Connections

City consists of different connections and everything has some kind of affection on something. Some connections are more visible to the eye and closer to us than others.
In many countries are related the crises of public education and the urban crisis. In US the better schools are located in the wealthier areas and in the suburbs. White parents send their children to private or parochial schools. So in the public schools study immigrants or children whos parents have immigrated, but in the US the official language is obviously English and that is one root of the problem. Immigrants and their children have to communicate and study in the second language. These two problems come down to a result where the pupils who study in the city public school are mostly with low educational results and from a poor minority group.
Schools and housing are also connected. In the UK living areas which are near a school are wanted, even real estate agents advertise houses emanating from the distance of a local school.
It is not very uncommon that living areas are seggregated by dwellers income, altough extremes co-exist. Dual housing market is one step further from seggregation by dwellers income, it also includes seggregation by skin color. This kind of discrimination leads to a situation where housing is a privilege. And that in turn predisposes existence of substandard housing. Inhuman conditions like lack of water, electricity or heat make the situation x times worse. Altough in the US the Department of Housing and Urban Devolopment has right to ´chastize´ substandard rental housing providers, the sitiation stays bad. The biggest problem concerning housing is having no house (=home) at all – homlessness. The statsitics about homless people are deceptive – illusive, because migrants double up with relatives and friends. These statistics also do not include mentally ill people, battered women, runaway youths and dwellers of temporary accomodation. But the sad thing is that even these deceptive statistics refer to homlessness as to a global problem. That is one of many faces of uneven development. Who wants can blame capitalism, once again.
Certain housing is is always in a certain neighborhood. According to New Urbanists ´the vitality of a neighborhood requires a balanced mix of functions – housing, shopping, civic institutions and open space.´ But we must keep in mind that the biggest consumers of the neighborhood are the children. And when they have not got much to ´consume´ they spend most of their time at home, doing their everyday ´opusculums´. Another problem is generation of ´pattery children´ who are overprotected and not active+independent in their environment. Cause of the problem is reduction of ´palyground´.
Another group of people we should keep in mind is - ´people with limitation´. Constrictive factor can be disabilty, age or poverty. And all these circumstances should be taken into consideration when changes are made in the neighbourhood.
When the children and elderly people go to bed starts a lot different ´consumption´ of the city. Revolutionary electric lights have made it possible. ´Nightscapes´ and ´nightshifts´ have changed the cities nature. ´24 hour´city ´, 3shift factories´, ´Ministry of Sound´, ´night venues´................................
There are existing two different cities in one – day time city and night time city – ready to be consumed!

Thru history cities have born, developed and extended over long period of time. But development and extending was always related with region location and its agricultural wealth because city can be as big as surrounding areas are capable to feed. Today many things have changed. Turing the last (maybe even in half) century cities have grown faster and bigger than in last three centuries.
This rapid and frequently unorganized growth has lead, especially in developing countries, to overurbanizatsion and all negative effects of rapid growth are experienced very strongly, as a lack of jobs, education and healthcare. Those negative aspects are also experienced in developed counties but not so strongly because from the beginning there has been better planning and partition of resources.
Other distinctive feature for developing countries is primate city. All amenities are draw together in one center and with that people abandon agricultural areas to get their shear of wellbeing but the circumstance that there are too many people, imperfect planning and not enough resources leads to failing of living environment. While there is too many people in one area, lead to that all resources are only targeted to this area and other areas of country are suffering in poverty.
If in developing countries the living areas are extremely densely crowded and stretch out in height then in developed countries is the problem reversal – since the suburbanization became popular cities have started to sprawl. Huge areas filled with single family house blocks. Sprawl is still popular while it’s offering privacy. The paradox is that now when these areas have extended over enormous areas, local population has started to fight against oversuburbanizatsion. But at the same time people and local inhabitants still look for privacy and prefer to live in single family building.
Mass sprawling has lead (for example in US) to environmental problems. City from its nature has been invariably taker (taking from an area that surrounds it). Now sprawling city converts nearest areas into living areas and at the same time destroying good farming areas. And increasing need for cars has lead to growing air pollution, which in turn has helped spread respiratory system illnesses.
One problem is these both areas (developed and developing countries) that inside urban area there is always uneven development. Areas wellbeing does not only depend on an amount of investments but also from the wealth of its inhabitants. So when there is more money circulating there is more possibilities to invest in local social services. Wealthy inhabitants can afford luxury.
Community interests are usually recognized by local government. Historically the power belonged to one specific group of people who possessed areas wealth and all the investments and planning followed their interests (to earn more money). In time the power to govern went from blue-blood to middle-class.
Today it seems that somehow local authorities have lost their way or will to make grand modifications. Maybe it’s because political regimes must do the best they can to supply necessary services while dealing with their dwindling resources. And while urban and suburban areas are fragmented to small pieces there in no well-set cooperation between city districts. So in some ways urban and suburban development and extension depends on local inhabitant participation in planning who in resent years have shown their interest to give their part.

