Cities in COVID-19: Reconsidering Urban Form, Mobility, Housing and Planning in Australasia

Historically, global pandemics have made profound impacts on cities that lasted for generations and pushed us to reflect on and rethink how cities are lived, planned and re-oriented. The many disruptions brought in by each pandemic challenged urban growth patterns, policies and the status quo of that particular time. For example, we observed significant changes in planning and environmental control regulations in London and other European cities in the aftermath of the Great Fire in1666 [‘The great sanitary awakening’ (Winslow 1923)]. The most recent one, COVID-19 has caused unprecedented shifts in our urban life through changing mobility patterns, new forms of urban governance and pandemic response which have prompted critical questions of contemporary understandings and approaches to planning for resilient urban formations not only in relation to the city but also its hinterland areas and beyond, regional and rural centres (Ali et al. 2022, Alam and Nel 2023).

While modern cities are facing complex and wicked problems, particularly in the face of climate change and the embrace of smart technologies, the outbreak of COVID-19 has been dramatic, putting urban policymakers, scholars, citizens and planners on a “pressure test” for rethinking urban planning trends, as well as highlighting existing and emergent deficiencies [Brockhoff, J. cited in Johnston (2020)]. COVID-19 cities are amplifying dialectical characteristics of invisibility and visibility, privilege and privation, selfishness and solidarity, and absence and presence (Rogers et al. 2020). In the past few years, urban life has been redefined by the ‘non-clinical panacea’ (Nahiduzzaman 2020) such as ‘lockdown’ ‘stay home’, ‘quarantine’, ‘self-isolation’, ‘social distancing’, ‘working from home’, ‘telehealth’, and ‘online shopping’. As an immediate effect, there is an unprecedented reduction in urban mobility due to the lockdown of activities, introduction of working from home and limited or online shopping. A recent survey shows around 88% of Australian employers encouraged or required their employees to work from home (Mitchell 2020). According to Grattan Institute, the crowds in the CBD of major cities on the east coast fell to a fifth or less during the height of the lockdowns (Kurmelovs 2020). This follows similar patterns of pedestrian and transport movement in major cities around the globe. For example, in London, Moscow, New York, Singapore and Milan, mobility dropped down as close to as 10% of trips during the peak of the pandemic (March 3- May 5, 2020) (Statista 2020). On a positive note, a 28.3% decline in carbon emissions was recorded in Australian cities during April 2020 (Harvey 2020).

The unprecedented shifts in daily urban life have prompted urban researchers and thinkers to explore ‘what a future city could look like’ (Cayford 2020). By recapturing many old debates around city structure, density, housing, social fabric, public/private space and parks, COVID-19 has compelled us to rethink how urban design and policy can transform as well as offer a more resilient and ‘pandemic-safe’ urban form. One of the key debates on post-COVID-19 cities has triggered on the preferred urban form to address the current and future crisis with enhanced resilience – compact cities or low-density suburbia? Several scholars have underscored low-density housing to practice social distancing as well as reinvigorating suburban centres with a cultural shift to working from home. The severe risk of transmission and high population death rate of some hyperdense cities (e.g., Wuhan, New York and Milan) has seen higher density blamed. However, similar urban forms in Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Seoul provide a mixed message since they contained the virus successfully at least during the first wave. There is a lack of evidence of spatial risks in Australian cities to bring the debate forward, but in the case of New York City, transmissions were observed high in crowded and poor households and economically and racially segregated zones (Bassett 2020). Others also point out that the internal layout (e.g. in dormitories, open-plan offices and churches) was linked to the transmission, while density in the neighbourhood or metropolitan scale matters less (Holleran 2020, Pafka 2020). It is appropriate to revisit questions of urban density and scale – should we reconsider the pro-density planning philosophy that has dominated the last two decades of urban policy or welcome an anti-density discourse?

The Special Issue of Urban Policy and Research showcases a series of theoretically informed empirical studies from cities in Australia and New Zealand to demonstrate the critical urban challenges and policy discourse triggered by ‘living with COVID-19’. The papers highlight critical issues and challenges that emerged during the pandemic period, including socio-spatial vulnerabilities that can impact the risk of spreading COVID-19 in Melbourne (Martino et al. 2022); associated health vulnerabilities, particularly in the shared housing sector in Sydney (Buckle et al. 2022); and dissatisfaction in governance and management of public housing during the lockdown situation in Melbourne (Olivier et al. 2022). The paper by Quintana Vigiola et al. (2022) looked into the capacity of housing policies to deal with the increased domestic and family violence in New South Wales (NSW) during the pandemic. Similarly, Hanna et al. (2022) reported on the non-sensitivity towards a transformative planning approach in the “Shovel Ready” fund for improving blue-green infrastructure in New Zealand’s cities and Sassano et al. (2022) examined urban agriculture as a potential tool for post-pandemic recovery. Finally, Ruming et al. (2022) explored the nature of planning reforms in NSW and Western Australia (WA) based on the initial response to the challenges of COVID-19.

