Dear Geraldine jacela Paguigan,

If, according to virologists, the problem of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic causing Covid-19 disease may persist for several months or more, and maybe longer, then the importance of having to take into account the risk of further human infection by the SARS coronavirus will increase -CoV-2 when planning urban development and building housing estates, multi-family blocks, etc. On the other hand, some virologists now (early April 2020) already claim that by the end of 2020 most of the human population on Earth may already be infected with this Coronavirus. such a scenario may reduce the importance of addressing the problem of potential subsequent infections in urban planning. However, if the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus as part of constant mutations arise new strains that are also dangerous to human health, then the types of this virus will increase the importance of considering the problem of potential subsequent infections in urban planning and in many other areas of human functioning.

Regards

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Recent research show that CORONA virus can attach to the particles present in the atmosphere and remain alive for considerable time, and hence we can say that there is a relationship b/w COVID spread, pollution and urbanization. Particulate matter should be minimized.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/13/815307842/research-coronavirus-can-live-for-a-long-time-in-air-on-surfaces

The sustainable indicators in urban planning need to be re-evaluated,espicially regarding social distances,hospitals spaces,small distributed market, more housing gardenning spaced, more CBD nuclie in the city..etc

We have to re-evaluate these standards requirements.

We should think about two elements at the same time :

*Size / density of cities (sprawl problems)

*Anticipating more emergency architectures

Re-assessing landuse standards, by less housing dense, more mini distributed markets, more hospitals per capita, more green areas per capita, sustained transportations, ...etc

Pandemics have always existed. we are in a much better situation of public health than in the middle ages. I believe that this pandemic will affect more in our production relations than in the physical aspects of the urban environment.

It is true, in past centuries humanity has faced terrible pandemics and now we have better health systems. However, each experience should serve to improve the way we interact with nature. We need to better control wildlife trafficking and respect wild areas outside and inside cities to maintain a balance that, in addition to conserving biodiversity, reduces the chances and impact of new viruses affecting humans. So we would do well in improve cities design by greening them, reducing their density and at the same time banning wildlife trade in urban markets.

First a joke. Covid virus meets the flu virus and says: Aaa, that are you, the one without marketing...

Covid is a mantra today. Sometimes a stupid one. let´s look on it in real perspective. In my small country normal flue kills a few hundred people each year. Covid killed officially two, in reality probably about twenty - and the probably numbers during the year will be comparable with normal flu (although without our strict limitations of social life that figures could be much worse, so this is not quite fair comparison). And nobody asks how to prevent flu in urban planning. OK, maybe that is not a good example, here is a better one. Car accidents kill a few hundreds people here, each year, and urban planners can do much in this field. Does anybody ask how? About 1.35 million people die on the roads per annum. From the beginning of this century cars killed more people then the last really terrible pandemic, the "Spanish" flu in the beginning of the previous century. And most of the urban planners don´t care...

Well, we should be ready for diseases. But as urban planners we cannot do much. Do we want to change the human behavior, keep people isolated, lower the density of population (as Ales Kralj suggests) and remove social contacts? Bad, bad idea, endangering the humanity... Move people from public transportation to private cars, each with just one person inside? Very stupid approaches, medicine killing more people then the disease...

In the case of diseases connected with poor hygienic conditions urban planners were able to improve things. Well, improvements in "public health" can help to fight covid, but it is not an urban planning problem...

That was the long answer. The short one:

Built environment shouldn´t be designed according a specific pandemic. It lasts for decades/centuries, the disease will disappear in a few years...

I would like to draw your attention to the different confrontation approaches around the world. If as a solution, we argue population density is to be minimised, why Tokyo and Singapore, for instance, have been so successful in confronting the disease despite being among the densest urban areas? I think managing this pandemic and other possible infections in the future are more of a cultural and governance problem than physical urban planning/design. It requires different governance and monitoring in cities, using people's movement data and tracking technologies, trust between citizens and the government, improvement of the health system. I think international and connected efforts of cities globally to help one another based on their experience is also vital.

Of course, theories of urban planning will differ, and the healthy city will become the ideal city for life in it, and the healthy city theories will be generalized around the world. Rather, I think that the cities will change and cities will remain resistant to epidemics and infectious diseases. With high technology to maintain the health of its users

Attaching few papers for your ready references