Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 747 items :

  • Chapters/Articles x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Owiti A. K’Akumu

The term ‘urbanization of poverty’ was first introduced into the urban economics literature by Gerard Piel in his work titled The Urbanization of Poverty Worldwide, first presented to the WHO symposium on ‘Urbanization – Global Health Challenge, in Kobe, Japan, March 18, 1996. Piel (1997) used the term to refer to ‘an upheaval in the lives of the world’s poor’. This ‘upheaval’ was discernible in the trend of poverty dynamics in developing countries where poverty had persisted in rural areas among peasant groups immersed in local traditional economy. From the 1950s, these poor rural populations began an exodus from their traditional rural regions to urban areas where they found limited means of livelihood support thereby translocating rural poverty to urban areas. This is the process Piel (1997) termed ‘urbanization of poverty’, that is, giving poverty an urban other than its hitherto known rural face. It is in this context that Ravallion, Chen and Sangraula (2007) see urbanization of poverty as the extent to which ‘poverty is in fact urbanizing in the developing world’. Similarly Ravallion (2002) deems urbanization of poverty as a situation where the poor urbanize faster than the non-poor. It is a type of poverty that was completely different from the ordinary urban poverty experienced in the developed world. By ‘worldwide’ Piel (1997) essentially meant the developing world of which Chen and Ravallion (2007) broke down specifically into: East Asia and Pacific (EAP); East Central Asia (ECA); Latin America and Caribbean (LAC); Middle East and North Africa (MNA); South Asia (SAS) and; Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Urbanization scholars have tackled issues of migratory urbanization and poverty in different regions as specified above (see, for instance, Hossain 2013, on Dhaka, Bangladesh). This chapter mainly focuses on the SSA region. It builds on the contributions of scholars like Amis (1989), Jamal and Weeks (1993), Potts (1995, 2009), and, Onjala and K’Akumu (2016), among others who have debated issues of urbanization and economic growth in SSA. The new and basic question this chapter is asking is: given that Africa has been undergoing urbanization of poverty over the last 70 decades, are there prospects of reversal in the new millennium? Do SSA countries have the potential to urbanize out of poverty with the current economic dynamics? To answer this question the chapter proceeds by looking into the characteristics of urbanization of poverty; discussing the causes of urbanization of poverty; assessing the implications of economic trends on urban development in SSA countries; and concludes that SSA countries can indeed urbanize out of poverty in the coming decades. Essentially, the chapter attempts to forecast the way out of urbanization of poverty for African countries.

You do not have access to this content

William G. Holt

The increases in technology and mobility question previous urban/rural divides based on place. The Global South is a contemporary concept referring to developing nations serving as raw materials sites dominated by Global North governments and corporations (Wallerstein, 2013). This chapter examines three predominately African-American neighborhoods in the American South: Atlanta’s Summerhill, Birmingham’s North Birmingham, and New Orleans’s Lower Ninth Ward. Beginning with the communities’ historical development, this chapter examines the post–World War II planning efforts of urban renewal and Model Cities that led to the present-day situation of Global South communities in the American South. Drawing on Webber’s (1968) concept of the ‘post-city age’, this chapter shows how the previous era’s urban planning efforts coupled with present-day designs in which these communities bear the metro’s burdens from brownfields to stadiums results in a colonial situation similar to that found in the Global South.

You do not have access to this content

Christiana Saldana

If walls could talk, they would tell the tale of deindustrialization and social unrest that led Downtown Los Angeles (DTLA) into a spell of poor equity, access, community and economy in the 1990s. The adaptive reuse of historical buildings was suggested by the Downtown Strategic Plan, published in 1993 and adopted in 1994, as a key strategy in combating these poor conditions. In particular, the reclamation of historical buildings to create new residential property was a priority highlighted by the creation of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in 1999. Loftification is the renovation of a historical building into a modern, up-to-code, mixed-use residential compound that exemplifies the combination of gentrification and preservation by marketing the historical façade to a new influx of economically specific consumers. Los Angeles as a case study demonstrates how incentive-driven ordinances can streamline this process, making it desirable for property owners and developers alike to take advantage of the valuable space historic buildings can provide. For others, the conversion of once undesirable neighborhoods begs the question of whether these changes truly benefit the public and the residents of DTLA. The City of Los Angeles is currently addressing these issues by means of zoning code and community plan updates, as well as community outreach. Will these measures, along with the mass revitalization of dwindling historic buildings, be part of the comprehensive solution DTLA so readily awaits? Or is the restoration and preservation of historical resources little more than a refurbished form of the cyclical gentrification dynamic?

