Until last Tuesday I have never even heard of fourth world countries-which apparently are nations unrecognized as states and are recognized as being both marginalized and impoverished-according to wikipedia which further defines fourth world nations by "the non-recognition or exclusion of often ethnically or religiously defined groups from the political and economic world system. Examples of Fourth World nations include the Roma worldwide, pre-WWI Ashkenazi in the region of the Pale of Settlement, Palestinians and Kurds in the Middle East, many Native American/First Nations groups throughout the Americas and many indigenous Africans and Asians."
Here is an article from http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/826 which I'll also include here as well.
The Fourth World: Invisible countries
The world has more than 200 countries. But, as John Moynihan points out in this guest opinion, not all of them are recognized: Half a dozen or so are left out in the cold. They are the fourth world. The invisible countries.By John Moynihan, 11/May/2007
A hundred years ago, Poland - one of the largest countries in Europe - did not exist. At the time, Poland had not existed for more than a century. Its borders had been removed from the maps in 1795, when it was partitioned among Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Poland only reappeared in 1918, thanks to postwar agreements between the Great Powers. And yet, to the Poles, Poland had always been entirely real.
Today, the United Nations has 192 countries as full-fledged member states. Among them are countries that have lasted for centuries, and there are countries recognized as recently as two years ago. And one, Montenegro, isn't even a year old.
Poland, which didn't exist a hundred years ago, is actually a veteran among UN members. The vast majority are even younger than Poland: More than two-thirds of all countries in the United Nations are less than fifty years old.
What's not on the list are the states that are waiting to be born. Scots, Palestinians, Transnistrians, Abkhazians, and many more, are all patiently (and not so patiently, sometimes) anticipating the day when their nations will become fully recognized states. Some of them, like Transnistria, already have their countries - officially called the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, or PMR for short, Transnistria was founded in 1990 and has governed itself independently ever since. Transnistria has the general qualifications required for statehood (a permanent population, defined territory, government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states). For political reasons, the rest of the world prefers to think of it - incorrectly, at least for the past 17 years - as a part of Moldova.
Others, like the Palestinians or the Kosovars, are not so far ahead on the road to statehood. But what they all have in common is a burning desire for independence. They are peoples with common cultures, or histories, or languages, who seek to rule themselves entirely, to govern and legislate and tax and trade independently, to define their own borders and exercise power over who may cross those lines. This is the Fourth World: the stateless and the unrecognized.
The final arbiter of these notions, of course, is power. There is little complexity, in the end, to the question of how a state is made: the powerful's interests trump the powerless's sovereignty. There are conceptual arguments about what a state really is, but for most of the stateless, the proof is in the lines on the ground. In Georgia, along the Black Sea, the ancient Abkhaz nation currently fighting for independence dates the original sketching of its own lines to tribes back almost as far as the sixth century BC.
“Amazing Abkhazia!” as the Russian writer Isaac Babel called it, and later, “the fertile and enchanted garden,” was sovereign by the eighth century and saw its independence live, die, and be reborn over and over until the 20th century, when it became subject to Soviet Georgia. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Abkhazia declared its independence again. “But will Georgia give up Abkhazia?” asked the Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski at the time. “There are four million Georgians and only 100,000 Abkhazians. It is easy to predict the chances.”
Neither Georgia nor the United Nations has agreed to recognize the Abkhazian notion as a thing. War between the Abkhazians and the Georgians began in 1992 and lasted through 1993, with sporadic violence following; in August 2004, the Georgian coast guard fired on a vessel heading for Abkhazia, and hardline President Mikhail Saakashvili - a militant hawk, and a darling of Washington - announced that Georgia would sink all unauthorized ships headed for the breakaway nation's shores. Abkhazia, unsurprisingly, broke off peace talks that were being overseen by the UN.
Georgian historians deny Abkhazia's history; Abkhazians counter by pointing out the historical Soviet and Georgian efforts to erase it from the earth. Indeed, Abkhazians possess a history, a culture, an ethnicity, and a language (one with 68 consonants, many of which can communicate whole concepts, and sounds including a trill and a buzz); they also have a land that they know belongs to them. Fifteen years ago, Abkhazia established its own government, with the force of more than a thousand years of history behind it. But who will recognize it? And does it even matter if no one ever does? Fact is, the actual physical existence of a nation requires little besides the nation's belief in its own existence.
There is little agreement on how to treat the invisible. So it is hardly any wonder, then, that the invisible feel that to be seen, they must make a noise.
