2 Comments

  1. As Saskia Sassens points out “A key feature of the global economy today is the geography of the new types of international transactions” (p12, chapter 2) . In the past geographic location played a much larger part in these international transactions as they were determined by the location and availability of the resources (raw materials, agricultural products, mining goods, etc). The new types of international transactions that form cities today are now primarily finance, specialized services and lifestyle, all flexible things that are not restrained to one location for their presence/development. Why is it then that all of these main international transactions and influx of people seem to be set in and so heavily reliant on these global cities? Seeing as our transactions no longer heavily rely on location due to the access of natural resources, why do we seem to be just as restricted if not more so to these now global cities which possess the lifestyle and money attracting creative thinkers and individuals from around the world?
    We remain just as restricted if not more, yet this time not by location. Why do such a limited number of cities play a strategic role?
    What is keeping us from spreading the attraction and power to smaller/second tier cities in order to maintain balance and keep these cities both liveable and accessible to all?
    The concentration of globalized economies and flow of resources to these globalized cities is leading to a lot of potentially problematic repercussions that need attention. This trend of living in these cities due to money and lifestyle has shaped these cities leading them to be very exclusive and catering only to those who can afford such lifestyles, in turn pushing away anyone who cannot such as young educated individuals as well as middle class families. With the heightened interest and desire for these cities comes increased and even unrealistic costs of living and housing that most cannot afford. Many individuals are forced out of the city and forced to live on the outskirts of the city or relocate. This would be alright if opportunities and infrastructures remained up to par in smaller cities but with this domination, unfortunately they do not.
    With more and more people coming into these global cities, the population is only increasing. Take the example of Sydney one of the major global cities in the world, it is said that we will “need to build a new Sydney every 10 years for the next 90 years” (Future cities video) and with Sydney already touching on all the borders of the national parks the only way to do so will be building up, not spreading it out. Another problem with added population to cities such as Sydney for example is the added traffic congestion which is already terrible, cars are no longer going to be a viable means of transportation.
    The increase of population and exclusivity due to cost of living of these global cities will entail some major issues that will need to be addressed in order to continue making these cities liveable both for those living in them and providing solutions for those being pushed out of them whether that be making it more inclusive or offering equivalent opportunities elsewhere.
    One of the possible outcomes would be a complete restructuring of the city in order for it to continue being liveable. There would need to be a reimagination of the city and the use of its spaces available as well as a restructured means of transportation eliminating the congestion of the city such as things like the hyper loop or similar ideas, transporting a multitude of people at once quickly. But with this, the problem of it being exclusive to those without the monetary resources remains.
    Another potential outcome would be the possibility of people moving into second tier smaller cities and making them desirable places to live, relieving some of the weight that cities such as Sydney carry and equalizing the power. But, these cities as we have seen struggle to attract individuals as they have a lack of resources and infrastructure that make them attractive to those choosing to live in cities such as Sydney. In order to attract people they are forced to reduce taxes in order to give people incentive to relocate there, but with the decrease in money received, there are less funds for public planning and infrastructure continuing to make cities like these less desirable than cities such as Sydney. It is a vicious cycle and the only way it will be broken is if people have no other choice but to relocate and break the trend which is unlikely to happen unless Sydney becomes unliveable. How do we get people interested in living in the smaller cities that have so far been unable to be as desirable as these global cities without the complete demise of these global cities?

    Will this trend towards global cities and the influx increase in population potentially turn into something good for the cities? If so will it be by reimagining and reinventing cities as we know them, allowing more people to live in these cities with equal if not improved lifestyle? If so what will happen to these cities on the edge and those that remain excluded due to high costs of living? or will it be, although unlikely, by changing the trend of concentration in these big cities and bring the second tier, smaller cities into play balancing out the power equilibrium?

    Or will these be impossible and will these great global cities come to a demise becoming unliveable due to people not moving elsewhere? If so what happens then?

Comments are closed.