Welcome

Bogota Mayor’s Seminar

Tim Campbell, PhD.

Urban Age Institute

2

Content

• Cities on the rise– Lessons from experience

• Why city learning: the growing need to acquire new knowledge

• A shadow market– a survey of learners• Cases– informal, technical, corporate• Common features• Directions for Bogota

AntecedentesAntecedentes• Plan Estratégico Bogotá 2.000 (1994-1997)

• Estudio Monitor de Competitividad para Bogotá (1997)

• Plan Distrital de Desarrollo “Por la Bogotá que queremos”

1998-2000

• Plan Distrital “Bogotá para vivir todos del mismo lado” 2001-

2003

• Plan Departamental “Trabajemos Juntos por Cundinamarca”

2001-2003

• Comité Intergremial de Bógotá y Cundinamarca (2001)

• Mesa de Planificación Regional (2001)

• Consejo Regional de Competitividad (2002)

• Talleres para la construcción de la visión (2002-2003)

• Análisis y estudios regionales, nacionales y mundiales

Typical issues

• Issues in Bogota– Regional integration– Metropolitan urban development

• Cities by the thousands are learning and innovating – How do they learn? What are they learning?

Land Use Variation by City and Region

Comparative population densities in metropolitan areas identified by region

389367

365322

286282

230223

207182

171168

145143

134127

121107

102101

9488

8171

656362

5855545353

5146

4038

3632

2221

19161614

116

- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mumbay (Bombay)Hong KongGuangzhou

SeoulShanghai

Seoul +new townsTianjin

HyderabadBangalore

MoscowBarcelona metro.

YerevanBeijing

AbidjanAhmedabad

Jakarta (municipality)St Petersburg

SingaporeTunis

Rio de JaneiroSofiaParis

WarsawPragueCracow

BudapestLondon

BangkokBrasiliaCuritiba

MarseilleJohannesburg

Jabotabek (Jakarta Metro)Ljubljana

New YorkToulouse

BerlinCapetown

Los AngelesWashington metro.

San FranciscoSan Francisco Bay

ChicagoPortland (Oregon)

HoustonAtlanta

Population Density (people/Hectare)source:"Order Without Design" Alain Bertaud,2000 file: L_Cities_data.xls

Asia

Europe

Africa

Latin America

USA

Comparator

• Land use

– Cities and density

– Atlanta and

Barcelona

Comparative population densities in metropolitan areas identified by region

389367

365322

286282

230223

207182

171168

145143

134127

121107

102101

9488

8171

656362

5855545353

5146

4038

3632

2221

19161614

116

- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mumbay (Bombay)Hong KongGuangzhou

SeoulShanghai

Seoul +new townsTianjin

HyderabadBangalore

MoscowBarcelona metro.

YerevanBeijing

AbidjanAhmedabad

Jakarta (municipality)St Petersburg

SingaporeTunis

Rio de JaneiroSofiaParis

WarsawPragueCracow

BudapestLondon

BangkokBrasiliaCuritiba

MarseilleJohannesburg

Jabotabek (Jakarta Metro)Ljubljana

New YorkToulouse

BerlinCapetown

Los AngelesWashington metro.

San FranciscoSan Francisco Bay

ChicagoPortland (Oregon)

HoustonAtlanta

Population Density (people/Hectare)source:"Order Without Design" Alain Bertaud,2000 file: L_Cities_data.xls

Asia

Europe

Africa

Latin America

USA

Tim Campbell, PhD.