So apparently not only are these nations extremely poor and practically indigenous and ancient-they are also invisible and unrecognized as states.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Gentrification
Gentrification means "creative destruction" and is an economic concept. As an economic concept its purpose is to exand global markets by first blowing them up. According to dictionary.com-gentrification means "The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people." Another definition from dictionary.com is "the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses."
Both Japan and Germany became power houses once again after WWII by blowing up their old factories and building brand new ones. This process both allows and opens up the pssibility for generating value again . Gentrification leads to three things. One is that the uses of the space change. This is usually associated with artists. For instance it is no longer manufactured but is cultural production. The second thing that happens is a change in perspective. In other words, people's relationship with the space changes because they see it differently-such as a once unhip area may now be seen as cool. The third thing is the nature of the space which often results in reinvestment.
Here's an interesting article I discovered through this link:http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
I'll post it here as well.
Gentrification: Not Ousting the Poor?
By Barbara Kiviat Sunday, Jun. 29, 2008
People tend to think gentrification goes like this: rich, educated white people move into a low-income minority neighborhood and drive out its original residents, who can no longer afford to live there. As it turns out, that's not typically true.
A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Pittsburgh and Duke University, examined Census data from more than 15,000 neighborhoods across the U.S. in 1990 and 2000, and found that low-income non-white households did not disproportionately leave gentrifying areas. In fact, researchers found that at least one group of residents, high school–educated blacks, were actually more likely to remain in gentrifying neighborhoods than in similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify — even increasing as a fraction of the neighborhood population, and seeing larger-than-expected gains in income.
Those findings may seem counterintuitive, given that the term "gentrification," particularly in cities like New York and San Francisco, has become synonymous with soaring rents, wealthier neighbors and the dislocation of low-income residents. But overall, the new study suggests, the popular notion of the yuppie invasion is exaggerated. "We're not saying there aren't communities where displacement isn't happening," says Randall Walsh, an associate professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the study's authors. "But in general, across all neighborhoods in the urbanized parts of the U.S., it looks like gentrification is a pretty good thing."
The researchers found, for example, that income gains in gentrifying neighborhoods — usually defined as low-income urban areas that undergo rises in income and housing prices — were more widely dispersed than one might expect. Though college-educated whites accounted for 20% of the total income gain in gentrifying neighborhoods, black householders with high school degrees contributed even more: 33% of the neighborhood's total rise. In other words, a broad demographic of people in the neighborhood benefited financially. According to the study's findings, only one group — black residents who never finished high school — saw their income grow at a slower rate than predicted. But the study also suggests that these residents weren't moving out of their neighborhoods at a disproportionately higher rate than from similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify.
This study isn't the first to come to that conclusion. A 2005 paper published in Urban Affairs Review by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, looked at a nationwide sample of neighborhoods between 1986 and 1989 and found that low-income residents tended to move out of gentrifying areas at essentially the same frequency they left other neighborhoods. The real force behind the changing face of a gentrifying community, Freeman concluded, isn't displacement but succession. When people move away as part of normal neighborhood turnover, the people who move in are generally more affluent. Community advocates may argue that succession is just another form of exclusion — if low-income people can't afford to move in — but, still, it doesn't exactly fit the popular perception of individuals being forced from their homes.
The new study found that while gentrification did not necessarily push out original residents, it did create neighborhoods that middle-class minorities moved to. The addition of white college graduates, especially those under 40 without children, was a hallmark of gentrifying neighborhoods — that much fit the conventional wisdom — but so was the influx of college-educated blacks and Hispanics, who moved to gentrifying neighborhoods more often than they to did similar, more static areas. Two other groups tended to move more often into upwardly mobile neighborhoods as well: 40-to-60-year-old Hispanics without a high-school degree, and similarly uneducated Hispanics aged 20 to 40 with children — a counterpoint to the common conception of gentrification, if there ever was one. The only group that was less likely to move to a gentrifying area was high school–educated whites aged 20 to 40 with kids.
