3. Scenarios of Rio. From the Present to the Future As an exercise of future prospecting, the article presents thoughts, not only about the occupation of land in the central area, but also about the creation of other centralities with great power. Sergio Bernardes, brazilian architect and urbanist, was already rehearsing the construction of neighborhood centers along the railway line in order to allow integration between the two sides of these banks and to allow residents of these neighborhoods to enjoy goods and services near their homes. The project started from the reduction of daily displacements, and imagined a more accessible urbanity for the population of the periphery. Unfortunately, what has been seen are investments in transport lines to keep the flows of long distances around privileged areas increasingly rich and distant from the others. The incentive to increase density in some areas of the city, which received investments in infrastructure and transportation, would reinforce it’s centralities and reduce the need for daily movement to the center and south zone. Likewise, other areas of the west zone, such as Campo Grande and Santa Cruz, with a large stock of free land, could be more active and independent neighborhood centers in other areas. Thus, we would have centralities at the ends and in the middle of the city. The resources would be more distributed across the territory, improving the quality of life of different nucleos of people, and solving the issue of displacement, along with investment in mass public transportation. Polycentrality is not the only possibility, but it would allow greater equity among the city’s neighborhoods. Three major centers, each with a different potentiality, along with other smaller centralities, could totally change the routine of the city in relation to transportation, access to quality housing, leisure, services and work point. When one understands the importance that the distribution of people has in space, one begins to deal with other problems that are rooted in the city, as fruits of a bigger problem. The search for a more humane urbanity according to the vocations of the city, is part of an urban ideology of architects and planners concerned with the quality of life and the enjoyment of citizenship. The opposite of this is a future based on the constant experience of a troubled past. 4. Towards a viable urbanity for all It’s very common the discourse among planners and politicians regarding the importance of investing in public policies and quality urbanization in the city such as Rio de Janeiro. Despite this, are observed attitudes that widen the inequality and the problems experienced by a large part of the population. To talk about urbanity, is to think about collectivity, share of networks and equipment. A lot is talked about unhindered access to the physical environment, education, culture and health. It is difficult, however, to transpose models of European cities into a reality as distant as ours, especially in cultural terms. So it is difficult to employ models such as those exhibited by Jan Gehl in his books and articles, like in “Cities for people”. Rio de Janeiro, known internationally as a wonderful city, may be friendlier to visitors than to its own residents. The warm climate, the beauty of the landscape, the joy and the receptivity of the carioca, among other factors, attract people from all over the world in search of an experience limited to certain areas of the city. Like other metropolis, Rio is very different for those who live here. The urbanity patterns of the South Zone, Center and Barra differ greatly from other areas. From the quality of the sidewalks to the trees and the public lighting, from the respect to the norms to the garbage collection, everything works different. The collection of IPTU(brazilian urban land and property tax) and the value of land determine the investment in the city and segregate those who are out of interest’s areas.
I 68