You do not have access to this content

Barney Warf

In many parts of the world, technologically sophisticated smart cities have been at the forefront of the deployment of digital information and communications technologies, including smart energy grids, transport systems, renewable energy, and smart homes. The rapid economic growth and social transformation of many East Asian societies has given rise to a series of smart cities that are globalized, internet-connected, and that have changed urban governance and daily life in numerous ways. This chapter examines three East Asian smart cities, Seoul, Singapore, and Shanghai, noting how each aspired to smart city status in different ways. In each, information technologies have facilitated the implementation of electronic government (e-government), improved commercial ties, improved energy use and environmental quality, and enhanced the quality of life.

You do not have access to this content

Monica M. Brannon

‘Smart Cities’ initiatives have been lauded as offering new approaches and mechanisms to manage, plan, and enhance urban spaces and citizen experiences within them. Relying on new technologies, the ‘smart’ descriptor refers to utilizing new tools of efficiency as counter to traditional means of understanding and gathering information about cities and their residents. New technological development is often marketed as civic solutions, yet there is little discourse analyzing how digital and material projects relate to existing racial inequality and what data collection practices mean at the community level. This chapter seeks to fill a gap in literature in how technologies operate as social structures, in particular, how new technological infrastructures in urban spaces exacerbate, alter, or alleviate racial divides. The case under consideration here is Kansas City, Missouri, which represents an intersection between new technology and data-driven initiatives, and is also starkly racially segregated. This chapter examines the effects as parts of the city that are differently measured, and the variances between those that are within and those outside of new data collection practices, modes and definitions of surveillance, and smart initiatives. In short, it addresses technological inequality as it relates to geographical spaces. Specifically, it addresses the ideological intentions that shape the technological outcomes of space that result in a divided landscape. Therefore, taking as the foundation the inequality in the existing space, this research explains how technological ambitions affect it.

This content is available to you

Kris Bezdecny and Kevin Archer

The past half-century has seen a fragmentation of urban theory, one that is also evidenced in city-spaces. Cities have been labeled post-modern, post-industrial, post-colonial, mega, global, sustainable, creative, neoliberal, gentrified, themed, among a multitude of theoretical framings. All of these framings are descriptive of key dynamics witnessed in some (but not all) cities, but none describe well all those dynamics in any city. This is a problem showcased by current debates in urban theory today, particularly the recent debate between Scott and Storper (2015) in their discussion of the nature of cities, contested by such researchers as Mould (2016) and Roy (2016b), which calls into question whether a shared theoretical understanding of the ‘city’ is even possible. Indeed, this kind of debate has only intensified as urbanization continues its hyper-acceleration on a planetary scale (Brenner, 2014). As of 2009, over half the world’s population lives in a city (UNDESA, 2014). This means that roughly twice as many people are (re)producing their lived spaces in cities than the entire global population in 1900. An estimated one in eight people live in a megacity, or in cities with a population greater than 10 million; nearly half live in cities with a population below 0.5 million (UNDESA, 2016). By 2050, it is anticipated that as many as two-thirds of all people will be living in cities – with modest gains in already urbanized North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe and exploding growth in Asia and Africa – ultimately resulting in as many city-people at mid-century as live on the Earth today (UNDESA, 2009). Not all cities are created equal. Cities are often ranked competitively, based on a variety of criteria: population size, areal size (land consumed), and economic value. There are currently 214 cities ranked as global cities, those deemed most important to facilitating the global economy (Friedmann, 1986; Beaverstock, Smith and Taylor, 1999; GaWC, 2016). These are further ranked as alpha (49), beta (81), and gamma (84) cities – further demarcating the disparities between the command-andcontrol centers of global capital (while erasing those cities that are not considered competitive enough to be ranked) (GaWC, 2016). The megacity, by contrast, ranks cities by absolute population size, with 47 cities meeting the megacity definition of a population of 10 million or greater, and roughly 600 more cities having a population of 1 million or greater (UNDESA, 2016). Interestingly, there is overlap between urban definitions, in that cities defined by one definition become more likely (or less likely) to also meet an alternative definition (shown by the 40 out of 47 megacities that are also ranked as global cities).

