PART 1

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11) and the Bay Area 2050 goals actually align closely in their shared commitment to creating sustainable, inclusive, and resilient urban environments. Both recognize and emphasize the need for affordable housing, sustainable transportation, and climate resilience. SDG 11 calls for access to adequate, safe, and affordable housing, a vision mirrored in the Bay Area 2050 plan’s focus on increasing affordable housing near transit and job centers while addressing displacement. Displacement is a key term because infrastructure without education and training won’t sustain populations and displacement with persist. Both prioritize sustainable transportation systems, with the Bay Area plan emphasizing low-emission options and equitable access for underserved communities. Though access is one thing and being built into the economic infrastructure is another. SDG 11’s global call for accessible and sustainable urban mobility has to have a broader context because urban mobility in Western nations who have the talent and workforce to build the infrastructure, but peripheral nations might struggle in this area. 

The Bay Area 2050 Plan and SDG 11 should be guided by a dirigisme approach and employ strong government intervention to protect and uplift low-income families in the face of climate resilience initiatives. Recognizing that adapting to sea-level rise and wildfires could drive up costs, which brings about displacement cycles without protective measures. The government should take direct control of housing and land-use policies to ensure affordability. This could include establishing state-owned housing developments, enforcing strict rent controls, and implementing zoning laws to prioritize affordable housing in high-opportunity areas. The government should create and manage large-scale public works programs focused on green infrastructure and resilience projects, with mandated hiring quotas for low-income and marginalized communities. By centralizing decision-making and resource allocation, this approach ensures that low-income families are safeguarded and fully integrated into the benefits of sustainable development, preventing developer interest and market forces from exacerbating inequality.

Design the infrastructure frameworks aren’t the only source of the problems we face, much of the opportunities we miss in innovation are forged on the battlegrounds between state and private funding. Tech companies and other major regional employers should invest in housing, transportation, and climate projects to support their workforce which helps mitigate commute traffic and displacement. I am skeptical of private developers and corporations financing major urban infrastructure projects, but it’s possible. Frameworks have to be put in place to reinforce the overall ethical goals. Dirigisme economic and social approaches must be at the forefront of many of our urban development goals or social inequality will continue to erode our nations producing much of the civil unrest we experience. We have the opportunity to build better infrastructure and holistic policies but also provide more state jobs, taxable incomes, and residual revenue for our cities. We are made stronger by the empathy and dedication of our socio-economic researchers, design thinkers, and architects who re-imagine and re-engineer our cities with holistic solutions at the core of their planning. Their work transcends the arena of urban design, it embodies the profound challenge of our era to reimagine and improve the systems that sustain and govern. This is not only urban development but also the preservation of our species with a more inclusive goal.