The study is under review for publication, but is being circulated early by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The findings, while unexpected, are notable for the depth of data on which they're based. Walsh and his colleagues, Terra McKinnish, an associate professor of economics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Kirk White, an economist at Duke University's Triangle Census Research Data Center, compared confidential Census figures from 1990 and 2000 from 15,040 neighborhoods, with an average of about 4,000 residents each, in 64 metropolitan areas, such as Phoenix, Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Columbus, New York, Atlanta and San Diego. The researchers identified gentrifying neighborhoods as those in which the average family earned less than $30,079 in 1990 — the poorest one-fifth of the country — and at least $10,000 more 10 years later. Taken all together, the study paints a more nuanced picture of gentrification than exists in the popular imagination. But the authors acknowledge that it leaves plenty of unanswered questions, such as why certain demographic groups are more likely to stay in — or move to — gentrifying neighborhoods, and why certain groups, such as blacks without high school degrees, don't see the same income gains as others.
Then there is that most fundamental of questions: does gentrification lead to greater wealth for people in a neighborhood, or are the people who choose to live in such a place otherwise predisposed to make more money? "This study shows us a lot more about gentrification," says Walsh, "but there's still a lot we don't know."
Both Japan and Germany became power houses once again after WWII by blowing up their old factories and building brand new ones. This process both allows and opens up the pssibility for generating value again . Gentrification leads to three things. One is that the uses of the space change. This is usually associated with artists. For instance it is no longer manufactured but is cultural production. The second thing that happens is a change in perspective. In other words, people's relationship with the space changes because they see it differently-such as a once unhip area may now be seen as cool. The third thing is the nature of the space which often results in reinvestment.
Here's an interesting article I discovered through this link:http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
I'll post it here as well.
Gentrification: Not Ousting the Poor?
By Barbara Kiviat Sunday, Jun. 29, 2008
People tend to think gentrification goes like this: rich, educated white people move into a low-income minority neighborhood and drive out its original residents, who can no longer afford to live there. As it turns out, that's not typically true.
A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Pittsburgh and Duke University, examined Census data from more than 15,000 neighborhoods across the U.S. in 1990 and 2000, and found that low-income non-white households did not disproportionately leave gentrifying areas. In fact, researchers found that at least one group of residents, high school–educated blacks, were actually more likely to remain in gentrifying neighborhoods than in similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify — even increasing as a fraction of the neighborhood population, and seeing larger-than-expected gains in income.
Those findings may seem counterintuitive, given that the term "gentrification," particularly in cities like New York and San Francisco, has become synonymous with soaring rents, wealthier neighbors and the dislocation of low-income residents. But overall, the new study suggests, the popular notion of the yuppie invasion is exaggerated. "We're not saying there aren't communities where displacement isn't happening," says Randall Walsh, an associate professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the study's authors. "But in general, across all neighborhoods in the urbanized parts of the U.S., it looks like gentrification is a pretty good thing."
The researchers found, for example, that income gains in gentrifying neighborhoods — usually defined as low-income urban areas that undergo rises in income and housing prices — were more widely dispersed than one might expect. Though college-educated whites accounted for 20% of the total income gain in gentrifying neighborhoods, black householders with high school degrees contributed even more: 33% of the neighborhood's total rise. In other words, a broad demographic of people in the neighborhood benefited financially. According to the study's findings, only one group — black residents who never finished high school — saw their income grow at a slower rate than predicted. But the study also suggests that these residents weren't moving out of their neighborhoods at a disproportionately higher rate than from similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify.
This study isn't the first to come to that conclusion. A 2005 paper published in Urban Affairs Review by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, looked at a nationwide sample of neighborhoods between 1986 and 1989 and found that low-income residents tended to move out of gentrifying areas at essentially the same frequency they left other neighborhoods. The real force behind the changing face of a gentrifying community, Freeman concluded, isn't displacement but succession. When people move away as part of normal neighborhood turnover, the people who move in are generally more affluent. Community advocates may argue that succession is just another form of exclusion — if low-income people can't afford to move in — but, still, it doesn't exactly fit the popular perception of individuals being forced from their homes.
The new study found that while gentrification did not necessarily push out original residents, it did create neighborhoods that middle-class minorities moved to. The addition of white college graduates, especially those under 40 without children, was a hallmark of gentrifying neighborhoods — that much fit the conventional wisdom — but so was the influx of college-educated blacks and Hispanics, who moved to gentrifying neighborhoods more often than they to did similar, more static areas. Two other groups tended to move more often into upwardly mobile neighborhoods as well: 40-to-60-year-old Hispanics without a high-school degree, and similarly uneducated Hispanics aged 20 to 40 with children — a counterpoint to the common conception of gentrification, if there ever was one. The only group that was less likely to move to a gentrifying area was high school–educated whites aged 20 to 40 with kids.
