**8. Innovative and inclusive urban planning design: The path to economic growth in global South cities**

Innovative refers to featuring new methods; advanced and original, introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking. Inclusive means including all the services or items normally expected. Innovative and inclusive urban planning designs therefore refer to planning designs that reflect steps ahead of the foundational planning systems to contextually-effective planning approaches that reflect current Global South urban realities. The innovative design should not be a *copy and paste design* that is a mere replica of the received planning standards rather it's a design that takes into account what is currently happening and considering a projected future condition. For the design to be effective, every sector of the city needs to be given some consideration-ensuring that it is all-inclusive. The innovative and inclusive urban planning design, if proposed by the planner may not get to the point of implementation with other stake-holders and so is not solely dependent on the urban planner but the planner needs to conceive and propose the idea and should show adequate evidence of the design being implementable that can convince other stakeholders to key-into the design.

An innovative and inclusive planning design should not also be a *one-size-fit all* design, the fact that a particular design worked in a city does not mean it will wholly work out in another city. The important point to note however is the need for there to be a willingness to accept a workable design and then the design can be adapted

**45**

*Future Planning of Global South Cities with Inclusive Informal Economic Growth in Perspective*

to suit the prevailing context. One of the limitations of the traditional planning standards is its focus on physical planning, ordering of land uses to accomplish an esthetic city without adequate balance in terms of economic and social life of residents. An innovative design must give due consideration to economic growth which will sustain the design when implemented and improve the standard of living of the residents to ensure affordability of provided infrastructure. The need for urban designs that give consideration to economic growth in addition to the usual ordering of land uses in global South cities cannot be over emphasized given that most global South cities have already been condemned to the position of informal economy cities. Without a conscious plan that includes economic growth and considers the urban poor which is expanding in global South cities, the cities will continue in their *status quo.* The change in our planning approaches and designs must start with the mind set of first the urban planner who proposes the design and that of all other stakeholders. The short-lived Warwick Junction case [53] from 1995 to 2010 is an example that planners can actually step *out of the box* and get planning to work and maximize the potentials of informal economy in Africa, the briefness of this South African case makes it an incomprehensive case for a model. However, a better and vivid case of a global South nation that has stepped ahead of the rudimentary

traditional planning standards and clearly succeeded is Singapore.

Singapore, the smallest nation (area-wise—700 sq km) in Southeast Asia, one of the least urbanized regions of the world like Africa; gained her independence from Britain on the 9th of August, 1965 after it was colonized in 1819. The economic success of Singapore from the 1980s saw it having its unemployment rate reduced to as low as 3% while its GDP growth averaged 8% up till 1999. The March 2019 unemployment figure is 3.2% [54]. The success story of Singapore's urban planning is detailed in Yuen [44] and would be briefly discussed here. Singapore like other colonized global South cities had its Singapore Master Plan set out in the 1959 Planning Ordinance, which was a 20-year statutory planning for land use with the major objective of *urban growth control and implementation of spatial improvements.* This major objective depicts the general picture of British-inherited master plans. In a brief analysis of the objective; urban growth control in the global South cities is currently a very difficult; and almost impossible task especially when it has to do with rural–urban migration, the international urban growth control may be possible but not intra-national. The second part of the objective on implementation of spatial improvement is like dealing with a superficial outcome of an issue while neglecting the root-cause, implying that if the root-cause is not dealt with, the issue will keep resurfacing until the root-cause is adequately treated. Based on these two scenarios, the master plan has become an incompetent tool for current urban challenges. After Singapore's independence, by 1971, they improved on the master plan by adopting the Concept plan-the nonstatutory, strategic planning framework and the same year the Singapore Institute of Planners was established. In her description of the concept plan, Yuen noted that;

*it embodies a planning approach that is more agile and collaborative across all urban aspects. Reflecting goal-oriented strategic urban planning, its emphasis is on defining the emergent vision of the city and strategies to effect flexibility and responsive shifts to solve big urban problems and meet growing needs, changing circumstances and available opportunities as they arise. The approach is influenced by pro-growth politics, seeking to describe what a city should have rather than* 

The 1971 concept plan was reviewed in 1991 and 2001 and is planned for a regular 10-year review. Some key lessons to be gleaned from Singapore's planning

*what it can have… ([44], p. 153).*

approach-Concept plan are as follows:

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89145*

#### *Future Planning of Global South Cities with Inclusive Informal Economic Growth in Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89145*

to suit the prevailing context. One of the limitations of the traditional planning standards is its focus on physical planning, ordering of land uses to accomplish an esthetic city without adequate balance in terms of economic and social life of residents. An innovative design must give due consideration to economic growth which will sustain the design when implemented and improve the standard of living of the residents to ensure affordability of provided infrastructure. The need for urban designs that give consideration to economic growth in addition to the usual ordering of land uses in global South cities cannot be over emphasized given that most global South cities have already been condemned to the position of informal economy cities. Without a conscious plan that includes economic growth and considers the urban poor which is expanding in global South cities, the cities will continue in their *status quo.* The change in our planning approaches and designs must start with the mind set of first the urban planner who proposes the design and that of all other stakeholders. The short-lived Warwick Junction case [53] from 1995 to 2010 is an example that planners can actually step *out of the box* and get planning to work and maximize the potentials of informal economy in Africa, the briefness of this South African case makes it an incomprehensive case for a model. However, a better and vivid case of a global South nation that has stepped ahead of the rudimentary traditional planning standards and clearly succeeded is Singapore.

