Let's Talk About Cities #9 — The City and the Countryside

Situation overview through the lens of urbanization

The relationship between city and countryside has undergone significant changes since the Industrial Revolution. During the Industrial Revolution, cities experienced rapid growth as people migrated from rural areas to urban centers in search of employment in factories and other industries. This led to the creation of large, densely populated cities, which became centers of innovation and commerce.

As industrialization spread, the countryside also underwent significant changes. Many rural areas were transformed into agricultural production centers, with large farms and plantations replacing small, family-owned plots. This led to the growth of agribusiness and the mechanization of agriculture, which had a major impact on the rural economy and way of life.

In the present day, the relationship between city and countryside is still marked by a contrast between urbanization and rural life. Cities continue to be centers of economic activity, with many people living and working in urban areas. At the same time, however, there has been a resurgence of interest in rural living and a movement towards more sustainable, self-sufficient communities. Many people are seeking out a simpler way of life and are choosing to live in rural areas, where they can grow their own food, raise animals, and live closer to nature.

When people leave rural areas and migrate to urban centers, it can have a number of impacts on the countryside. One of the most significant impacts is a decline in the population of rural areas. This can lead to a decrease in the demand for goods and services, which can have a negative impact on the local economy. It can also lead to the closure of schools, businesses, and other community institutions, which can have a negative impact on the social fabric of rural communities.

Another impact of people leaving the countryside is the abandonment of farmland. When people leave rural areas, they may leave behind their farms, which can lead to the abandonment of agricultural land. This can have negative environmental consequences, as abandoned land may become overgrown with weeds and may be more prone to erosion and other forms of environmental degradation.

Finally, the migration of people from rural areas can lead to a decline in the cultural and social traditions of those areas. As people leave and the population becomes more diverse, traditional ways of life may be lost and replaced by more modern, urban customs. This can lead to a loss of cultural heritage and a sense of disconnection from the past.

It is common for people living in rural areas to feel neglected by governments and to feel that their needs and concerns are not being adequately addressed. This can be due to a number of factors, including the concentration of political power and economic resources in urban centers, the lack of access to quality education and healthcare in rural areas, and the lack of investment in infrastructure and other public services.

These feelings of neglect and marginalization can lead to a sense of frustration and resentment among people living in rural areas, and can contribute to a shift towards populist politics. Populist politicians often appeal to the grievances and concerns of marginalized groups, including those living in rural areas, and may promise to address their needs and concerns. They may also portray urban elites as out of touch and indifferent to the struggles of ordinary people, and may appeal to a sense of nationalism or patriotism in order to rally support.

Popular and academic views on city vs. countryside

Cities have always been dependent on their surrounding areas. Depending on how the relationship between the city and the countryside is viewed and expressed, a dichotomy can arise that contributes to creating conflicts rather than a symbiosis between the units. Cities can be seen as the pearls of civilization - cultural, economic, and intellectual strongholds - while the countryside can be seen as backward wastelands populated by hicks. Or, cities can be seen as dirty, stressful, and dangerous places where decadent and lost souls live, while people in the countryside are honest, down-to-earth, and hardworking, close to nature and family. Such a division into "here and there" or "us and them" often occurs with political motivation but can also arise simply because people tend to be afraid of and opposed to what they do not know.

In order for both cities and rural areas to be governed and planned in a sustainable manner, it is important to see them as complementary, not competitors. And to do that, it is important to clarify their relationships to each other in a nuanced way. I will first mention Swedish examples of newspaper reports as well as academic research on the topic to establish some prevalent views. And then I will take a closer look at specific terms used to describe the relation between city and countryside. That means an examination of the topic in terms of representation, power dynamics as well as resource flows.

In the report 'Rural areas in the shadow of the media,' the authors investigate how the resources and infrastructure of local journalism are changing and what consequences it has for local democracy and the media image of Sweden outside the big cities (Nygren & Althén 2014).

