Week 13: Buy Now and Bye Later

Climate change is a collective action problem augmented by transportation policy; oil and agriculture subsidies; meat-heavy diets; demand for non-seasonal varieties and cheap consumption of goods. Supply chain improvements and regulation help, but the infrastructure change needed is the societal infrastructure of ideals: the “good life” and “American dream”. The housing crash didn’t dissuade the dream for detached single family homes; will coastal flooding change our vision of good living away from massive cheap “now” consumption?

While urban political ecologies tout international equity disparages, our world economy, bound tightly with its international supply chains, depends on cheap “now” consumption. If the U.S. slows its massive consumption, or insulates consumption, economic/political chaos would ensue. Redistribution won't solve the problem. Since capitalism is the world economic system of choice, how do we solve its destructive effects without destroying the benefits?


Bigger question: what level of consumption is just—what is human habitat? 2000 sqft house vs a room, 2 automobiles vs transit, 2 global vacations a year vs regular staycations, easy / cheap air travel vs rail, etc.? The questions of how much, what dictate our spatial form as much as where. No amount of regulation or redistribution will impact the attitude of developing nations more than our example. Our collective fate lies in our severely underdeveloped societal maturity and self-restraint.

Do we want this much food?

Do we need to eat like this?

Do we want to be like this?

Should we eat like this?

Is this what we should eat?

What should we eat?

Is this our best human ecology?

How much home do we need?

How many cars do we need?

Do we need this much stuff?

How much stuff do you need?

Is this how we should consume?

Is this how we should travel?

How much vacation do you need?

Is this how we should live?

Is this how we should live?

Is this how we should work?

Week 12: Silver Bullets—We Need Economic Development Gun Control!

Like Al Gore with global warming, we should laude Florida not for his contribution to understanding but to awareness. Pop-sci half-science couched with attractive politics, as Markusen argues, Florida’s work repackages previous theories like human capital and agglomeration.  Florida sexy-fied economic development and economically legitimizing diversity.  Yuppies and college students may choose place first and job second, but < 30% of adults have a bachelors, ~50% have some college but no degree beyond high-school, < 30% only high-school diploma—~14% don’t have that! Education ≠ intelligence, drive or creativity, but with the loss of well-paying options without training, where are the open doors? Uneducated labor is going to be the majority of the current labor force in many areas—what do we do? Ignore, marginalize, subsidize and hope that wealthier, yuppies show up to offset tax bases? Some evidence that we're at best mismatched or worst overqualified? Look at Germany (apprentice track, university track).

Florida only focuses on large metros, but ~50% of the U.S. population lives in small cities. Markusen’s endogenous consumptive growth has merit; however, grey gold is costly, and importing tourism and exporting goods are both exogenous. Most small city cited examples (Branson, Austin, Boulder, Leavenworth, Bend) are problematic outliers. 

Week 11: Do Smart Cities = Better Cities?

Rio de Janeiro central command brought to you by, IBM. 

The "Smart" in Smart Cities exemplifies every issue with utopian approaches to complex issues. It’s a buzz word of packaged virtues (see also "green"), a tool of wealth, improving services for those who afford them. The utopian goals profess equity without clarity. Can you smart-sense hunger or neglect? Will eliminating more waste redirect it for good? Likely, no.

More data will not magically equate to better decisions, rather provide justification for continued poor decisions. We collect volumes of ignored data—the issue isn’t data. Data-driven decision making is pure business-speak. While potentially tempered with compassion, rarely are faces reflected in numbers on a screen. Smart cities deeply embroil the private in public. Smart city promotion passes authority without accountability to the few capable multi-nationals (IBM & Cisco) just like large-scale infrastructure / logistical projects (Halliburton).

Given smart-project’s costs—what are the social opportunity costs when most cities are struggling to meet basic services and allowing both physical (bridges, rails, levees) and social infrastructure (schools, parks, hospitals) to degrade. Will these networks increase efficiency? Likely, yes. Will that efficiency equate to better deployment of resources? Likely, no.

Because we are smart does not make us good. Our ethics rarely lead our science frequently at the cost of our humanity.

Week 10: Citizen - to be or not to be?

These readings mull around rights, privileges, responsibilities and realities. What are the benefits of citizenship vs nationality? What formal rights of citizenship are available to those of informal status? This seems absurd in a U.S. context! Unless I’m mistaken in my understanding and value of formal citizenship rights, equal legal protection, political participation, economic opportunity, education, public services and public support are not available to undocumented (and much to documented) immigrants. These go further to somewhat define identity and much of the formal construct. Enclaves and shadow cities are only perhaps less devalued because of their complete marginalization and independence from formal structures. Yet formal citizens’ rights are suppressed and populations marginalized (public housing discussion in Hackworth).

While growing up in a poor community increases risks of poverty and those in non-poor communities benefit from better environment/resources, does the dispersing of individual poor into non-poor communities disrupt potential community beneficial activism? Are the issues with the design of public housing (other than stigma), unique to public housing?

Is the current dialog on immigration reform a snake in the grass similar to HOPE VI? Is it sidestepping a conflict or tripping a potential movement? Is this a political form of the spatial/temporal fix?