Barcelona Metropolis

Indeed, one of the many by-products of this emergency situation is that it has forced governments to work more on the basis of the problem than of powers, more on the basis of collaboration and proximity than of hierarchy and distance (when, precisely, the natural scenario for public authorities is a pyramid structure with a clear distribution of powers). We are going through situations in which it is no longer enough to say “we will set up a committee”. The problem is what dictates, and the solutions that are considered must be directly connected to it. It is very different to see the coordination or the alternatives at street level and at the crux of the problem than to think about it from the vantage point generally taken by each organisation or department to relate to reality. What is gained in perspective from afar is lost in precision. The chants for recentralisation that are now heard are, in this sense, sorely mistaken.

Moreover, it seems obvious that global mobility shall be seriously challenged, and with it the overactivity of large airport hubs. Security measures taken in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks will now be intensified with temperature controls, internationally recognised immunity certificates, personal protective equipment, distancing at access points and reduced capacity on aircraft. Other similar protocols can be transferred to trains and public transport in general. Commercial, cultural, sports and tourist activities that imply crowds of people must also be controlled according to the health requirements that are prescribed. In each case, different parameters must be combined: those of the health authorities; the public’s willingness to follow the guidelines in relation to the purposes of the event (the balance between the incentives to attend and the disincentives on account of the number of precautions to be taken); and the logistical capacity of the bodies, companies or institutions that organise the activity.

Cities will also be forced to rethink their economic, work and social dynamics, as well as their urban structure. What these days is a large-scale telecommuting experiment may end up transforming cities and their connections with the metropolitan environment. As more investment is made in the connectivity of all activities, the potential appeal of density as an innovation factor will be diminished. Nevertheless, the leading cities in knowledge, science and technological innovation will undoubtedly hold onto all their appeal, although the validity of their lines of research and the appropriateness of seeking new co-production and co-responsibility mechanisms in the link between business projects and public investment dynamics[1] must be rethought.

The importance currently held by front-line services (nursing, emergency, food, cleaning and care) needs to be recognised not only symbolically, but as regards work. We urgently have to face the obvious restrictions faced by institutions[2] that host the elderly, in pursuit of formulae that allow the aged to continue living in their homes and in social environments and appraising methods of care, which require updating. The same is true for the serious deficiencies in the provision of basic products and in the local food network, which has revealed the dependence that cities have. The diversification of economic activities (with greater presence of the technologically advanced industry) and the incorporation of local production spaces (of basic products, especially food) that reduce external dependence are approaches that must be reconsidered after these exceptional circumstances.

Uneven impact

The impact of the Covid-19 crisis has not been evenly[1] spread across all cities. Ostensibly, we were facing a “democratic” virus in the sense that it could equally affect people from all walks of life, of every age, gender and place of residence. In practice, and after several weeks of evolution of the pandemic and lockdown, there is an abundance of data on the uneven incidence of the coronavirus crisis. The impacts of the disease have been greater among the aged, disadvantaged families, the workforce whose jobs involve greater social contact, and among citizens who have been forced to work, despite the pandemic, because of their field. It is worth rethinking the relationship between private and public space in cities. The measures being applied in some cities to curb the over-occupancy of the urban area by cars, such as superilles [superblocks] in Barcelona, can play a key role in this regard.

The side effects of the health crisis, such as the loss of jobs, the closing of schools or the severing of local ties, have caused greater precariousness and have generated more basic livelihood difficulties for people with low-paying jobs, with no established legal status or with a non-existent or very fragile digital connectivity status. The multiplicity of these types of factors in one person or group triggers, as we know, situations of greater social exclusion and vulnerability. They are also situations that do not allow for segmented responses, since they require complex and made-to-measure approaches. Hence the importance of multi-factor investment projects, such as the Barcelona Neighbourhood Plan, which allow comprehensive approaches to prevent inequalities from growing and generating deeper divides.

The post-crisis phases of the “easing” or “lifting” of lockdown measures will also put cities to the test. While it hasn’t been easy to achieve a more than reasonable follow-up of the health recommendations to face the pandemic, it can be equally or more difficult to get amenities, shops, schools or public spaces of all kinds back in action, according to their peculiarities, the types of activity, the target audiences, and so on. Furthermore, another question that we must ask ourselves is whether the aforementioned advantages in terms of cities’ mobility and environmental quality that the emergency situation has forced on them can somehow be upheld. This crisis evidently shows us the mistakes made in separating nature and culture,[1] favouring the hegemony of urban imaginaries as a synonym for innovation and progress and undervaluing the importance of maintaining basic balances between city and habitat. In this regard, as in so many others, we are left with the question of whether the “new normal” after the Covid-19 crisis will proceed in the sense of resilience (maintaining our guidelines and ways of doing things, despite the shock generated) or if as a result of the pandemic and its enormous impact on “normality” we will be able to break with routines and habits, which would allow us to improve our city living conditions and better face the inevitable crises that we will face.

The coronavirus crisis is proving too costly in term of lives and hardships to speak of it as an opportunity. But it can reveal the things that are worth persevering for, and the city is one of them. Places in which proximity, a sense of community between strangers, the possibility of living together, of having our own autonomy and of being recognised in our diversity, hold onto all their strength and appeal. Open cities are, and should continue to be, a manifestation of concentrated life.