Wednesday, April 29, 2009

"An Introduction to the Information Age"

Manuel Catsells explains the new era and how technology has transformed the way people live and rely on things today. Computers and technology have completely changed ways of life. With such networks such as facebook and myspace people get get in contact with each other so easily. With all of these new webs everyone can have a say. They can comment, be heard, and voice their opinions through the internet. Castells calls this the New Age, which is a ton of optimism and opportunity for people.
A very interesting fact is that in today's way of living, in six months people acquire more information than anyone did in their entire life in the 18th century. This is because of all the computers, televisions, and prints outs such as daily newspapers. The speed of the global economy and finance has also changed. It has gotten much faster, it's much easier and quicker to transport trillions of dollars from one place to another through technology.
There is a model called the grid. This is simply dots of networks connected by lines. It is the new model of the information age. It represents capital, information, and knowledge. This grid simply shows how many is everywhere within the grid and can transport very easily. Every area within and connected to this grid has money. It is very rare to be off the grid, so most cities in the world in this new age, even the poorest have internet access. Where there is internet access means there is money and capital as well. Even if some people are off the grid and doing their own things to live, urbanization and capital will overcome and absorb these peoples land, all of this land keeps expanding with capital and technology. This is the process that ever expands and ever colonizes the city and everything keeps growing together. To read deeper about Castell and his network society thoery click this link http://www.geof.net/research/2005/castells-network-society

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Global Markets

Right now in society there are many things regarding Global markets and super-profits. The De-linking from actual production is what makes super-profits. As trillions of dollars are coming through and beiong transported, entrepreneurs and such are skimming the money. They are taking it from point A to point B. An example of a global financial system being used here is PayPal, which people use over the internet. Many people don't even know where their money is going when they use this system. That is why people get into debt and the next time they check their accounts they are in negative numbers. A lot of the time banks don't want to lend people money because they don't think they will be paid back and overtime they feel the dollar will be worth more if they hold onto it. This is deflation, which is that the dollar is worth more than it was a year ago, so the more you saved, the better shape you are in. Inflation is when economists say that the less the dollar is worth, the better it is for them. At a time of inflation banks are more so willing to lend out money.
Super-profits benefit specific firms. A firm that benefits from super-profits is The Lehman Brothers. Super-profits come from Globalization. The United States is the center of Global finance, which is a reason for Deterrotorialization. This is when a company moved and detached itself from everything going on. After that stage the company will Reterrotorialize which is when the company goes to a different area such as moving from the U.S. to Barbados, and that company then won't have to pay taxes.
Starting in the 1980's into the 90's and 2000's New York City is like a Disneyland, it's become a huge destination. Times Square is like the Disneyland, it is a Gentrification, the downtown area. A big idea to expand capital markets is using creative destruction. This is when they blow up and destroy their infrastructure. Here is a link talking a little more about how creative destruction is helpful...http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/09/housing-crisis.html They can then build brand new factories which are more modern and up to date. In the early 80's the Bronx was destroyed and most of it was rubel. There were also alot of abandoned buildings and open lots. This destruction is a good thing, it opens up to the possibility for value and to regenerate again. After this there are three main points. The uses of space, starts to change and it's all about cultural production. The change in perspective, the people's relationship to the space. The last is The change in the nature of the space, the reinvestment of it all.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Slums

In "Planet of the slums Mike Davis talks about the overview of the diverse religous, ethnic, and political movements of the new urban poor. Davis argues about health issues, justice issues, and social issues associated with slums. Many people don't understand what a slum is. A slum is a poor standard of living. There are five conditions that can label a place a slum. These five conditions are insecure tenure, pollution, inadequate/infrastructure, overcrowding areas, and poor housing. An interesting fact is that over 78% of people in the world lives in some type of those conditions. That percentage will most likely get higher as time goes on.
Slums are formed from a process called squatting. This is where people show up at a specific area and decide to stay there. Once you are there, you take possesion of the land, but it is not legal possesion, just physical possesion of that area. The periphery of cities is usually just dumps and rivers with no value and low value land. These are the areas where most of the people claimed and these are the areas that become the slums. Some history of this process of squatting...It dates back to the 40's, 50's, and 60's when revolutions were taking place in many colonies. Back then squatting was political and decolonized. In around the 1980's and on squatting became economic. As the population grew, each area that was claimed started to get divided. The population grew with migration and as these slum towns grew there were obviously more and more slums taking over.
Slums are a part of the process of Globalization, it is a global and globalizing phenomenon.
To read more on slums here is a recent newspaper article from March 2009...http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/01/learning_from_slums/?page=1