The report points out how closed or reduced local editorial offices and changing reader behavior affect the media's ability and willingness to report in-depth on events outside the big cities. The use of secondary sources and other media as sources increases, and crime news gets more space while reporting on politics and economics decreases. Dagens Nyheter (considered Sweden’s newspaper of record) is examined more closely in the report as it is produced in Stockholm (the capital city) but has nationwide coverage. It is noted that the rural issues addressed primarily concern city dwellers using the countryside as a travel destination (ibid.).

Dagens Nyheter or DN has a category on their website called "City and Countryside". Examples of article headlines are: "Why it's terrible to live in Stockholm", "Rural people become dangerous when city dwellers make movies", "Digital exclusion in rural areas" and "The feeling of being left out in the countryside must be taken seriously" (Dagens Nyheter 2022).

Svenska Dagbladet, the conservative competitor of DN, has a category on their website called "The Gap between City and Countryside" with articles such as "The countryside continues to lose inhabitants", "SD's (far right) voters don't hate immigrants - they hate you, Stockholmers!" as well as several articles against tax equalization which would support rural settlements (Svenska Dagbladet 2022).

The picture produced is characterized by dichotomy and conflict. Problems are highlighted, but they are very general - as if the Scanian countryside with its farms has the same conditions and needs as the northern, thousands of kilometers away, with its forests and rivers.

In the research article "Urban scaling and the regional divide," the authors examine the role of cities as growth engines and a typical increase in per capita income of 15% with the doubling of a city's population. Previous models, they argue, explain the increase through increased population density and therefore increased social exchange. In their own study, they examine what proportion of productivity increase can be attributed to social exchange and which other factors may be decisive (Keuschnigg, Mutgan & Hedström 2019).

To answer their question, they compared education level, age, and cognitive ability (based on IQ tests at conscription for men) in Sweden's local labor markets. They found that the population in big cities like Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, and Linköping's labor markets is younger, more educated, and "smarter" than those in the rest of the country. Furthermore, they found that those who move from low-population regions to big cities are even younger, even more educated, and even smarter. Their conclusion is that an imbalance arises between rural areas and cities in productivity and income, as well as education level, age, and cognitive ability, and that this selective migration accounts for between 39 and 66% of the increased income per capita when a city's population doubles. This suggests that cities and their surroundings are not only provided with material resources but also human capital in an imbalanced way. However, the study does not consider flows in the opposite direction. Furthermore, it is based solely on data from employed men who have undergone conscription and does not include immigration or women. Crucially, it deals with the increased income on a per capita basis which implies everyone living in cities benefits from their growth when in fact, the wealth tends to be concentrated and prices tend to go up, making them less affordable for many.

The report "The driving forces and consequences of urban development" considers it incorrect to view urbanization as happening at the expense of rural areas. The population growth in Swedish cities is mainly due to immigration, high birth rates, and increased life expectancy, not depopulation in rural areas, according to the report. Furthermore, not all rural areas are the same: the report shows population growth in rural areas close to urban centers. Therefore, today's urbanization is different from previous phases. Regarding unemployment, the statistics show a different picture than what is often reported: on average, it is actually lower in densely populated rural municipalities than in the most populous urban municipalities (IVA 2017).

What emerges from these examples is that framing and interpretation is crucial to the understanding of the relation between city and countryside, as with any topic.

When it comes to resource flows, however, there is a more definite imbalance between cities and their hinterland.

The imbalance between cities and their supporting hinterland can be described by calculating a population's average consumption of resources and the productive area needed to support the population and manage its waste. The result is an indicator of the population's ecological footprint. The method can be applied at different scales, from individual to national or global levels, and by comparing different ecological footprints, the distribution of resources can be clarified. The calculation model includes consumption categories such as food, housing, transportation, consumables, and services, and as productive areas, mainly arable land, pasture, and forest land are considered, but the principle can be applied to both more and less complex resource flows. (Rees & Wackernagel, 1996).

At the beginning of the 2000s, a minimum of 0.41 hectares of arable land per capita was required to produce the food consumed in Sweden (Johansson, 2005). In 2015, the arable land per capita in Sweden was 0.26 hectares, a decrease from the highest value of 0.70 hectares in 1893 (SCB, 2019). Therefore, Sweden depends on imports to cover about half of the country's food consumption.

