Era of confused gender types, their spaces, possibilities, commitments, escapes...

There are many factors associated to spatial settlings. In many cases the spatial arrangments(=space) of urban areas are a result of racism and gender domination. According to genders there are masculine space and feminine space. Sex based space boundaries are a silent agreenment, but there are always deserters.
Gendered spaces are connected to culturural and political features pretty obviously. Culture defines the role of a man and a woman, and that in turn defines masculine and femine spaces. Politics/political regime doesnt just stand and watch culture affairs but in many cases adds a bit of restriction/punishment/advantage/...
During the last centuries psychology, Sensitive New Age Guy, gender change operations, androgynes, feminism/Catwoman vs Batman, unisex-, lots of fads and so on have made it quite hard to define a man who is a consumer of masculine space and to define a woman who is a consumer of feminine space, tough stereotypes populate and vegetate.
Societies are accustomed to nurse men with power and that is a vital juice of domination. And domination means obviously domination in a certain space (bar, office, garage...), and this domination defines the nature of the space - feminine or masculine.
Nowadays power is not only a privilege of XY-s. Tough anorexic space consuming is still a problem. Lara Zadors observation about a woman who was apologizing beacause she was taking up too much space in her letter with big characters is sadly funny. It implies to the depth and size of the problem.
The biggest feminine space issue and in some cases even violation is the act of ignoring womans voice when the topic is urban planning. Altough the first clumsy steps are made towards involving regular people in planning process, women/mothers and children are still left aside. But they are the main consumers of a neighbourhood in this era of confused gender types and their spaces, possibilities, commitments, escapes...
The quality of a neighbourhood either fosters crime or helps to avoid it. Jacobs claimed that active city life excludes active `crime life`. Her conviction is supported by the fact that crimes are not spread out evenly. Different kind of crime types take place in the different areas. The higher the crime rate is in some area the less is this area beeing used by non-criminals. In this case the city space is public only formally because the usage is limited.
By Jacobs active and lively street life means commercial businesses open late into the night & coming and going inhabitants. It may prevent crimes which need darkness, shaded corners and no witnesses, but 'light weight crimes' executed by pickpockets and stalls will be present. And by Gottdiener most inhabitants of metropolitan regions are afraid of violent crime and not some much afraid of property crime. But property is not existing inevitability, it has an owner, so property and violent crime may become one in wide-open situation.

Cities witin cities

When analyzers are examining the global city and drying to define it, it seems quite difficult because, what exactly is global city. If I look it simply global city is a city that attends in word wide economy. Global city is a global economy command and control centre. It is a city what is well connected with others that are alike rather with the rest of the national cities. But does the center of worlds command and control of economy does cover whole city? It does not. Global city has two faces. One is the center what is global and the other is behind it. But these analyzers who are examining the city are often concentrating on the centre. And from that are coming mistakes and because of that theories and global city studies are overthrown and remade.
If in history treading needed a physical place that is sited in center of city (because of better accessibility), then now it is changing because of advanced electronics and virtual networks. But still it’s hard to let go of physical site and still these sites are situated in the center of city.
There is something that is common for global city and just big city – that are ghettos and racial segregation. Ghettos are usually placed behind the center and in front of suburb. And the term ghetto is followed by words like poverty, unemployment and substandard housing.
When few decades ago cities were occupied by whites then after sprawl to suburbs became popular the number of whites is getting lower and lower. Now in these areas are living immigrants, minority groups and people who can’t afford to live suburb. One reason why black districts were born, was because of racial discrimination and poverty. They couldn’t afford to by house in suburb. And now things have come to that black people rather live in black district. And this is even deepening the problem of segregation. In districts where are living people from many different nations, segregation problem is much lower but moving to suburbs or blending in with white people is difficult because of poverty.
There are also slums where housing is inadequate and inhabitants are poor. Though the first thing you see is housing, there is inadequate public services, poor medicine and education, lack of professionals. Slum areas, where everything is imperfect, are not common to developed countries, but to developing countries. And usually more than half of city population is living in slums.
Shanty towns are very similar to slums but there are some differences. These are unofficial living areas created by rural migrants. Housing has made illegally and from materials that have been found. And there is nothing but constant health crises, crime, poverty, and no future for next generation because lack of schools. Shanty towns are outcome of absents of low-income households.
Often people who are living in shanty town have a job in another part of city, but they come to live there because of low rent that is affordable for them.
Because these areas are created illegally there is constant threat of demolishment and be replaced with not affordable household. But in India the government has started not to demolish but to improve slums in order to create better living conditions.
For a global city is quite hard to carry out because at the same time to attend on global arena and look after its local inhabitants, is very complicated because of many components. More global and bigger the city is, the more problems have to be solved and the more aspects must be considered.

