The 21^st century has so far seen SARS, MERS, Ebola, Bird flu, Swine flu and now Covid-19. If we have indeed entered an era of pandemics, a new debate has surfaced as to how we should plan the cities of tomorrow so that the outdoors don’t become no-go zones and remain safe and habitable spaces.

There are valid reasons to look at historic crises as moments of dramatic urban change. 19^th-century pandemics helped usher in developments in water and sewage systems. And there can be no doubt that in the immediate future cities will have to go through major transformations to withstand pandemics.

The novel coronavirus has turned the world outside our doorsteps into a newly formed wilderness. Public spaces are now areas to be ventured into sparingly, except by essential workers. So, for most of us, our worlds have shrunk to the size of our homes.

While the pandemic is still running its course, the immediate aftershocks — job losses, poverty and scarcity of food — are yet to be addressed.

But much has been learnt already. The experience is motivating change in urban scape around the world. Towards that end, members of the International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP) have formulated several initial questions, starting with what we have learned from the still-unfolding drama of the pandemic, and moving to more speculative, future-exploring questions like how have cities enabled — and contained — the pandemic. Also, how we can expect cities to recover once the pandemic has peaked, and whether there is a model of the city which is ‘pandemic-resistant’. How does the pandemic relate to the issue of resilience in general terms — resilience to climate change, natural hazards, accidents, war and unrest etc? Is the question of a ‘post-Covid city’ one of public health only or a broader matter of safety, security and survival in the face of all possible risks and abrupt climate change in particular? When considering pandemics and other crises and emergencies, should the planners focus on the physical form (size, shape, structure and density) and the material elements of the city (infrastructure, buildings, open spaces) only, or should they also take action on the economy, society, culture, governance, politics…?

The novel coronavirus has turned the world outside our doorsteps into a newly formed wilderness. Public spaces are now areas to be ventured into sparingly, except by essential workers. So, for most of us, our worlds have shrunk to the size of our homes.

Whereas the world’s health organisations such as the WHO say city life can make the residents vulnerable to communicable diseases like tuberculosis from crowding and poor ventilation, and waterborne and vector-borne diseases such as dengue, UN-Habitat, the UN agency for housing and urban development, says that more compact cities can also help stave off contagion because residents have easier access to healthcare facilities.

Almost a year into the pandemic — and we are still in an experimental stage — there will be a lot of trial and error, but the notion that urban history may be more about continuity through crises than about transformation is also important to understand.

The pandemic has brought various stakes within the cityscape into sharp focus. Historically, cities have survived disasters, be they wars or famines. But Covid-19 has shown that cities must also learn, adapt and evolve — together.

The writer is a development communications specialist, and writes on environment and urban planning