You might find this post by Ian Klaus at CityLab about the prospective effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cities interesting. Think it will result in sweeping policy changes? Think again:
Historical analogies are a dangerous and difficult game, and the combination of a public health crisis with an economic downturn cautions that they should be deployed carefully. The coronavirus stands to deliver big surprises and innovations in policy, politics and space. But even as an imperfect guide, history suggests one should not wait on a dramatic post-pandemic revolution in urban space. Why?
There are a number of explanations for the force of historical inertia in urban spaces. The creative classes and politics that give shape to the built environment require expertise, organization and trusting relationships, all of which take time to build. The bureaucratic institutions that ultimately manage these spaces are, by intention, rarely revolutionary in nature. Even new technology, as the historian David Edgerton has illustrated, rarely ushers in immediate change. And finally, there is the intersection of urban areas and the wider economy. Whether cities are shaped to attract investors or businesses or are shaped as much by them, capitalism has shown itself capable of both adapting to and shaping new forms of space.
For those hoping that we might at this moment be shocked into some historic urban transformation, the story of continuity will not be welcome news.
Another factor that he does not mention. All sorts of organizations, whether private corporations, NGOs, not-for-profits, or government departments are already fully mobilized to shape public policy in directions they favor. They will not let a little thing like a pandemic dissuade them. They’ve been doing that for decades now and their inertia is tremendous.