The terms used and why they are viewed separately

The terms "rural," "hinterland," and "countryside" are often used to describe areas that are outside of urban centers and typically have a lower population density compared to cities and towns. However, these terms can have slightly different connotations and are sometimes used to refer to specific types of rural areas.

The main difference between these terms is the type of area they refer to.

The term "rural" refers to any area that is located in the countryside, away from urban centers. Rural areas are typically characterized by agricultural or natural landscapes, and may include small towns and villages.

The term "hinterland" refers specifically to the land that is located behind a coastal area or river, and is typically less developed and more remote than the coastal or riverfront area. Hinterlands are often characterized by agriculture, forestry, or other resource-based industries.

The term "countryside" refers to the rural areas and natural landscapes that are located outside of urban centers. The countryside can include both agricultural and natural areas, and may include small towns and villages. The term "countryside" is often used to describe the natural beauty and peacefulness of rural areas.

The rural-urban transect.

The rural-urban transect is a concept used to describe the gradient of land use and development from rural to urban areas. The transect is typically divided into a series of zones, with the most rural areas at one end and the most urban at the other. The zones in between the two extremes represent intermediate levels of development, with each zone having its own distinct characteristics and land use patterns.

The rural-urban transect is often used as a tool for planning and designing communities and transportation systems. It can help planners understand the different types of land use and development that exist within a region and how they are distributed across the landscape. This information can be used to guide decisions about the location and design of infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and parks, and to ensure that development is integrated and harmonious with the surrounding landscape.

The rural-urban transect can also be used to analyze and understand the social, economic, and environmental impacts of different types of development. For example, it can help planners understand the economic and social benefits of preserving natural areas in the rural zones, as well as the potential impacts of urbanization on the environment and local communities.

Renewed focus on the countryside in architectural discourse

In February 2020 AMO or Rem Koolhaas’ exhibition Countryside: The Future was opened at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. It was open for less than a month, as the Covid pandemic forced the shutting down of public life, but Taschen released a book of essays which they call “the official companion to the exhibition”.

In the introduction to Countryside, a Report, Koolhaas claims the countryside is “largely off (our) radar, an ignored realm.” and that there is no “real, mutual relationship” between city and countryside, “nor a definition”.

There is no doubting Koolhaas’ influence on the discourse of architecture and urbanism. Since the co-founding in 1975 of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) and the publishing of the urban manifesto Delirious New York in 1978, Koolhaas has spent four decades preoccupied with projects in, texts about and studies of metropolitan cities.

So the shift of his focus toward what he terms the countryside (“the 98% of the Earth’s surface that is not occupied by cities.”), begs a few questions.

Why now? In the book the reason given is the 2007 UN announcement that half of the world’s population lives in cities, which supposedly caused a hyperfocus on urbanization. In the press release for the exhibition it is stated that it was the 2014 UN report including the same statistic which meant the other half of the global population was subsequently ignored, something the exhibition sought to rectify. In Koolhaas’ own words though: “I'm interested in the country for the same reason I was paying attention to New York in the 70s. No one else was looking.”

That reminds me of a joke I like: Why did the hipster burn his tongue on his coffee? Because he drank it before it was cool.

But the exhibition and the book themselves contradict his statement, showcasing a range of initiatives outside of cities, such as the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center which Koolhaas’ writes about in the book: it’s home to the world’s largest building, the Tesla Gigafactory 1 and the Google Data Storage campus.

So why the “countryside”? Perhaps a look into Koolhaas’ previous texts can prove enlightening. In the addendum to Delirious New York, he concludes:

“The Metropolis strives to reach a mythical point where the world is completely fabricated by man, so that it absolutely coincides with his desires. The Metropolis is an addictive machine, from which there is no escape, unless it offers that, too…. Through this pervasiveness, its existence has become like the Nature it has replaced: taken for granted, almost invisible, certainly indescribable.”

And on page 247, below a portrait of Le Corbusier, Koolhaas’ quotes him: “In times of danger, the chief must go where others aren’t.”