The study is under review for publication, but is being circulated early by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The findings, while unexpected, are notable for the depth of data on which they're based. Walsh and his colleagues, Terra McKinnish, an associate professor of economics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Kirk White, an economist at Duke University's Triangle Census Research Data Center, compared confidential Census figures from 1990 and 2000 from 15,040 neighborhoods, with an average of about 4,000 residents each, in 64 metropolitan areas, such as Phoenix, Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Columbus, New York, Atlanta and San Diego. The researchers identified gentrifying neighborhoods as those in which the average family earned less than $30,079 in 1990 — the poorest one-fifth of the country — and at least $10,000 more 10 years later. Taken all together, the study paints a more nuanced picture of gentrification than exists in the popular imagination. But the authors acknowledge that it leaves plenty of unanswered questions, such as why certain demographic groups are more likely to stay in — or move to — gentrifying neighborhoods, and why certain groups, such as blacks without high school degrees, don't see the same income gains as others.
Then there is that most fundamental of questions: does gentrification lead to greater wealth for people in a neighborhood, or are the people who choose to live in such a place otherwise predisposed to make more money? "This study shows us a lot more about gentrification," says Walsh, "but there's still a lot we don't know."
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Globalization
In general, global poverty is influenced by changes and the emergence of the global economy. Apparantly globalization was responsible for causing the erosion of soverignty-also known as the nation state. This was due to the emergence of market capitalism in which trade is more important than politics thus giving way to a weaker nation state. The nation state willingly surrendered to business and finance corporations. An example of this would be China becoming a communist country with an orthodox strain of Marxism. Hong Kong was returned to China, yet it was left autonomous rather than becoming completely ruled by China once more. In other words Hong Kong became a free zone city. A free zone city is a little island whosse business and finance is above that of the nation state. Thus business becomes self regulatory. Usually a nation state is viewed as a bad thing, and that this is not a normal way to regulate a country-as both a nation and a state that is a combination of both ethnic and political power. Apparently it seems that a country should be run either way(politically or ethnically) but not by both. This is why nation states generally lead to genicide and ethnic cleansing because a nation state is generally composed of a high number of a certain cultural group of people. This is most likely how the Holocaust in Germany started. If you weren't a "perfect example of the Aryan race" then your life was in grave danger.
Yet on the other hand, globalization weakens the nation state because it is oriented with profit making. So by choice, the nation state defers to global capital thus establishing it as an entity onto itself because it contains certain privileges and rights as well as capital privileges and rights.
Somali pirates have jumped into the global economy through piracy. The truth is that Somali pirates are not terrorists nor should be considered so negatively. It's their only choice because Somalia lacks cities for them to migrate to. They have given in to piracy as a way of making money. Here is a link that tries to clear up the negative stereotypes of piracy and cast Somali pirates in a more positive light.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html
Yet on the other hand, globalization weakens the nation state because it is oriented with profit making. So by choice, the nation state defers to global capital thus establishing it as an entity onto itself because it contains certain privileges and rights as well as capital privileges and rights.
Somali pirates have jumped into the global economy through piracy. The truth is that Somali pirates are not terrorists nor should be considered so negatively. It's their only choice because Somalia lacks cities for them to migrate to. They have given in to piracy as a way of making money. Here is a link that tries to clear up the negative stereotypes of piracy and cast Somali pirates in a more positive light.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Slums-exactly as it sounds.
The growth of slums is caused by many moving to the periphery of cities. Sadly the promise of urbanization only results in producing massive concentrations of poverty rather than urbanization itself. Slums are a poor standard of living. There is insecure tenure, pollution, inadequate infrastructure , overcrowding, (Far too many people in a small space) and poor housing. Poor housing results in shanty towns. The building structures are impromptu and made out of whatever is available. 78% of the world's population lives in these conditions- and it continues to increase in the future. Slums are generally located on land of little or no value whatsoever.
Here's a link on more information on how slums are the future.http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/third-world-slums-biz-cx_21cities_ee_0611slums.html
Here's a link on more information on how slums are the future.http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/third-world-slums-biz-cx_21cities_ee_0611slums.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Ghettos-not necessarily a bad thing
Usually when I first think of ghettos I think of either the Jews under Nazi Germany confinement or poor black people-you know from the hood-the rough part of town. Yet ghettos weren't always necessarily a bad thing. Yes, ghettos were originally self imposed during the Middle Ages when they were first created and the purpose was for certain people to be segregated according to their status and economic status as well as their religious status. Jews lived in ghettos because the old stereotype is that Jews are connected to money. Actually most Jews did have jobs that involved money such as bankers and merchants and the majority population relied upon them because according to religion, Christions were not allowed to handle money while in Judaism, there are no such prohibitions regarding money.
