Week 6: A Balanced System?

It’s overstated that borders are irrelevant; referencing Scott: cities are signing treaties (Kyoto) and forming embassies in other nations. In our system, cities function at the mercy of states, reinforced by tax code. Should cities retain their taxes--what affects would that have on suburbanization, resource use and poverty (devastating federal power & rural areas)? Does multinational capital flow weaken national borders? Don’t we require state regulations against abuse of those powers? Multinational blocs appear solely economic and weak: the EU’s recent existential battle based on nation-state economics illustrates. The United States were a confederation of independent nation-states under a historically weak central government. That changed, and city-regions are powerful economic and political players (New York, LA, Chicago foremost). Our economies are independent from others, however, highly interdependent. However, interdependence isn’t indivisibility. Strong trade linkages can’t ignore intraregional supply and demand, nor the political realities of nation-states. Notwithstanding agglomeration, the ongoing shifts in diffused producers and wiki-sizing have yet to be fully realized. Recently Yahoo forced all remote employees back to their central offices--these are parallel debates.  Based on their actions, few business leaders and city managers understand the functions/benefits of agglomeration. I’m not sure I do. 

Week 5: Pop Goes the Weasel

Interestingly, these articles spoke of cycles of creative destruction (bubbles). Its relevance is plainly seen to all who were aware during the past five years. However, I join with Fainstein in decrying the lack of an effective progressive strategy for generating growth in declining areas. Additionally, I’m growing tired of binary ideological villainizations and clearly non-neutral analysis. Harvey’s piece was thought provoking, but wholly self-aggrandizing (he only cites himself—is he the only thought leader on the subject in the last 40 years!). Yes, trickle down isn’t equitable, the realities of rich/poor dichotomies are obscene, and wage/inflation/productivity divergence is troubling—what is a pragmatic solution! The cycles of accumulation and fixes are a fascinating explanation of the inherent tragedy of capitalism, and the paradox of the spatial fix is fascinating. The blight article reminded me again of the troubling assurance of our solutions—were we any less sure of ourselves then as we are now? Moreover, by fully turning away from that thinking, were we altogether wrong?

Week 4: Sticky Agglomerations

Quigley: Are agglomerations about size, density or both? Do agglomerations benefit all city areas? No. Why? Negative agglomerations? Neighborhood factor? What scale of agglomeration matters? Extremely high density, nodal, low? Benefits are not just from size (declining large cities); however, how can declining cities NOT capture more value from large agglomerations? The research, even considering human capital, is based on production; what about the economic shift (broad production base to highly agglomerated, high-end production; broad consumption-driven, service-based economy)? Points of consumption agglomerate (particularly as transportation costs rise); however, what about the internet as a different agglomerating force (placeless consumption / production).

What about agglomerations for humans as social beings? Can social capital be an agglomerating force for residential or is it destructive?

Equilibrium vs. increasing returns to scale. Optimal city size is unknown, but there is a pattern for size (Zipf's Law). Does the city follow living systems with finite lifespan vs. mass: WATCH THIS!

Enhanced local amenities / benefits of agglomeration and maintaining a flexible workforce should reduce wages (not observed). Can agglomeration attract too many? Why no tragedy of the commons?

Human capital = education = universities ≠ economic growth. Growth near universities favors services from massively subsidized consumption. 

Week 3: Where is Here

Engels writing, while anti-city, introduces an activist journalism that raises questions of the planner’s role: are we advocates or observers? Mixed with the individual ethnographical focused Chicago school, the city is individuals—but are we not required (comprehensive plan) to agglomerate the whole? Can we plan a massive individual endeavor?

These passages are a disturbing reminder of how they lived, but also how billions live today. The squalor of the majority hasn’t diminished; have our responsibilities? The conscious rancor bites at our professions legitimacy and calls for response within each sphere of influence.  There are quiet billions without essentials. Engel’s power (and those aligned in personally uncovering society’s unacknowledged externality) is not only in raising human concern and attention, but demonstrating its proximity. Additionally, what role have we played through pursuit of utopian or just ideal? 

Engel also paints shadows of environmental justice, illustrated in the TIMBYism (this-is-my-backyard) of these neighborhoods. The areas described however, would likely (if not eroded, redeveloped or renewed) be most popular today.  These places with the highest market demand stand on the backs of deprivation. Oddly enough, they are areas un-creatable given our evolved development controls. Will suburbs someday be hip?

Massy—why?