Singapore, the smallest nation (area-wise—700 sq km) in Southeast Asia, one of the least urbanized regions of the world like Africa; gained her independence from Britain on the 9th of August, 1965 after it was colonized in 1819. The economic success of Singapore from the 1980s saw it having its unemployment rate reduced to as low as 3% while its GDP growth averaged 8% up till 1999. The March 2019 unemployment figure is 3.2% [54]. The success story of Singapore's urban planning is detailed in Yuen [44] and would be briefly discussed here. Singapore like other colonized global South cities had its Singapore Master Plan set out in the 1959 Planning Ordinance, which was a 20-year statutory planning for land use with the major objective of *urban growth control and implementation of spatial improvements.* This major objective depicts the general picture of British-inherited master plans. In a brief analysis of the objective; urban growth control in the global South cities is currently a very difficult; and almost impossible task especially when it has to do with rural–urban migration, the international urban growth control may be possible but not intra-national. The second part of the objective on implementation of spatial improvement is like dealing with a superficial outcome of an issue while neglecting the root-cause, implying that if the root-cause is not dealt with, the issue will keep resurfacing until the root-cause is adequately treated. Based on these two scenarios, the master plan has become an incompetent tool for current urban challenges. After Singapore's independence, by 1971, they improved on the master plan by adopting the Concept plan-the nonstatutory, strategic planning framework and the same year the Singapore Institute of Planners was established. In her description of the concept plan, Yuen noted that;

*it embodies a planning approach that is more agile and collaborative across all urban aspects. Reflecting goal-oriented strategic urban planning, its emphasis is on defining the emergent vision of the city and strategies to effect flexibility and responsive shifts to solve big urban problems and meet growing needs, changing circumstances and available opportunities as they arise. The approach is influenced by pro-growth politics, seeking to describe what a city should have rather than what it can have… ([44], p. 153).*

The 1971 concept plan was reviewed in 1991 and 2001 and is planned for a regular 10-year review. Some key lessons to be gleaned from Singapore's planning approach-Concept plan are as follows:

*Sustainability in Urban Planning and Design*

social. The continuous use of the traditional planning systems by global South planners especially in African cities to manage contemporary cities has been described as an *impossible task* ([51], p. 4 in [43]). This is due to Colonial-based urban planning systems adopted by these planners instead of contextual-based planning systems that take cognizance of the current urban realities in the global South. Another reason for the adjustment of the global South planning standards is that, the challenges of informal economic activities, were believed to be a problem characteristic of informal/unplanned settlements in global South cities and so did not constitute much challenge to urban planners' areas of jurisdiction, however, recent researches have shown that since the Structural Adjustment Programme of the 1990s, the 2008 global economic recession and more recently, the international neoliberal policies, the proliferation of informal economic activities has extended to the formal/planned layouts of high and medium density and surprisingly to the low density areas [52], the very domain of the rich in our cities. This is thought provoking and calls for urgent action by planners rather than the dogmatic refusal to acknowledge informal economy. Another reason for planners to reconsider their planning standards is that many governments of the global South cities have found solace for unemployment challenge by setting up skill-acquisition centres, entrepreneurship centre and smallscale training and empowerment centre, no matter the nomenclature adopted, the bottom line is that the possible form of empowerment and employment that most global South governments can offer to the teeming unemployed youths and adults is in the informal economy. Yet urban planners have no plan for accommodating these growing entrepreneurs in most global South cities. This scenario will very soon make the planning profession in the global South obsolete, inefficient and irrelevant to the contemporary city-residents. It is therefore a wakeup call for urban planners in the global South to rise up to the current challenge to ensure a continued relevance. It is expected that planners should step up from the traditional planning systems that laid the foundation of global south planning and step into current urban realities of the

global South by producing innovative and inclusive urban plans.

**growth in global South cities**

stakeholders to key-into the design.

**8. Innovative and inclusive urban planning design: The path to economic** 

Innovative refers to featuring new methods; advanced and original, introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking. Inclusive means including all the services or items normally expected. Innovative and inclusive urban planning designs therefore refer to planning designs that reflect steps ahead of the foundational planning systems to contextually-effective planning approaches that reflect current Global South urban realities. The innovative design should not be a *copy and paste design* that is a mere replica of the received planning standards rather it's a design that takes into account what is currently happening and considering a projected future condition. For the design to be effective, every sector of the city needs to be given some consideration-ensuring that it is all-inclusive. The innovative and inclusive urban planning design, if proposed by the planner may not get to the point of implementation with other stake-holders and so is not solely dependent on the urban planner but the planner needs to conceive and propose the idea and should show adequate evidence of the design being implementable that can convince other

An innovative and inclusive planning design should not also be a *one-size-fit all* design, the fact that a particular design worked in a city does not mean it will wholly work out in another city. The important point to note however is the need for there to be a willingness to accept a workable design and then the design can be adapted

**44**

The concept plan is not all about physical planning but went a step further to give real consideration to the economy and even quality of life. Also the Concept plan entailed an integrated planning process that includes all agencies involved in all facets of development coming together to take a consensus decision on the development of the nation. The Concept plan was prepared to align with the twenty-first century globalization while the strategies are contemporary approaches such as urban greenery and new regional centres with the maximization of the scarce land in perspective. Two key words noted in the Singapore minister for finance's speech ([55] c.f. [44]) are constant *learning and adaptation* these we believe are the secrets of Singapore's planning and general success and unfortunately are the very elements lacking in the dogmatic, traditional planning approach of many global South cities that has kept them static and even in retrogression in some cases. The planning and development of cities have been opined to have effects on the urban challenges and possible resolution [44]. This chapter therefore advocates that other global South city planners and stakeholders should learn from Singapore and adopt innovative and inclusive planning approaches that will lead to effective planning and management of other global South cities.
