Test 1 - Grade: A- PDF

Preview

Summary

Paper...

Description

Avi Orlow Professor Polysci 3/12/2020

Essay choice #1 Urban theory is studying what cities do and why they do what they do. There’s an idea of political economy where you cant understand city politics without understanding city economics and you cant understand city economics without understanding city politics. Furthermore, Peterson is on the more economic side of the spectrum. He argues that the primary goals of a city is to focus on economic expansion because when a cities economy does well, he argues that everybody in the city does well. Its like a trickle down affect. Furthermore, he says there’s three main ingredients to a city controlling there economy. Land, labor and capital. Peterson argues that a cities economy primarily depends on how well a city uses its land. The capital and labor of a city are a result of how well a city uses its land. He argues that cities need to make their land attractable to wealthy investors, such as amazon, so they can move into their city and invest in their city. Wealthy investors are usually educated and skilled and have the ability to invest in and advance city projects, ultimately expanding the city’s economy. The best way to make your city attractable to wealthy investors is by making your city an easy place to live where there’s good sewages systems, good roads, good public transportation etc. furthermore when it comes to land, cities have the ability to play around with their zoning laws and make it easier for investors to build large buildings making cities more attractable to wealthy investors. Cities also have the ability for eminent domain which means cities can take private land as long as its for public use or economic growth (cities do need to pay for the land they’re taking though) Furthermore, when it comes to labor and capital , cities don’t really have much control over who’s moving in and out of your city and you can’t really predict the flow of money. Therefore,

capital and labor aren’t as strong of an ingredient compared to land. However, with the little power cities do have over capital and labor, to make cities more attractive to wealthy and skilled workers you need to lower taxes, reduce crime rate and have higher education schools. Furthermore, according to Peterson, redistributive programs are a big “no no” as it causes taxes to be higher and can attract lower income and less educated people. So to sum it up, according to Peterson, yes, Amazon should have came to NYC. A wealthy compony like amazon would’ve invested in large projects, provided many jobs and would have increase property value in Long Island City. Stone is on the more political side of the spectrum as he argues that its impossible for a city to grow economically without politics going on behind the scenes. He argues that the best way for cities to get things done is by forming informal govt coalitions where groups with certain interests come together and help each other get what they want. A good example would be what happened in Atlanta. There was an attempt to make atlana the NYC of the south. In order to do that they had to expand their luxury and business districts. They allowed investors to build giant structures such as stadiums in many low income, black neighbor hoods. Stone is arguing that, instead of wealthy investors fighting in the courts against representatives of the black neighborhoods, it made more sense for representatives from each side to come together and form coalitions where they can make agreements on certain things and can both receive things in return. In return for allowing nvestors to build in their community, the black community in Atlants gained more civil rights. Additionally there’s an idea of critical urban theory which is essentially a critique of how power operates in cities. Molotch, Iverson and Harvey are critical urbanists while Peterson and stone are urban theorists. Molotch argues that you cant just assume that economic growth of a city is good for everyone the way Peterson believes. Molotch argues that economic growth often benefits the wealthy investors and land owners as it causes property values to go up. However it doesn’t solve problems of high unemployment rates. Therefore you cant blatantly say its good for everyone. Therefore, according to molotch, amazon should not have necessarily come to NYC as it would have caused the monthly rates for apartment renters to go up drastically. Molotch argues that If the property value of the land goes up, it only benefits the wealthy land

owners, not the working man who often can’t afford to own land and must rent an apartment. According to molotch, Amazon coming to NYC could have potentially been bad for the working man. Additionally Harvey and iveson argue that people have a “right to the city” where people have the right to use their city in the ways that are not necessarily programed from city officials. Iveson refers to cities that use DIY urbanism where there’s a lot of parkour, community gardens, etc. furthermore, Harvey argues that its not that we should have a “right to the city”, he says its our responsibility to do what we want in our city. He says we need to do what we want in our city because the city you live in defines who you are.

Essay choice #2 During the Mercantile/ colonial era the strongest cities were the ones that had easy access to water ways as it allowed for easy access to trade. During the mercantile era there was heavy interurban competition where different cities and states would economically compete with each other. A good example would be how NY built the eerie canal in upstate New York to out do other costal cities like New Orleans which had waterways connecting the ocean to middle America. Furthermore, during this era many people living outside of cities developed an anti urban bias where they disliked cities because they viewed cities as being all about trade, greed and everything is a competition. In many cases this anti urban bias still exists today. Furthermore, socially during this era, there was a lot of interaction between many different cultures and wealth classes as that’s what was needed in order to trade successfully. Many strong mercantile era cities are often referred to as “walking cities” as people of different ethnicities and classes were clustered together.