Spaces

There are many ways to explore space. Like living areas, green areas or market areas. But also we can look space from the point that it’s feminine or masculine. Thru history most or our surrounding space has been masculine – business, political structure and economy has always been area for men and household and raising children has always been area of women.
You may say that after sexual revolution everyone on every space is equal but the truth is still some places are directed to men and some are to women. Masculine spaces are places where traditionally have been more men, like bars, sport stadiums. Thou the number of women visiting these areas are increasing, these spaces are still masculine. Also areas what include danger, as is police, firefighting are masculine space. Female space is for example shopping malls, supermarkets and single family house.
Now the masculine space is under pressure to retreat to accommodate both men and women. Virtual world like movies, magazines and TV are not real places where you can be but these spaces offer a chance to reproduce masculine room that are in treat. Because there is explication what is expected from masculine space to be in world where women are getting more and more space. Before the workspace was area of men but women participation in business is growing with every day.
Thou the female space is increasing there is still hard for masculine world to accept loosing their hold on power. And thou both spaces has been blending to each other power is expected to belong to men.
Space can also separate as dangerous and safe areas in point of violence and crime. Crime is never spread evenly; it’s gathered to some certain locations (usually in poorer areas). The word crime is used in every case thou there is violent crime and poverty crime. And people are more worried about the rate of violent crime in cities and suburbs. The number of violent crime affects use of city space. For example if in public place the rate of crime is raising then the use of area is limited by fear to be a victim. And this may lead to moving out and thru that crime also devastates property values. In bigger cities, the rate of robberies and burglaries are related with use of drugs. Research has shown that fighting against drugs has lead to decline of crime.
But urban space is more than just masculine or feminine space, dangerous or safe areas. Urban space is a constantly developing room what is affected by politic, capital, trends, social activities, architecture, culture ect. Socio-spatial approach is analyzing and investigating different factors what have been and are effecting urban development.

Movements

Different 'movements' have shaped, still shape and will shape the face and nature of urban and rural areas. In the case of a movement of people within national boundaries it means that urban areas suck dry rural areas. Capitalist industrialization started vast relocations of rural inhabitants. Altough the guilty part is known it does not change the extreme and sad sight in rural areas-abondoned cots and farms without a humansoul.

Migration can be accompanied by two other terms. The first one de-territorialization reffers to the large scale migration + migrants are people who suffer under war, famine, political oppression, religous intolerance or/and enduring poverty.

The second term, re-territorialization also comprehends large scale mass movements+ a fact that everyday life stays in the frames of culture of place of origin.

Movement of people across national boudaries has nowadays many varietals. Traditional immigrants apply for permanent entry into other nations. But very often they are dependant on their friends or relatives because they run short in resources. Migrants also often double up with their friends or reltives and that is a beginning of a different problem-'hidden homelessness'.