Yet despite being associated with one particular group and poverty, ghettos weren't originally negative. For one thing, they helped preserve certain cultures, they also provided security-in the case of Jews it was from pograms. Also ghettos provided a sense of commonality as well as an economic status locality. Ghettos usually occured through immigration. So ghettos weren't always associated with poverty or crime-that's usually what they represent today though.
here is a link to a website that explains more about ghettos during the Holocaust-yet also explains that the concept is much older than that of WWII and the Nazis. In other words, Jews have been forced to live in ghettos long before Nazis came into the picture.http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ghettos/
Yet despite being associated with one particular group and poverty, ghettos weren't originally negative. For one thing, they helped preserve certain cultures, they also provided security-in the case of Jews it was from pograms. Also ghettos provided a sense of commonality as well as an economic status locality. Ghettos usually occured through immigration. So ghettos weren't always associated with poverty or crime-that's usually what they represent today though.
here is a link to a website that explains more about ghettos during the Holocaust-yet also explains that the concept is much older than that of WWII and the Nazis. In other words, Jews have been forced to live in ghettos long before Nazis came into the picture.http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ghettos/
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Real Simcity
There are six discourses that make up the concept of the postmetropolis. One of them actually is the term simcity-whose definition is similar to the movie and graphic novel of the same title. Basically, a simcity is a zone of hyperreality in which things are both real and unreal. In other words the line that separates the real from the unreal is blurred and it becomes difficult to tell which is which. An example of a simcity is NYC. So many bizarre things occur there on an everyday basis that it feels practically unreal. For instance, several weeks ago, me and my friends went to see Avenue Q on Broadway. While walking around Times Square afterwards we saw the Statue of Liberty hanging out in one area where you could apparently take pictures with "her." That's pretty weird but it gets weirder-Spiderman and Dora the Explorer are in another area where you can basically also pay money to take pictures with them. Yet the strangest thing in my opinion is the following: Three Elmos, two Cookie Monsters(who looked more like blue Elmos) and Shrek were wandering around Times Square(Not in one spot like Spiderman or the Statue of Liberty) waving at people and carrying Christmas stockings. Also the costumes seem rather bootlegged-as in not official costumes. I think this actually occurs on a regular basis because the last time I was in NYC in October I saw Minnie,Mickey and Elmo wandering around-also carrying Christmas stockings. Perhaps these people find it completely normal to wander around dressed like well known characters in order to earn a tip from taking pictures with people-as well as a great way to make money. (So that's what the Christmas stockings are for.)
Here is a definition of hyperreality online-the cartoon characters randomly wandering around NYC totally fits in there.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hyperreality.htmhttp://
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Attack of the Deranged,Delinquent Homeless People-or Not...
According to Mike Davis ecological view point, cities are organized based soley upon fear. Cities are seen as zones of danger. Another belief is that this damage and danger must be contained in order to make the city a safer place.Key targets that cause fear in cities include immigrants, those of the lower class, and as obvious by the title of this post-the homeless.
In an attempt to contain homeless people social boundaries are hardened-in other words fortified against the homeless. Another way to explain this is that select groups-such as the homeless are kept out through psuedo privatization. They are also kept from loitering around the city because they are considered unwanted. Examples of "keeping the homeless from invading the city" are such like how in NYC ledges of buildings have spikes on them in order to discourage the homeless from spending the night there. In some cities, park benches and bus stop seats have been replaced with tubes, also in order to prevent the homeless from sleeping there-and for the record the tubes are solid so the homeless cannot sleep INSIDE the tubes.
