In September 2015, the international community adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The world leaders signed on the dotted line. Of these goals, the SDG 11 specifically targets the cities, focusing on making them safer, more inclusive, resilient and sustainable. In this context, one finds that the metropolitan city of Lahore has, unfortunately, not managed to get too far.

Urban planners vouch for the fact that Lahore has been spreading horizontally. Over the past 20 years or so, its footprint has almost doubled. However, it’s interesting to note that the development is taking place in two opposing dimensions, mostly in the private sector which by and large targets the affluent, as it is this class that has the buying power. The have-nots are mostly in the periphery, informal settlements or katchi abadis. So, two different kinds of Lahore are developing simultaneously. The result is that the rich 20 percent of the households occupy almost 56 percent of the land, while the poor 20 percent are cramped up in less than 6 percent; so much for inclusive development.

What shapes the city of Lahore are the three Ps: profit, power and plans. Most of the development is in the private sector which is profit driven. We see the sprawl of Bahria Town and various other private housing societies, increasingly becoming gated communities. The DHA, which is another major development, is a huge sprawl, with the highest number of cars per household, and is managed by the powers that be. What is left from these two players is the Lahore Development Authority’s (LDA) master plan which is, of course, long delayed.

The concept of sustainable development includes smart cities, not those with a fat tummy. Lahore needs to encourage medium-rise development, with an average of four- to eight-storey buildings, in order to become an affordable and sustainable city.

Lahore is designed for cars and not for people. Despite the fact that only a very small percentage of our population has access to private cars our priorities include signal-free corridors, underpasses and flyovers instead of pedestrian facilities. There are more than a dozen underpasses in the city and their height clearance is such that apart from one odd example, none is meant for buses; only for cars. The result is that many new (bus) drivers end up getting stuck and/or are unable to actually benefit from them.

We continue to add road space at the cost of pedestrian walkways. Equity demands that public spaces and right-of-way should be equitably distributed between the upper class and others, but do we see that on the roads?

We need to focus more on moving people and not automobiles. The criticism of the cost and subsidy for the metro bus system in Lahore is perhaps the most baffling. This is one rare example of subsidy that the rich cannot hijack. The subsidies enjoyed by them come in the shape of negligible road tax and almost free parking. You know, a city is doomed when even the subsidy distribution is non-inclusive; at the expense of the lower-classes.

Our development model reflects our colonial mindset. We treat landowners as Red Indians. Wherever the powerful or the profit machines fancy, they purchase or acquire the erstwhile agricultural land, pay a measly award and then build housing societies for the rich, who in return make lots of dividends in development and speculation. The original owners of land have to be content with cash and move on to new places.

The model should be such that the original landowners are the first beneficiaries of urban development. In other parts of the world, the original occupants are given education, skills and employability, and get the first right to jobs in the city, with a reasonable share in the profits. A land that initially may cost 1-3 million rupees per acre, ends up as urban plots at more than Rs 30 million per kanal, an escalation of up to 100 times. Who profits? Not the original landowners, nor the current occupants in most cases. It is the speculators and the middlemen. Is this an equitable model?

The funny part is that the government ends up doing most of the development work, using public funds that lead to the increase in land value. Even though taxpayers’ money is spent, the profits are pocketed by the few individuals at the top. We need a more equitable and just model of development than this.

A city which is socially unjust cannot be safe, nor resilient and never sustainable. So let’s focus on equity and inclusiveness and we will be closer to Goal 11.

The writer is a communications manager at a private company. She can be reached at saniyanasir3@gmail.com