At a broader scale in Melbourne, Martino et al. (2022) examined the relationships between social vulnerability emanating from housing affordability stress, overcrowding, homelessness and access to emergency funds with the COVID-19 outbreaks. Using a social spatial index based on census data, the authors found a co-occurrence of housing vulnerability and CVID-19 hotspots. This study showed a spatial landscape of emergency management and calls for a more appropriate measure to fit with the spatial vulnerability cognizant of both social inequality and mobility. This is also imperative to determine such vulnerabilities to offer support during post-pandemic recovery. While rising housing stress and homelessness are common in major cities in the world, COVID-19 further underscores the connection between health concerns and access to affordable and safer housing. In this regard, Buckle et al. (2022) looked into Sydney’s shared housing sector in order to examine health vulnerabilities during the pandemic. Utilising online advertising data on shared accommodation, Buckle et al. (2022) identified a changing context of housing circumstances during the pandemic. It was revealed that perceptions of health risks contributed significantly to the supply and demand of shared accommodation.

Olivier et al. (2022) further highlighted the failures of infrastructures of care for public housing residents during COVID-19 detention from ethical and human rights perspectives. Reporting on Melbourne’s public housing towers facing several lockdowns during the pandemic, Olivier et al. (2022) define it as a failure of the ‘infrastructure of care’ (Alam and Houston 2020) for their residents as opposed to other residents across the city due to limited access to information and emergency supply and services. The paper raised critical concerns about the need for a caring city during a disaster.

The next two papers focus on financial mechanisms to deal with social and environmental issues within the COVID-19 context. Quintana Vigiola et al. (2022) called for a holistic policy framework to effectively support housing provision for women experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). The authors observe a rise in DFV cases during the pandemic across Australia; however, note insufficient federal and state funding to support this group. Utilising an in-depth policy analysis and interviews with DFV services and housing providers in Sydney, Quintana Vigiola et al. (2022) conclude that there should be more long-term funding for increasing DFV victims. While the government response to COVID-19 tends to target homelessness due to health risks, DFV victims were left with little option to access such support. From an environmental perspective, Hanna et al. (2022) looked into the comprehensiveness of economic stimulus packages available for New Zealand’s cities to recover from the pandemic. The paper investigated the bids related to blue-green infrastructure COVID-19 Response and Recovery fund. It was suggested that more focus is needed to integrate such efforts with spatial plans to promote transformative and innovative projects capable of offering transformative responses to climate and health emergencies.

In this line, Sassano et al. (2022) examined urban agriculture as a tool to post-pandemic recovery in a postcolonial context (e.g. Australia) infused with politics, power indigeneities and colonialism. The paper historicised urban agriculture to position it as a common response to past crises. With no surprise, a sharp increase in social media presence of such practice was observed during the lockdown periods of the pandemic. While future cities will require a new set of considerations for urban land management contributing to individual food production, the authors saw it as a ‘continuation and renegotiation of the colonial project’ entangled with colonial governmentality. The paper called for a more decolonised interpretation of ‘resilient city’ fostering co-existence and solidarity.

Finally, Ruming et al. (2022) discussed the early response of the Commonwealth and State governments through planning reforms and economic stimulus packages. Reporting on the interviews with key government and non-government stakeholders, the authors identified the characteristics of COVID-19 induced reforms in NSW and WA. They argue that while such reforms respond to the health and economic crisis, they are also part of the long-term planning reform trend in the country.

Overall, the Special Issue papers highlight the importance of socially responsible planning as inequalities in access to local services and facilities became evident during the pandemic. Planning academics and practitioners need to reconsider urban planning approach, land use regulations, housing options and social support to create more flexible spaces within both high- and low-density development. Identifying potential avenues to address widening social and economic inequalities could be critical by capitalising on recently emerged online community forums and popular volunteer groups (e.g., Love Your Neighbour Melbourne). While citizens have embraced the consequences of tighter restrictions in intra- /inter-city movements and activities, post-COVID-19 cities should be at the forefront in addressing the challenge of uncertainty and confusion and accommodating the ‘new normal’ of urban lifestyle.

We started this editorial piece by warning of pandemics’ lasting implications on our cities. In this regard, it is worth to acknowledging that the Special Issue papers only captured a few immediate implications observed in Australasian cities in the domains of housing and then planning responses and reforms. Four of the seven papers touched on housing issues reinforcing the role of housing sites, be they private or public, in shaping the experiences of the pandemic city! It is worth noting that, even after three years, the COVID-19 pandemic is not over yet, as we see new waves of outbreak proliferating in Chinese cities and elsewhere. Thus, we suggest that as urbanists and planners, we need not to draw conclusions too early from what we are seeing but keep ourselves open to understanding the changing meaning and significance of cities as the COVID-19 crisis evolves, remerges and recedes. Echoing Bissell (2021), each of the moments can present an opportunity to reflect on who we are together, as a discipline, and on the kinds of urban and resilient futures we might want to see.