During Industrial era economies transition to focusing on manufacturing. Many companies started to build factories where they can mass produce goods. The increase in industrialization created this idea of Taylorism/Fordism where workers did not need to be as skilled or educated.

Factories also created a need for way more jobs. Many immigrants came to U.S cities to get jobs. Urbanization was expanding as More people were moving into cities during this era. Transportation methods such as railroads started advancing in order to get people rom place to place. The strongest cities switched from ones that had access to waterways to ones that had access to railroads. Infrastructure of cities also started advancing. Pretty much everything that distinguished cities from rural areas started during the industrial era. Socially, there was a lot of racism and discrimination towards immigrants in this era. Segregation was very big in this era. Urban growth was big in this era as many immigrants or African Americans were moving into cities. The workers in the factories formed labor unions which connects and united factory workers allowing them to have more strength to stand up against their employers and get what they want. Politics in this era heavily revolved around immigrant lead political machines such as strong labor unions.

In Chicago the manufacturing industtry grew in tandem with the agriculture in the Midwest. Jannit argues that you would think that the factories in Chicago would have had more unification amongst the factory workers but there wasn’t because of the weak transportation system. Because of the bad transportation system in Chicago, as new factories were being built and needed workers, they often only took the most recent wave of immigrants. Also, due to the weak transportation system, each wave of immigrants stayed secluded and were not able to interact with other waves of immigrants, making it harder to unite and form large labor unions consisting of people from multiple waves of immigration. It should be noted that different cities mass produced different things. In NYC manufacturing was mainly based off of mass producing food and clothes. There were many ethnic neighborhoods where people of the same ethnicity would live amongst each other. However, since NYC’s population is very dense there was still a lot of interactions between ethnicities. It should be recognized that there was also unionization amongst the big industries making it harder for many small factories.

In LA manufacturing was primarily based off of military contracts. Often certain places on the west coast such as Seattle, Sandiego and Houston are referred to as the “gun belt” because the govt gave companies in these areas contracts to manufacture military equipment, aerospace equipment, airliners and other equipment the government needed. Post industrial era- also known as the education based era or service economy era. During the post industrial era, the focus of the economy shifted. The focus of the economies of cities transitioned from manufacturing and mass producing to providing services. However, large companies still needed manufactures to produce their goods. Often, large companies used manufactures in places overseas where it was cheaper to mass produce. Therefore, cities like NYC which has a lot of retailing companies became a global city as it now created jobs all over the world by using foreign manufacturing companies. This ultimately caused NYC and other big cities to be very desirable to manufacturing companies. During this ere global cities such as NYC, LA and Chicago started to erupt. Furthermore, the economy started to become globalized as economies of cities started to rely on economies of other cities around the world. Sausen- discusses how its possible for companies to conduct global trade so easily. she explains that its cheaper and more efficient for many companies to share shiploads when shipping their goods. It would be much more expensive for companies if each company had their own ships and their own workers to load and unload the ships. Furthermore, she says that the logistics of operating companies world wide requires highly educated and skilled people. She argues that cities have become a place of providing highly educated and skilled workers such as lawyers, accountants, financers, etc., which can provide companies with the knowledge and skills needed to work out the logistics of operating a compony globally. Furthermore, she says that since companies in Large global cities like NYC use manufacturers overseas and has become such a desirable city to companies all over the world, it hurts other cities in the US because they become less desirable. It also hurts the US economy overall as manufacturing jobs are not being given to Americans.

Furthermore, we also start to see cities like Miami develop as regional cities. cities like Miami have become a regionally dominant city as it provides the educated and skilled workers needed to operate trade in a specific region like the Caribbean. However, many cities have been unable to adapt to the switch from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy. Cities like Detroit, who’s economy was heavily based off of manufacturing cars during the industrial era, has had a very hard time making the switch and in most cases, is still suffering today. Additionally, Some cities like Seattle and Houston have remained manufacturing cities but have sustained a relatively strong economies because the government gives companies in these places large contracts to produce things needed by the govt like airliners, military equipment and more. Also, cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland have evolved their economy to be based off of education and health care. Furthermore, if global trade was limited, global cities such as New York would suffer greatly since its economy heavily relies on international trade. Companies in global cities like NYC manufacture their goods overseas because it cheaper and more cost effective. If companies in NYC weren’t allowed to use overseas manufacturers and had to pay more do use domestic manufacturers, the companies in NYC would lose a lot of money which would over all cause NYCs economy to take a big downfall. However, Cities like Detroit would heavily benefit from policies limiting global trade because it would force American companies to start using American manufactures. Detroit is an American manufacturing city. If Companies in global cities are forced to use American manufacturers, Detroit manufacture companies would get a lot more business and make a lot more money. A limit on international trade would be great for Detroit’s economy but bad for NYCs economy....