In S, M, L, XL, published in 1995, Koolhaas’ wrote in the essay Bigness or the Problem of Large that “Bigness, through its very independence of context, is the one architecture that can survive, even exploit, the now-global condition of the tabula rasa: [...] it gravitates opportunistically to locations of maximum infrastructural promise; it is, finally, its own raison d’être.”

It appears Rem Koolhaas writes very much in self-reference. Stretching that theory, when he writes the countryside is off “our radar” it means off his radar. When he writes there’s no real, mutual relationship between it and the city, he means it and himself. Koolhaas is the Metropolis striving to reach a mythical point where the world is completely fabricated by him so it absolutely coincides with his desires. He is the chief, who must go where others aren’t. And he is Bigness, gravitating opportunistically to locations of maximum promise. Therefore the “countryside”.

As a side note: is it just a cosmic coincidence that Bjarke Ingels named his office BIG?

That’s enough time spent on Rem Koolhaas. The point of bringing all that up is to again highlight how topics can be framed and discourse led to fit an agenda. It’s something worth keeping in mind amid the cacophony of buzzwords within architectural and planning communication, from greenwashing to the dogma of urban density.

With that said, questions remain: What is the countryside? Is there no relationship between it and the city? Has it been ignored?

Incentives for people to move to or stay in the countryside:

There are a number of incentives that politicians and policymakers might offer to encourage people to move to or stay in rural areas. These might include:

Economic incentives: Governments might offer financial incentives, such as tax breaks or grants, to businesses or individuals who move to rural areas in order to stimulate economic development in those areas.

To fight “depopulation and desertification” of rural areas, some countries like Italy, Portugal, Japan or Ireland offer people money to move back to the countryside. (World Economic Forum, 2022) In Italy for example, Presicce (located in Puglia) supports people wanting to buy a house and relocate there with up to 30000 €. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2022/11/21/this-beautiful-italian-town-will-pay-you-30000-to-move-there/?sh=6295f4760609) There is also an initiative called the "1 Euro Houses". It refers to an Italian government initiative aimed at selling abandoned properties in various Italian regions for just one euro. The idea behind the initiative is to regenerate declining towns and villages by attracting new residents, tourists, and investment. The properties being sold are often in need of renovation and restoration, but the low price point is meant to encourage individuals and families to invest time and money in the restoration and redevelopment of these properties. Municipalities expect to revitalize the local economy through such initiatives. (https://www.case1euro.it/)

Infrastructure improvements: Governments might invest in infrastructure improvements in rural areas, such as building or upgrading roads, schools, and hospitals, in order to make those areas more attractive to potential residents.

There is an inequality when it comes to how developed the infrastructure is in the countryside compared to cities. As rural settlements are less dense compared to cities, it is less feasible for extensive public transportation systems to be established. Therefore people in rural areas have limited transportation options and may need to drive a car to access essential services, work, or other activities. They are often being implicitly criticized and disproportionately financially punished through taxes for driving even though they don't have a lot of alternatives for transport. 

Quality of life improvements: Governments might also invest in amenities and services that improve the quality of life in rural areas, such as recreational facilities, cultural programmes in order to make those areas more appealing to people who are considering moving there.

Workforce development programs: Governments might provide training and education programs to help people in rural areas develop the skills they need to succeed in the workforce to increase the attractiveness of rural areas as places to live and work.

A majority of the doctors with practices in rural areas of Germany are struggling to find replacements after their retirement and having to close. This represents a challenge both for them but also for the politicians as they can’t offer a sufficient supply of healthcare for the population which in turn leads to more people moving away from the countryside. As an incentive for young doctors to move to or stay in the countryside, there are various funding programmes to support them in opening a practice, such as “Lass dich nieder” or “Settle down”.

(https://www.lass-dich-nieder.de/berufsalltag/foerderung/zukuenftige-landaerzte-lass-dich-foerdern.html)

Future outlooks

Too expensive in cities, move out? Issues with work which probably stays in the city. Commuting? Not very compatible with ideas like 15-minute city, quality of life issues.

Remote work. Being ended in many places, issues of its own in terms of isolation.

Automation, UBI, end of work. Therefore cities not as attractive/musts? Improbable. Still the attraction of entertainment, culture and other people.