Urban Age Institute

sustainability

Electric cars

transit

participation

upgrading

renewal

Selected City Visits (n=43; total cities =165)

AmmanAthens, US

Bangkok

Barcelona

Berlin

Bogota

Brussels Region

Buenos Aires, DF

Cebu City

Charlotte

Colombo

Da NangDakar Region

HanoiHonolulu Hyderabad

IncheonIstanbul Metro

Kathmandu

Kobe

Madrid

Manila City

Mashhad

Melbourne

Mexico Metro

Naga City

Paris Region

Phnom Penh

Portland

Salt Lake City

San Salvador

Santa Cruz, BO

Seattle

Seoul Metro

Stockholm

Surabaya

TabrizTehran

Toronto

Turin

Ulaanbaatar

Abruzze

AmsterdamAnchorage

Atlanta

Auckland

Beijing

BilbaoBologna

BostonBudapest

Busan

Cambridge

Chicago

Choibalsan

Chongqing

Cleveland

Copenhagen

Curitiba

Darkhan

Denver

Detroit

EdinboroughEssen

Florence

Florianopolis

FrankfurtFredericton Frieberg

Fukuoka

Geneva

Goteborg

Guangzhou

Hanover

Helsinki

Hong Kong

Hubli Dharward

Indianapolis

Jeju

Johannesburg

Khandahar

Kiev

Kitakyushu

Kochi

Kyoto

Lille

Lima

London

Los Angeles

Lyon

Makati

Malmo

Marikina

Marseille

Mazatlan

Mazovie

Medellín

Miami

Minneapolis

Montevideo

Montréal

Moscow

Munich

Nanjing

New York

Odense

Pasig

PhiladelphiaPhoenix

Porto Alegre

Québec

Quezon City

Rabat Rome

Rosario

Rotterdam Sainshand

San Diego

San Francisco

San Jose

Sao Paulo

Savannah

Stockholm Metro

Seville

Shanghai

Singapore

Sofia

St. Louis

StuttgartThe Hague

TokyoUlsan

VancouverWarsaw

Xiamen

Yokohama

Typology of Urban Networks: Styles of Learning

Type of Network Examples

One on One SeattleResource Cities of ICMA

Clusters on Clusters Bertelsmann Cities of Change Metropolis UNESCO Cultural Heritage TwinningCity Round

One on Many Barcelona and CIDEU, Paranaciudade

City Networks MDG Sister Cities InternationalInfocity Asia City Net (UN)Mercociudades

Network Conveners Glocal ForumSalzburg SeminarUCLG/ Metropolis

Investment in Learning (time spent by individual respondents)

Average time spent on learning is equivalent to 4-12 %

• Benchmarks– EU investment 3-6 % of GDP in OECD– World Bank 5% of admin budget– US Corporations 5-7 % (O’Leonard)

Tim Campbell, PhD.

Urban Age Institute

Number of Study Tours by City Size

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Num

ber o

f vis

its

Size of City Visited

Size of Visitors

.05 to .5

.5 to 1

1 to 5

5 to 10

10 +

What varies in learning?

• Agency and Sponsorship– civic vs business, commerce vs neighborhood

• Delegations– business, civic, political

• Scope of focus– narrow-broad

• Destinations—local, regional, global

• Continuity– repeats, themes, one-offs.

Barcelona

Charlotte

Portland

Turin

Internal Networks

Features of the clouds

• Power positions– Sometimes hidden– gates

• Isolates– Gaps

• Growth of networks– breaking in

Tim Campbell, PhD.

Urban Age Institute

Comparative view

Learning Torino Portland

Social capital Segmented by age

Segmented by sector

Networks Tight, but closed Loose, but open

Result High speed, low diversity

Low speed, high diversity

Tim Campbell, PhD.

Urban Age Institute

Internal learning

• Cities have different styles

• Building trust-understanding

• Not just size: Shape matters too– internal networks have tradeoffs– Both can work

• Strategies of crossing boundaries– Age, newcomers, disciplines

Tim Campbell, PhD.

Urban Age Institute

Tissue of remembering

Besides “clouds of trust”

• A mandate

• An office

• A data base

• A seminar series

• Documented write ups

• Web site

More than just collaboration

Communities that succeed form a “ba,” an innovative climate of trust

Exceptional effort is required to build and sustain trust

Nonaka’s “Ba”

Socialization

Combination

Externalization

Internalization

Styles of learning

• Informal-- Portland

• Technical-- Curitiba

• Corporate-- Bilbao

1. Portland’s informal styleCharlotte and Turin, too

2. Curitiba a technical learnerlike Amman and Cd Juarez

• The “surface metro” in Curitiba