Truthfully though, I feel that most of this "fear of homeless people" is inside the majority of the city's populations heads. Acting like this against the homeless makes it seem as if the homeless are going to run around ruthlessly attacking people if something isn't done to prevent this from happening. In truth, this sort of behavior is rare-yet not impossible. Years ago I read in a Daily News tabloid that a homeless woman on a train in the city killed a father (in front of his young daughter) because she detested the way he was looking at her. Yet I seriously doubt that cities are going to become any safer once the homeless are detained from loitering around on park benches and bus stop seats.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=&no=321234&rel_no=1
Thursday, March 5, 2009
No Barriers Between Us
According to Jane Jacobs barriers are actually a negative thing in societies. In general fences are put up between neighbors in suburbs or cities in order to prevent people from breaking and entering via backyards as well as to prevent prying eyes from snooping on us all the time. In other words the fences are also for privacy. Yet Jane Jacobs finds these barriers to be negative because not only do the fences keep out burglars and nosy neighbors it also keeps out diversity as well. In fact it has been proven that fences actually aren't ideal protection. Buildings can be broken into because the fence actually makes them seem less secluded not to mention that with more people wandering around pedestrian traffic is increased-quite possibly also increasing the amount of crime.
In fact public housing projects have been discovered to be high crime areas due to eyes being on the streets rather than on the houses themselves Also there is no separation of commercial and residential buildings which make the buildings even more vulnerable if a burglary were to be commited. So fences apparently draw more attention to crimminals rather than preventing them from breaking in. Without fences, privacy may be reduced, but diversity would be able to increase. Perhaps also neighbors could become closer friends due to there being no boundaries in sight-as is normally the case with true friendship.
Here's a link to an example of the downsides of a fence.http://media.www.trinitytripod.com/media/storage/paper520/news/2006/01/31/Opinions/Fence.Creates.Ugly.Border-1546026-page2.shtml
In fact public housing projects have been discovered to be high crime areas due to eyes being on the streets rather than on the houses themselves Also there is no separation of commercial and residential buildings which make the buildings even more vulnerable if a burglary were to be commited. So fences apparently draw more attention to crimminals rather than preventing them from breaking in. Without fences, privacy may be reduced, but diversity would be able to increase. Perhaps also neighbors could become closer friends due to there being no boundaries in sight-as is normally the case with true friendship.
Here's a link to an example of the downsides of a fence.http://media.www.trinitytripod.com/media/storage/paper520/news/2006/01/31/Opinions/Fence.Creates.Ugly.Border-1546026-page2.shtml
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Garden Cities have nothing to do with Gardens
Ebenizer Howard came up with the concept of the "Garden City of Tomorrow." The purpose behind it was to remake the city in order to contain it. Cities generally were notorious for their rapid urbanization with no end in sight and neverending sprawl. Originally there were only two "magnets" (various areas to live that usually attracted people to them) the town and the country. In otherwords, these were the only two options: the city which had the drawbacks of being uncomfortable, expensive, and brutal, while at the same time provided drainage, employment and amusement, or the country with it's clean air and water.
Ebenizer thought it would be efficient if the two were blended together in order to provide the best of both "magnets." The idea of this so called garden city would allow everybody to own a building collectively rather than individually. In other words the entire community would be owned by everyone thus eliminating private speculation. Prices would be moderate, stabilized, and consistent. The population size would be limited: garden cities would be capable of holding a maximum of 30,000 people. To add an aspect of the country, tree would be required in order to surround the city with a park-a greenbelt of sorts. The park would provide access to nature and would keep the city nice. This part would not be permited to be developed.
Here is a link to an article on the Garden City Movement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement
Ebenizer thought it would be efficient if the two were blended together in order to provide the best of both "magnets." The idea of this so called garden city would allow everybody to own a building collectively rather than individually. In other words the entire community would be owned by everyone thus eliminating private speculation. Prices would be moderate, stabilized, and consistent. The population size would be limited: garden cities would be capable of holding a maximum of 30,000 people. To add an aspect of the country, tree would be required in order to surround the city with a park-a greenbelt of sorts. The park would provide access to nature and would keep the city nice. This part would not be permited to be developed.
Here is a link to an article on the Garden City Movement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement
Thursday, February 19, 2009
ecological model of cities according to chicago school
Sociologists at the Chigago school around the early 1900s were trying to come up with a way to understand why the city of Chicago was transforming so rapidly. In other words, Chicago grew rapidly in a short period of time. In 1860 there was a population of 112,000 and by 1900 it had increased to 1.5 million. The sociologists decided to follow an ecological model in which the population was refered to as biological entities that interacted with their environment. To the sociologists- in particular, Park, the reason why the city increased so rapidly was related to land use-in other words it was biotic. The city was apparently attempting to remain functional. Thus by continuously transforming, it was able to maintain itself.