Diseases of the city

Cities are in a constant change. Centuries ago, industry was the iron heart of the town, for the industrialists and for the workers. Residential districts aggregated around industrial areas. City dwellers were sedentary.
Since the 20. century there have been some variations in the usage of the city. In the 1950s suburbanization became a mass phenomenon. This kind of haphazard growth has lead to very sketchy environments: duplication of public services (elementray education, policing, fire fighting), low density and extended regions. Lack of planning is not the only reason of sprawl. Federal government subsidies embolden this kind of growth quite strongly.
Urban and suburban places develop because of capital investment, but capitalism causes also uneven development and since the capital has become more mobile, it is easier to invest and then disinvest in the different places.
Transportation plays also a big role in sprawl. A car gives certain freedom to its user. Freedom to drive any time any where and not to live by a bus schedule. Mass production of cars using gasoline has led to emission of carbon dioxide. This kind of pollution jeopardises earth (global warming) and earthlings ( diseases, like asthma). There are also other social problems related to sprawl: social isolation and obesity, because people are using a car even for a small distance instead of using their feet; erosion and flooding - the precipitation can not penetrate blacktopping and pavements easily and quickly enough; the demise of small farms; extinction of wildlife and unbalancing of nature - cities expand and invade in the wild life area.
Diversity of regions has led to a situation where there are simultaneously existing environments where duplication of public services is very common (haphazard growth) and environments where is quite common lack of education and healthcare facilities, jobs and necessary resources which are the basis of urban progress (overurbanization).
Overurbanization never happend to the advanced industrial societies, because urbanization took place over an extended period of time. So the agricultural areas remained relatively stable. Another important thing is that city development occured with a measured pace. The result is a ´balanced growth´, while the opposite of that - overurbanization refers to a ´primate city´.
There are power elites, like real estate elites and very often power means control over someone or something. In order to have a little bit of balance there is also ´citizen power´ and that means involvment, partnership and even control. According to Arnstein there is also ´non-participation´ and it is the lowest level of participation, where people are simply manipulated. The second level is ´tokenism´ where people are allowed to take part of information meetings. Citizen participation means active involvment in the town planning through discussions and that is necessary, because then both sides interests are represented and hopfully taken under consideration.

In my earlier studies we almost never read texts or had discussions about urbanization. We only look different architectural styles and historical development but we examined very superficially the reasons. Starting to read the books I see that almost every page gives me something new and it gives answers to questions that I have from former. Hence most of this is new perspective for me and from now on my studies I don’t focus on single building but the whole city and by virtue of that I start to see connections between things that on general survey may seem to be very different and unconnected.
Thru history cities have been serving larger areas around – it has been marketplace. The beginning of urbanism term we may read industrial progress, witch contributed fast growth of cities, first manly in England, in the beginning of 19 century. It also brought along impaired living condition for under classes. And from this, group of people from various areas, who were worried about city life (The Chicago School) started to explore the reasons why and how one or another variable affects city and its development. So urbanization tries to understand the rise and fall on cities.
Firs thing that I understand was that under the name of urbanism we can include people from very wide areas on life. It’s not only the domain of architects or real estate companies but it also includes sociology, ecology, economy, politics, common people, environment, communities and technology. And what’s main that the meaning on urbanism term is chaining with every decade. New aspects are added, old theories are forsaken and later overview.
Today’s world we can view urbanization very differently. It can be viewed from local point or from global point. And how the cities and surrounding areas are developing is also related with location and people’s background that are developing and living on the area. Cities (or metropolitans) are growing together with smaller cities that are surrounding them. Central city skyline can be the trademark to attract other countries and their companies to spread their businesses there and with the technological advantage it is possible. We possess fast communication means – fast transportation and internet. Since the first technological intension people have started to spread all around the world to find cheaper ways to produce goods. Nowadays city still is the marketplace but changed have the goods, the area that it’s serving and also the means. What haven’t changed is that city offers quality, quantity and accessibility. As at first the rapidly developing city had devastating influence to its habitants, urbanization now is having ravaging influence to nature such as water, air, noise pollution, toxic waste and also poor or none planning. There are as well nature forces and urban studies are constantly working to find solutions for these problems.

Digest of readings

This report's aim is to describe some of the theoretical links between globalization and urban areas, more precisely their economical potential and the city dweller's role in it.

