Cities are growing.
They are becoming denser, faster, more expensive, more efficient.
And, increasingly, they are becoming places where very different lives are compressed into the same narrow definition of what people need.
A roof.
Food.
Transport.
A job, if possible.
A minimum income.
These things matter. Of course they do.
But there is a danger in believing that, once basic needs are somehow met, the work of society is finished.
Because human beings do not live by survival alone.
More than a century ago, workers marching for better conditions found a remarkably simple way of saying this.
They asked for bread.
But they asked for roses, too.
Bread meant wages. Food. Security.
The roses meant something more difficult to measure.
Time.
Beauty.
Education.
A place to meet.
A tree outside the window.
A theatre one can afford.
A public square where one is not required to buy anything simply to remain there.
The possibility of living in a city without being reduced to a worker, a consumer, a commuter, or a statistical unit.
Today, urban transformation risks removing precisely these things.
Neighbourhoods become investments.
Public spaces become commercial spaces.
Housing becomes an asset before it is a home.
Distance pushes people farther from schools, culture, friendships and communities.
And those with fewer resources are not merely becoming poorer.
Their world is becoming narrower.
Politics often responds by asking whether people have enough to survive.
Do they have shelter?
Can they pay for food?
Can they reach work?
These are essential questions.
But they are not sufficient questions.
A society can provide bread and still produce lives without roses.
James Oppenheim wrote more than a century ago that “hearts starve as well as bodies.”
Perhaps that is something urban policy should remember.
The quality of a city cannot be measured only by how efficiently it accommodates human beings.
It must also be measured by how much room it leaves for them to be human.
Bread, yes.
But roses too.
Share
Read more