Another varietal of immigration is - professional and middle class economic immigrants. It started out in the 70s, when US and many European countries accepted immigrants with high level skills.Another difference compared to traditional immigrants is that very often they retain their citizenship and ties to the homeland. Any kind of migration either on a small or large scale creates a situation where immigrants arrive with a certain

'ethnic luggage'and that defines the further tendency of the process. The fact that in London are represented 300 different languages or the city of Miami has become hispanic shows it quite well.
On a smaller and different scale take place urban and suburban social movements which are citizen initiation and the cause is a need of structural changes in social organization. The bulls eye is government. Rapid development is one thing that (sub)urban social movements try to prevent, because it leds to a rapid growth. (Sub)urban inhabitants have a government dependant cure - 'Growth control'-it helps to preserve the quality of life.
Preservation on a larger scale (and not so self-interested) involves architecture with historical/cultural values. Single building or built environment preserves the past. UNESCO has exapanded the concept of preservation object. The objects are already whole cities. But it has a sideeffect - tourism and consumerism. Attempts to show the world rarities and extraordinaries means that fragile palces are temporarly or seasonably overpopulated and instead of preservation takes place 'wear&tear'.

Contrasts

City and suburb differ in many ways. Suburbs are car-dependant, while in the city it is your choice if you drive a car, take a buss or use your feet. Pedestrian culture is a primary quality in the city. William H.Whyte and Jane Jacobs described the importance of pedestrian life in the city as critically important. Whyte declared that sidewalks are a kind of public space and in some parts of the city more than just predescription of the primary function.
Sidewalks are perfect for meeting someone= acquintances/friends/family and then for a little chit-chat or as Whyte called it `schmoozing`. Jacobs on the other hand claimed that active city life excludes active `crime life`. Her dead certainity came from her own Manhattan, Greenwich Village experience, where lively street life ment commercial businesses open late into the night & coming and going inhabitants. Jacobs was convinced that mixture of urban land uses generates more activity for day and night.
Another contrast between the city and suburb is housing. Suburbs are filled wiht single family homes + (1+n)garage. High rise buildings are probably not on the scene contarary to the city. In the cities the neighbourhoods are separated by (high)ways, while in the suburbs ´bushes´ have that role.
Contrasts in the city are caused by different `eras`. `Modernist urbanism` was triggered by capitalist industrialization and exemplified by architects and planners. Industrialization caused considerable relocation of rural inhabitants. They changed the free life of a countryman for a working class life. It was believed that modern life is guaranteed by living in a `cultural capital` like Paris.
International Style (LeCorbusier, Cropius, van der Rohe) was victorious. `Ornament was a crime` and clean geometrical forms were `must do`. Planning was conducted by modernist principles: transportation corridors, skyskrapers and zoning. Le Corbusier practiced ´clean sweep´ philosophy – which was ment for the whole city. Monolithic blocks of houses and fast motorways were a hit. Le Corbusiers two main principles show very well were he was aheaded: ´The plan must rule´ & ´Dissapearance of the street´!
Quite opposite to modernist thinking is Christopher Alexander - he had a belief that natural cities are more interesting and successful than those modern sterilized ´artificial cities´.
After modernists had done their deeds, a lot of criticism and dissapointment was burst open against this ´urban nightmare´.`Get us out of this hell` is more picturesque, than any other form of criticism.
In the 60s & 70s a lot of urban planning theories were conceived – planning theory was shattered into many different theories. Some of them more diversial than others. After Le Corbusiers ´crimes´ in the city planning everyone had an opinion and it was shouted out or writed on the banner.
Also emerged an understanding that planning is an ongoing – continuous process, hence the rejection of blueprint planning. Another important step was made by Paul Davidoff who suggsested that public should have the opportunity to participate in the planning. Sherry Arnstein composed even a ladder of citizen participation, which was quite extreme, because on the bottom of this ladder was nonparticipation and on top the ladder was citizen control.
In the 70s begun a new era of postmodernism. Ornamentation of the exterior and cultural traits were revived again. Pedestrian friendly and full service districts were prefferred instead of car-adoring & pedestrian discouraging modernism. Legacy of both eras is visible to us with its dissimilarities and the contrast is quite strong. ´Sustainable development´ is also a keyword of 70s. Industrialization changed the world in many ways. Negative impacts on the environment are becoming more visible. Altough principles of sustainable development comprises reducing negative impacts of technology production and managment, control of global population growth, protection of natural resources, ensuring employment, food, energy, safe water and sanitary services for all population and changes in planning and policy making, there is something that everyone can do. Everything that is concerning recycling, transportation and household is befitting for everyone.