A fresh approach to city planning argues that the perfect city size isn’t just about being big or small, it’s about being “just right” for what a city can actually handle. Imagine cities as buckets: each bucket has a certain capacity, and if we fill it with just the right amount, life inside is comfortable, affordable, and sustainable. But too much or too little can spell trouble. This new thinking comes from an Australian study looking at 655 urban centres, and its lessons could change the way cities around the world are built or grown.
The “Goldilocks” Theory of City Size
Traditionally, many cities grow either by chasing political dreams or business investments, but not by following a well-thought-out plan for how many people the city can support. This has sometimes led to expensive housing, crammed streets, or inefficient public transport. Take the example of Melbourne (a big city) and Port Pirie (a small city). The study found that both can be “just right” if their populations fit what their so-called bucket, their theoretical size, can hold.
So, what makes up a city’s bucket? Four main things shape its ideal size:
- Location basics: Is it near ports, rivers, or major highways? These natural gifts often attract people.
- Job opportunities: Cities with plenty of accessible jobs tend to flourish, think of places with bustling markets, factories, or offices.
- City hierarchy: Some cities act as capitals, drawing people for government work or special events.
- Connections to neighbors: Cities connected by good roads or train lines can “borrow” benefits from each other, like a small town thriving by being close to a busy metropolis.
Imagine a small city near a famous capital: even if it doesn’t have everything, it might still attract people who work in the big city but want a quieter home. Conversely, a city with poor job opportunities or little connection to its neighbors might struggle, even if it’s large.
Why “Just Right” Matters?
When cities have populations in balance with their bucket size (within a margin of about ±4%), residents save money on rent, don’t need extra cars for everyone in the house, and can walk to work more often. In Australia, aligning these numbers could save billions in rent nationally and reduce car ownership, emissions, and traffic jams. Think about it: smaller cities with too few people might have unused buses or empty parks, while overly crowded cities may be stuck in endless traffic or suffering high living costs.
Can This Work in India?
India’s cities, like Mumbai or Jaipur, are diverse, bursting with life and challenges . Applying this “Goldilocks” model could help planners set better targets for how many people India’s cities should welcome. For instance, instead of building huge satellite towns just by political decree, planners can consider local job opportunities, transport links, and what residents actually need or want.
India’s mix of old and new, wealthy and poor, means the bucket has to be flexible. Some metros might expand their bucket with new metro lines, more jobs in tech parks, or better public spaces. Others may need to slow down and let their infrastructure catch up. The key lesson: by aiming for “just right,” Indian cities can avoid costly mistakes and give their residents a more comfortable, sustainable life.
In the end, whether the city is Melbourne or Mumbai, it’s not about the biggest or smallest, it’s about being just big enough for everyone to thrive.
