they were often administered along military lines, with makeshift fortifications defining some cities for a time. Some deurbanisation occurred where industrial developments built by Gaullica were destroyed, abandoned, or dismantled and shipped away by Estmere.

The founding of the socialist republic in 1941 established a modicum of order, and most cities were organised as municipalities or as a small number of closely related municipalities. Mostly, the attentions of the new regime were on the agricultural countryside, but cities were natural hosts to nascent industrial development, especially as they continued to play hosts to unemployed, displaced populations. Industry was focused on domestic consumption and development, and so was dispersed across cities across the country, as so to service local areas. Universities were also established in cities in a similarly dispersed way.

Federal and state governance focused mainly on cities for their industry and role as centres of education, largely leaving other matters to local self-governance. For about a decade up until around 1955, local democracy flourished. Municipal politics became an incubator for popular understanding of and participation in council democracy. The importance of industry and universities in cities meant that unions and students were particularly significant participants in urban politics. Policies that emerged in this period include the formalisation of informal settlements, being not only popular at the grassroots level, but the most realistic option for cities with limited funds and administrative capacity. Running water and sanitation were another key and popular priority for cities, but progress was slow in other areas except where it was able to piggyback off industrial development (e.g. for electricity, paved roads, mechanised firefighting). While primary education was not a municipal responsibility, generally speaking, less formal schools run at the municipal level contributed significantly to its accessibility during the period when its implementation was still patchy.

Rise of urban planning paradigm

From the 1950s onwards, as the political, diplomatic and sectarian situations stabilised, much greater political emphasis came to be placed on industrialisation, modernisation and planning, with concomitant centralisation. The maturation of urban planning as a discipline internationally greatly influenced higher-level governments in Dezevau, which came to see it as an important tool for the development of Dezevau. Along with the mechanisation of agriculture (reducing labour needs) and population growth, industrialisation drove urbanisation at an accelerating rate. Land disputes between periurban villages and urban immigrants intensified in tenor, as did social conflict between established urbanites and new immigrants. Such problems were the juncture at which higher level governments began to assume stricter control of the cities. At the same time, this drove conflict between the representatives of local urban democracy and those more concerned with overall development, or the needs of would-be immigrants and the countryside.

Municipal powers were increasingly overridden and assumed by planners, many of them university-educated, and many overseas at that. State economic commissions became the main governing entities for urban development, controlling things such as the construction of housing, electrification, sewage processing, the placement of factories and transit systems. They tended to bring modernist ideologies to their work, planning to mathematically optimise productivity and efficiency in all things, and being quick to discard the old (though it is argued that they inherited a sense of the city as essentially politically and economically central). This approach saw the loss of certain historic buildings and areas which were subsequently mourned by the preservation movement. It also drove grassroots opposition, which chafed against bureaucratisation, micromanagement and alienation. This was especially the case with regards to more radical proposals, such as some disurbanist concepts which were never put into practice; the relative political difficulty of displacing villages continued to keep urban footprints small. However, state economic commissions continued to consult locally where convenient and applicable, such as for traffic management, and also maintained numerous existing practices such as neighbourhood formalisation; there was never a complete rupture in the urban governance system.

On the whole, the 1960s-70s saw rapid economic growth and complexification of urban governance structures, helping to burgeon a managerial class in the process. Many institutions of urban life date from this period, including the . Various contemporary assessments of the period differ in their emphasis on the curtailment of democracy and mismanagement, as opposed to the necessity of central management during a period of complex development. In any case, grassroots urban grievances would subsequently find expression in the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution and in the localist movement.

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 Dezevauni politics generally, undergirded by the concept of human rights; this is especially prominent because of the significance of urban planning to the governance system in Dezevau. 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. It has been suggested (at times, to its detriment) that urban planning is more international a discipline in Dezevau than anywhere else in the world because of these kinds of studies. 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.

Autonomous placemaking

A formal principle of Dezevauni urban planning is that places should essentially created under the power of the communities that inhabit them. This general principle developed, through the influence of radical, participatory notions of democracy in the 1980s and 1990s, out of older policies and principles such as settlement formalisation and democratic municipal founding.

The principle is contested insofar as municipalities do not get absolute power, and also insofar as the legal definition of municipalities does not necessarily map well to concepts such as community and place. However, it is generally given that basic decisions about places, such as its layout and decoration, should be made by the community of inhabitants, whensoever possible. The undergirding point is not that such decisions are crucial to the actual characteristics of a place, but that true democracy and freedom involve having a say about such things. Autonomous placemaking is held to be a good decisionmaking process for the makeup of the physical environment, as far as inhabitants know their own wants and needs well, but the irreplaceable aspect of autonomous placemaking is the psychological and political impact—of a space being turned into a place for its inhabitants, and one in which they have an investment, an attachment, and a sense of ownership. The discourse used by local communities to argue for expansions or maintenance of their powers tends to merge both justifications.

Settlement formalisation has been the most visible aspect of autonomous placemaking, even as it was first a significant phenomenon in the 1940s owing to a lack of resources to pursue physical development. The maintenance and upgrading of what were previous informal settlements, squats or slums has shaped the urban design of Dezevauni cities perhaps more than any other single policy, as well as having significant implications for topics such as neighbourhood or municipal politics, riot policing, localism, infrastructural development, demography and tourism. International interest in this highly visible practice has intensified in recent years, arguably a result of global trends in institutional decentralisation.

Temporal planning

An early innovation in Dezevauni urban planning, influenced by then-novel concepts such as the 24-hour city and shift work, is the idea of planning on a temporal (and not just spatial) scale. Plans, of course, consider what may happen over years in terms of demography, economic growth, environmental variations and so forth, but temporal planning made the aspect of time more explicit, and asked how planning was to account for variations over minutes, hours, days and seasons. In the 1950s, this was a relatively novel and radical concept; what might be a single space (e.g. a hall) was seen as capable of doubling up as several places (e.g. a conference room, a ballroom, a nightclub, a shelter), especially given the lack of the strictures of private property. At first, temporal planning was mainly seen as a way to multiply the efficiency of the built environment, but it quickly became about a broader conception of different people's differing usages of space over time. This principle was conceptually connected to the traditional functions of the ganome, which was an institution which was a place for childcare, cooking, eating, recreation and sleep at various times of the day, involving different numbers and kinds of people at different times even as it was an institution which touched virtually everyone in the immediate community.

Radical notions about 24-hour shift work arose but were quickly discarded in the 1950s, as concerns about social cohesion and solidarity joined with scientific concerns about the effects of daylight and the necessity of regular rest. Since then, temporality has been a relatively uncontroversial but explicit consideration in Dezevauni urban planning. Though the flexibility of space is now much more widely considered internationally, and is especially uncontroversial in more civically-minded systems, the ubiquity and fundamentality of the consideration in Dezevauni urban planning culture is credited with its strong urban planning in areas such as nightlife, planning for diversity (such as by age or neurodiversity), civil freedoms (such as protest) and transport accessibility.

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