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Ghettos and Ethnic Enclaves

Louis Wirth and Ceri Peach wrote about their ideas about Ghettos and Enclaves. Many different terms are strung to ghettos and enclaves. We have terms like assimilation and melting pot. An enclave is a certain amount of people living in one area, but they are not the majority. Assimilation is a process of socialization. It is when an individual or a group of people adopt some or all aspects of a dominant culture such as religion, language, norms, and values. A lot of different ethnicities come together in assimilation. Melting Pot is a way where different people of different cultures, races, and religions are combined to develop a multi-ethnic society. The term is used to describe societies experiencing immigration from many different countries. Overtime these immigrants will assimilate into the population and will lose any cultural identity that they had.
Believe it or not, the first 'ghetto people" were Jewish people back in World War II. Wirth looks at the ghetto as being tied to immigration. This following link will help you to understand more information and history on the "Jewish Ghettos" http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005059
In today's world the thought is that in the inner-cities/ ghettos is where the non-American's live, the enclaves is where more American's live, and the suburbs is where the true American's live.
There are many differences between ghettos and enclaves. A ghetto is dually segregated which means most of the people are African-American and Puerto Rican. In an enclave it is dually diluted which means most of the minority do not live there, it represents a small fraction of the population. A ghetto is labeled negative and is a threat(having to do with crime). An enclave is positive. To live in the ghetto it is forced and real and in an enclave it is voluntary, symbolic, and touristic.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Postmetropolis

Edward W. Soja had written about the "Six Discourses on the Postmetropolis". Postmetropolis is the term to describe the differences between the post modern areas and the modern areas from before the 1970's. Modernism came first with Wright, Howard, and La Corbusier. In the 1970's Post Modernism came about which was basically people rebelling against the modernist principles.
The Postmetropolis had six main discourses has Soja stated. They were Flexcity, Cosmopolis, Exopolis, Metropolarities, Carceral Archipelago's, and Sim city. Flexcity was Post-Fordism which looks to consumers first and asked for feedback unlike Fordism the Modernism era. The producer and consumer are in constant communication. An example of a Flexcity is New York, it can easily adapt and change, so you can think of Felxcity as flexible.
Cosmopolis is simply to be cultured and diverse, with a diverse population. It has golbalization and glocalization which are means of exchange in a way.
Exopolis is the idea of an edge city. Such as in the greater metro area a good consumer suburb town that is the center of production can be part of the city. Exurbs are greater than 50 miles from the main city. This article from The New York Times talks about people commuting form exurb cities...http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/11/realestate/commuting-at-the-edge-of-the-exurb-belt.html
Metropolarities are developments of new types of qualities or social structures that might emerge.
Carceral Archipelagos are "prison islands". It is the thought that you are being watched , such as by having to sign in and show id's to get into buildings and such similar places.
Last is the Sim City. An example of this is Time Square. It is both real and unreal. It use to be a very serious center of production and post modernism it is used for many such things as the ball dropping and the naked cowboy.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

"Ecology of Fear"

Mike Davis wrote about "Ecology of Fear". Davis said hes sees the city based upon fear. To him cities are still seen as zones of danger with a lot of illegal things happening in them. Things such as drug-dealing, rapes, and murders are most likely to happen in a city. Davis' ideas followed Jane Jacobs, so this time was around the 1980's. His idea was to somehow contain the danger and damage in a city. Most of the danger came from immigrants, minorities, lower class people, but especially the homeless.
Mike Davis' subject of study was the fortress city Los Angeles. Davis wanted to recognize the hard and soft boundaries that had to be placed when and where, also having to do with social boundaries within the built environment. For example, he felt that instead of having flat bench's on the corners and bus stops, to have something a lot more uncomfortable so that people won't always be trying to hang around the area. He wanted to use a method of exercises of social difference and power. Mixing of social classes at many public parks he felt would relieve many tensions throughout the city.
Hard boundaries were used to keep certain people out of places were such physical things as big solid fences maybe with some barbed wire on the top. An example of a soft boundary would be just a sign saying no entrance or keep off grass. It would be something where you physically could go and do but if an authority figure saw you, you would be kicked out. So overall a hard boundary would be a tougher boundary to overcome, but for entering either boundary counsequences would be the same.
Davis' overall point was that fear proves itself, and that it is not based upon crime. To read more about Mike Davis' "Ecology of Fear" and Los Angeles click on the following link...http://misonou.livejournal.com/530886.html

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Suburbs overcoming Cities

Jane Jacobs was all about the movement called New Urbanism. This went against all the old urbanism and against the paternalism of the modernist approach. The modernist approach was from the likes of Wright and La Corbusier. Jacobs said that we needed to look at the city as natural living things and thought it was the worst thing to do to try and control and change things in a city.
The difference between a city and suburb is it's densities. The city has a high density and the suburbs a low density. Suburbs were homogenous which meant they had the same race and class living there which is obviously different today. The suburb has changed over time from homogenous to heterogenous. The suburbs have now become more diverse than cities. Jane Jacobs wanted to allow the city to grow as an ecosystem and after about the 1960's the New Urbanist's were very successful. To look up awesome info about New Urbanism click this link http://www.newurbanism.org/

They pushed for community planning rather than having specialists and professionals. Neighborhoods and small communities started becoming more important to people. Nieghborhoods started becoming the basis of America's social fabric and American's wanted and needed togetherness and relationships.
A huge factor in suburb life was the automobile. Most people didn't need to go or live in the city when they have an automobile and stores around them to shop with everything they need. Suburbs started to have restaurants, clothing stores, and eventually malls with a countless variety of stores. Automobiles alone helped erode the basis of forming relationships. By the year 1998 51% of people lived in suburbs and by today that percentage has probably risen.