According to a functionalist the ability to function is centered upon a system oriented towards being able to function. Also to functionalists, nothing is random and everything serves a purpose. In other words, Chicago wasn't just randomly increasing poplation wise. There had to be a specific reason behind it.
Here is a link explaining the origin and purpose of the CBD-the Central Business District, which is the geographic center of a city.http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/cbd.htm
According to a functionalist the ability to function is centered upon a system oriented towards being able to function. Also to functionalists, nothing is random and everything serves a purpose. In other words, Chicago wasn't just randomly increasing poplation wise. There had to be a specific reason behind it.
Here is a link explaining the origin and purpose of the CBD-the Central Business District, which is the geographic center of a city.http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/cbd.htm
Thursday, February 12, 2009
What if The U.S. Wasn't Colonized?
It's a well known fact that America became colonized around the 16th century when Western European explorers began to investigate and explore the "New World". Their main basis for establishing colonies was in order to discover resources or something known as "the three Gs"-Gold G-d and Glory." In other words they were trying to find resources and wealth in order to directly link these colonies to their continental empire. Iit was quite obvious that this European Expansion move was mainly for profit.
While cities clearly did not spring up overnight, founded towns eventually developed into large cities-but not until perhaps decades or even centuries later. Yet now I'd like to get to the topic at hand. What would the U.S. have been like if Western Europeans never arrived to colonize it. Would there even be cities today? What about industrialization? Perhaps there wouldn't even be any societies. Life would be totally different and unrecognizable and Native Americans would live their lives without any fear that the white man would arrive to completly destroy the world as they knew it-or at least their land.
Several cartoons have made a few small gags about this. Basically New York City would be shown-however because Native Americans lived there before anybody else did, the cityscape of tall,stately skyscrapers and appartment buildings would suddenly be replaced by rows and rows of teepees.( A rather obvious stereotype) Let's be more realistic, though because obviously it would not be Teepee City-or even a city at all. In fact, if the White man never showed up in North America to colonize it I doubt there would ever be any cities-or at least the kind that we recogized today. Native Americans in general lived in communities or tribes. These tribes were very close with one another and regarded one another as their kin-even if they weren't biologically related by blood. They were generally peaceful individuals-although once in a while there would be war with other Native American tribes,and "Nations." If America still belonged to the Native Americans I dare to believe that despite life being perhaps more simple, without industrialism or technology such as televisions and cars, it would be perhaps a closer and maybe even better place. Native Americans depended upon the forest for food, medicine and shelter, yet they never abused the resources that nature offered them. They never completely demolished forests or drove animals to extinction. Native Americans would never waste what they had killed-if a bison was killed, they would use all of it-bones, organs, everything had a use-unlike how American hunters would merely shoot the animal for its skin, horns, maybe its meat, but leave the rest of the poor animal behind to rot. Also, they always killed more than they needed, unlike Native Americans. Everyone within a tribe would know one another too, unlike in a city in which there are societies but no communities. Keep in mind that I'm really thinking outside the box these days. Perhaps this means that we could survive without cities. Life would be totally different but it would be the only life that we would know-as Native Americans of course. If Western Europeans never colonized America, we'd all be Native Americans-maybe from various tribes and nations but Native Americans Nevertheless.
Anyhow, here is a link regarding Native Americans. There is a lot of interesting information such as their culture, and various tribes. http://www.nativeamericans.com/
While cities clearly did not spring up overnight, founded towns eventually developed into large cities-but not until perhaps decades or even centuries later. Yet now I'd like to get to the topic at hand. What would the U.S. have been like if Western Europeans never arrived to colonize it. Would there even be cities today? What about industrialization? Perhaps there wouldn't even be any societies. Life would be totally different and unrecognizable and Native Americans would live their lives without any fear that the white man would arrive to completly destroy the world as they knew it-or at least their land.