You do not have access to this content

Jason Richardson and Bruce Coffyn Mitchell

Cities are places where agglomeration effects and the intensification of economic exchange create a highly specialized and stratified social structure. Many urban areas in the United States seek to address the decline of their industrial sector via redevelopment and transformation. The extent to which legacy residents of communities in or near those former industrial zones are allowed and able to remain becomes an area of concern. In many cases these households are among the most vulnerable: people of color, the elderly, recent immigrants, or low-to-moderate-income (LMI) non-Hispanic whites. Residential segregation separates communities along racial, ethnic, and economic lines, presenting structural barriers to full participation in the opportunities and amenities that urbanization provides. In this new post-industrial dynamic, the question becomes what methods – data and techniques – can be used to identify zones of gentrification or disinvestment in order to guide policy and encourage reinvestment. This chapter examines techniques used to identify urban investment patterns under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) and the Affordable Housing Goals (AHG), a dynamic set of goals enshrined by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. Using datasets of mortgage and small business lending, and bank branch location, investment levels and financial access for different communities are exposed. This activity bears similarities with critical cartography strategies and uses GIS to examine spatial patterns of inequitable capital access for disadvantaged communities. Two case studies are presented: Baltimore and Oakland. Baltimore provides an example of the isolation of communities from spillover effects, despite considerable reinvestment. Spillover effects from San Francisco have initiated gentrification in Oakland, a community at the edge of a developing world-city.

You do not have access to this content

Pui-yin Ho

Since Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, the direction of urban planning has been constantly adjusted and adapted to the aspirations of society. In the early days after the reunification in 1997, the administration continued the practice of government-led formulation of blueprints for the future with economic development as the focus. The advent of the new millennium has been accompanied by a strong civic consciousness. The public have attached unprecedented importance to the conservation of historic buildings, the preservation of collective memories and the inheritance of cultural values. Long-term planning of the city also took into account a number of factors, such as air quality, noise, visual impact on both sides of Victoria Harbour, building heights and public space. The development in rural areas, with the goal of redistributing the urban population, was also constrained by calls to improve urban life.

You do not have access to this content

Colin Lizieri and Daniel Mekic

There is a growing awareness in urban social science of the importance of commercial real estate as a medium by which large cities are embedded within global capital networks. This trend is most pronounced in the office markets of international financial centres and has become more marked with increasing globalization of commercial real estate. Nuances of market processes can be lost in over-simplistic categorizations such as ‘international financial capital’ or ‘property developers’. Diversity in the nature of office investors leads to substantial differences in the motivations for building international portfolios and in impacts for the cities concerned. This chapter provides a detailed examination of the City of London office market, drawing on a unique database tracing office ownership over some 40 years. The changing tides of ownership, from predominantly local domestic to over 60 per cent non-UK owned in 2014, are linked to transformations of the City of London economy.

You do not have access to this content

Saskia Sassen

One key hypothesis I arrived at early on in my research was that intermediation was an increasingly strategic and systemically necessary function for the global economy that took off in the 1980s (Sassen, 1991/2001, 2012; Sassen-Koob, 1982). This in turn led me to generate the hypothesis about a need for specific types of spaces: spaces for the making of intermediate instruments and capabilities. One such strategic space concerned the instruments needed for outsourcing jobs, something I examined in my first book. But what began to emerge in the 1980s was on a completely different scale of complexity and diversity of economic sectors: It brought with it the making of a new type of city formation. I called it the global city – an extreme space for the production and/or implementation of very diverse and very complex intermediate capabilities. This did not refer to the whole city. I posited that the global city was a production function inserted in complex existing cities, albeit a function with a vast shadow effect over a city’s larger space. In that earlier period of the 1980s, the most famous cases illustrating the ascendance of intermediate functions were the big mergers and acquisitions. What stood out to the careful observer was how rarely the intermediaries lost. The financiers, lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, and more, made their money even when the new mega-firm they helped make eventually failed. Finance became the mother of all intermediate sectors, with firms such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan making enormous profits, followed at a distance by the specialized lawyers and accountants. From the early phase dominated by mergers and acquisitions, intermediation has spread to a growing number of sectors. This also included modest or straightforward sectors: For instance, most flower sellers or coffee shops are now parts of chains, they only do the selling of the flowers or the coffee, and it is headquarters that do the accounting, lawyering, acquisition of basic inputs, etc. Once, those smaller shops took care of the whole range of items; they were a modest knowledge space. Intermediation can now be thought of as a variable that at one end facilitates the globalizing of firms and markets and at the other end brings into its envelope very modest consumer oriented firms. It also contributes to explaining the expansion in the number of global cities and their enormous diversity in terms of specialized knowledges.