Beyond Buildings: Why Urban Planners Must Care About Wages, Unions, and the Workforce

Cities are People, and People Need to Work and Thrive

Let’s get back to basics. What is a city, really? Is it just bricks and mortar, steel and asphalt? Or is it something more… human? I’d argue that cities are fundamentally collections of people, dynamic human ecosystems, not just static collections of buildings. And if that’s true, then the workforce – the millions of individuals who live and labor in our urban centers – becomes the very heart and soul of the city. They are the vast majority of the urban population, the lifeblood that keeps the city functioning, evolving, and, hopefully, thriving. And if urban planning is truly about improving quality of life – as we so often claim it is – then how can we not be deeply concerned with the health, wealth, and education of these urban residents, these workers, these people who are the city? For the working class, wealth is primarily built through wages. So, it follows, that urban wages should be a major concern for any urban planner who’s serious about improving quality of urban life. But is that really within the purview of urban planning? Let’s explore why it absolutely should be.

Exurban Exodus: From 'Bleeding the City' to 'New Suburbanism' - Reclaiming Urban Offal in the Sprawl

Imagine a 19th-century doctor, convinced that the city was fundamentally unwell, riddled with disease and decay. His cure? Bleeding. Drain the city of its lifeblood, its teeming masses, its bustling workers, its very vitality. Send them to the… suburbs. Gruesome analogy? Perhaps. But think about the 20th-century exodus to the suburbs. Driven by good intentions, perhaps – a desire for fresh air, green space, and a perceived escape from the grit and grime of the industrial city. But in retrospect, wasn't it a kind of urban bloodletting? A draining of the city's core, a scattering of its vital components to the periphery, in the misguided belief that this would somehow “cure” its ills? Instead, we got… sprawl. Vast, car-dependent landscapes, ecologically damaging, socially isolating, and economically unsustainable in the long run. And while “New Urbanism” has emerged as a powerful force for revitalizing urban centers, reclaiming walkability, and promoting urban density, a vast percentage of the population still lives in the suburbs, or, more accurately, the exurbs. And it's these areas, these sprawling exurban landscapes, that are perhaps in the most urgent need of a cure. We need a New Suburbanism – not as an addition to New Urbanism, but as a critical evolution, a reimagining of the exurban model, one that moves beyond the unsustainable sprawl of the 20th century and towards something ecologically, socially, and economically viable for the 21st.