Several cartoons have made a few small gags about this. Basically New York City would be shown-however because Native Americans lived there before anybody else did, the cityscape of tall,stately skyscrapers and appartment buildings would suddenly be replaced by rows and rows of teepees.( A rather obvious stereotype) Let's be more realistic, though because obviously it would not be Teepee City-or even a city at all. In fact, if the White man never showed up in North America to colonize it I doubt there would ever be any cities-or at least the kind that we recogized today. Native Americans in general lived in communities or tribes. These tribes were very close with one another and regarded one another as their kin-even if they weren't biologically related by blood. They were generally peaceful individuals-although once in a while there would be war with other Native American tribes,and "Nations." If America still belonged to the Native Americans I dare to believe that despite life being perhaps more simple, without industrialism or technology such as televisions and cars, it would be perhaps a closer and maybe even better place. Native Americans depended upon the forest for food, medicine and shelter, yet they never abused the resources that nature offered them. They never completely demolished forests or drove animals to extinction. Native Americans would never waste what they had killed-if a bison was killed, they would use all of it-bones, organs, everything had a use-unlike how American hunters would merely shoot the animal for its skin, horns, maybe its meat, but leave the rest of the poor animal behind to rot. Also, they always killed more than they needed, unlike Native Americans. Everyone within a tribe would know one another too, unlike in a city in which there are societies but no communities. Keep in mind that I'm really thinking outside the box these days. Perhaps this means that we could survive without cities. Life would be totally different but it would be the only life that we would know-as Native Americans of course. If Western Europeans never colonized America, we'd all be Native Americans-maybe from various tribes and nations but Native Americans Nevertheless.
Anyhow, here is a link regarding Native Americans. There is a lot of interesting information such as their culture, and various tribes. http://www.nativeamericans.com/
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Monsters Love Cities
The reason I set up a blog was so that I could reflect upon what I've learned in my Urban Sociology class at least once a week. So you're probably wondering why there's a picture of Godzilla up here. I'd better explain myself.
After my last class I was pondering how to symbolize cities-as in how they represent good or evil. Notice that Godzilla runs rampages of rage through cities-be it Tokyo ,Japan or the Big Apple itself, New York City.
While I'm definately NOT a monster movie expert, I have noticed that most gigantic monsters in movies are seen wrecking havoc upon cities such as how King Kong and the Cloverfield Monster are shown performing a dramatic number upon New York City. Basically these monsters are more prone to attacking a well known, crowded city than a suburb such as Paramus New Jersey. In other words it is highly unlikely that a monster would ever wreck havoc upon a suburb because they are city monsters.
If anything I'd like to symbolize cities as being vulnerable victims. In other words, cities constantly suffer from corruption,crime,overpopulation and terrorism. This backdrop makes it perfect for movies to place a rampaging monster on the loose in an equally enormous, loud and exciting city. That and a city such as Tokyo is much more recognizable and well known than say a generally quieter suburb such as Fair Lawn New Jersey.
I guess cities are better for monsters too. With all those buildings and cars everwhere, there is plenty for the monster to stomp on, and with the crowded population, there are plenty of people to snack upon. In a fictional manner, a monster movie can portray how frightening a city can seem at times. In fact some children who have watched classic Godzilla movies decided that they would never visit Tokyo as they truely believe that the monster rampages the city on a regular basis.
Anyhow, thanks for bearing with this bizarre rant. It wouldn't leave me alone so I had to post it. I promise that next time I'll post something more serious complete with a link to a website related to the topic. This time I was merely testing out the waters of my new blog.
After my last class I was pondering how to symbolize cities-as in how they represent good or evil. Notice that Godzilla runs rampages of rage through cities-be it Tokyo ,Japan or the Big Apple itself, New York City.
While I'm definately NOT a monster movie expert, I have noticed that most gigantic monsters in movies are seen wrecking havoc upon cities such as how King Kong and the Cloverfield Monster are shown performing a dramatic number upon New York City. Basically these monsters are more prone to attacking a well known, crowded city than a suburb such as Paramus New Jersey. In other words it is highly unlikely that a monster would ever wreck havoc upon a suburb because they are city monsters.
If anything I'd like to symbolize cities as being vulnerable victims. In other words, cities constantly suffer from corruption,crime,overpopulation and terrorism. This backdrop makes it perfect for movies to place a rampaging monster on the loose in an equally enormous, loud and exciting city. That and a city such as Tokyo is much more recognizable and well known than say a generally quieter suburb such as Fair Lawn New Jersey.
I guess cities are better for monsters too. With all those buildings and cars everwhere, there is plenty for the monster to stomp on, and with the crowded population, there are plenty of people to snack upon. In a fictional manner, a monster movie can portray how frightening a city can seem at times. In fact some children who have watched classic Godzilla movies decided that they would never visit Tokyo as they truely believe that the monster rampages the city on a regular basis.
Anyhow, thanks for bearing with this bizarre rant. It wouldn't leave me alone so I had to post it. I promise that next time I'll post something more serious complete with a link to a website related to the topic. This time I was merely testing out the waters of my new blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)