Globalization has been referred to as a thorough change not only in international economic and financial mechanisms, but as all embracing societal process. Free flow of capital and better means of communication and logistics have introduced new spatial order of socio-economical agents, also creating new ones. The most apparent dimension of this process has been the internationalization of capital flows, the rise of international financial corporations and relocation of manufacturing processes from Western countries to areas less demanding in labor and environmental issues. As a result, a number of urban areas – in Sassen's terms world cities - have become as managerial centres that control the flow of international capital. These urban areas are also seen as leading sites for innovation of technology.

By Writh's definition, the more a place has population, its density and heterogenity or diversity, the more urban it is. Florida connects the aspect of diversity to innovation and through it to economical prosperity. In his researches he sees the mixture of different social and ethnical backgrounds to foster new technological and social solutions and by that to have a positive effect on the competitivness of the area – in this case, urban locus. Here the diversity can also be understood as wider range of possibilities for highly educated or creative (with high social capital) persons to find suitable working positions and spend their leisure time. Earlier thinker Mumford is optimistic about the nature of the urban places as sites of innovation, because urban life is creative, theatrical; stage, that catalyses social interaction among its dwellers. On the other hand, the strength of social relations and interactions has a strong impact on the competitivness of the region, notes Putnam.

Viewpoints mentioned above are somewhat opposing. Writh is pessimistic about urban areas because of their larger denser populations, feeling them to be anonymous, maintaining mostly formal relationships. This amplifies gesellschaft or impersonal or secondary relations, which is considered to have negative consequences for local communities. Weakening of non-formal social links has also been noted by Putnam.

In a sense, the debate is based on antipodal understandings of key terms used. For example, diversity is understood on the one hand to create interesting and innovative social settings, but on the other to result an encapsulation of different social groups because of the differences between them. At the same time it can be said, that heterogenity creates tolerance.

Concepts mentioned above have received sceptic comments. Important critique stems from the technological development, that has brought new possibilities of communicating via cellular phones or Internet. Decreased amount of face-to-face conversation doesn't necessarily mean the lack of primary relations, but it might, as the nature of personal communication is somewhat transformed. Introduction of new technological apparatus for social networking has also blurred spatiality, creating new spaces and communities into cyberspace. This also is a challenge for concepts of new economy, that rely partly on interpreting individual's cultural and social practices.

Ways of Thinking

´Key Concepts in Urban Studies´ is easy to read and the author obviously likes to make generalizations. Some concepts were intresting (Green Belt Policy) and allowed me to draw parallels. Some concepts were bold (Environmental Racism) and some were unconventional and allogeneous (Roland Barthes, City center as a kind of eroticism).

Muuga Aedlinn has its own so called ´Green Belt´, but in a twisted, ironc way. There are naphtha tanks besieging this small suburb. So, this ´Black Gold Belt´ limits the outward growth of the suburb area and most defenitely prevents regional sprawl. Lucky suburbanites!

Environmental Racism is also present in this suburb of Maardu. Naphtha smell fills the streets and houses on daily bases. During the day time it is not so recognizable but when the darkness falls the smell gets stronger. This air pollution is the most obvious, but not the only one. In order to bridle and control the inhabitants of Muuga there is a consolation phonenumber - 1313 - where you can report about the disturbing conditions. And that is the ´cure´ for this problem?!

In general i agree with authors writings about ´Environmental Racism´ but there is something that is confusing. He claims that rich and powerful people are guilty of polluting the earth. So being powerful is a premis to this kind of activity??
There is an old tunnel (probably a bomb shelter) on the very beginning of Laagna Tee in Lasnamäe . It is a place where people (probably not powerful and rich, but the very same people who live near-by in these massive, monotonous panel houses) occasionally storage their houshold waste. Or in Maardu where is a summerhouse district, people have ´garnished´ the road sides with household waste, especially massive loads of baby dipers?!. Dipers dry-rot approximately 75 years and that means – this kind of waste will outlive the user. Is that a legacy that someone really would like to leave to their child or even to their grand-child?
It is not comparable to the pollution of hazardous waste in New York, where people suffered of cancer and birth defects, but the way of thinking of the people who dumped household waste or hazardous waste is similar. They just do not care. The difference is in the scale of pollution, possibilites and in the consequences!
In order to prevent this kind of fatal/mortal errors there has to be a change in thinking.
´The Anarchist Roots of the Planning Movement´ made me think, maybe we should in a way return to these roots. The purpouse is not rebellion but a burning need of change, change in the way of thinking and obviously the action should be in correlation with thinking.