Study Guides (234,688)
Canada (113,289)
Geography (218)
GGR124H1 (28)


10 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Deborah Cowen

WEEK 2: Define the City The Chicago School Concentric Zone The L.A. School Geographic definition  ordered vs. chaotic  Burgess’ Concentric Mode (1925), first urban model o Each zone has certain ethnical/cultural traits  attract similar individuals  propel segregation (not policy enforced) o Founded “Chicago School” of urban sociology founder o Explained city’s spatial organization & social problem  Doesn’t mention: restrictive covenants concentrations: crime, unemployment, etc.  segregated social groups & formed ghettos  Based on 1920s Chicago, scientific approach w/ quantitative & o Invasion & Succession  inner zone residents moves outwards, qualitative methods invades next outer zone = expand (social Darwinism) o Viewed city in “concentric zones” around CBD; division by  Ex. Chicago: all 4 zones historically inside inner-city different social groups & uses o Larger scale: saw  urbanization US, physical expansion of urban  Zone 1: CBD  surrounding = transitional area, contain areas  overran state/city/town political borders developing businesses & light manufacturing  Created conurbations, one metropolitan area w/ cities, towns,  CBD: economic, cultural, political center; department multi-nuclei –ex. US Northeast Corridor stores, skyscraper offices, city hall, museums, theatre  Edward Soja, L.A. school of urbanism  CBD & adjoining streets  homeless, migratory people o disagrees w/ Chicago school model  rejects models & social concentration; slums & poverty areas Darwinism  cities aren’t natural & orderly, no coherent order  Zone 2: area of deterioration  ghettos, ethno-burbs w/ new immigrants ex. Chinatown, Little Sicily  postmodern landscape = fractured, polycentric  Zone 3: industry workers, close to work but distanced from  shaped by social relations, gov’t regulation, economic growth, run-down area culture, planning  Mid-income residential areas, second-gen immigrants ex. o LA = example of contemporary “postmodern” urban geography Deutschland  Sixty-mile circle from CBD (1989) = 12 million pop, 132 cities  Zone 4: Outer region, high class residential area, mostly single  Downtown LA  mostly administrative building, prison detached family housing  LA  immense outside influence: defense contracts, suburbs  Beyond = commuters zone, suburbs, satellite cities housing, transit, water system gov’t subsidized Sociologic definition  Louis Wirth (1897 – 1952) compared urban & rural lifestyles, emphasized dense social relations & interactions in cities o Member of “Chicago School”, also studied the City of Chicago o Urbanism – a focus on aspects/characteristics of cities & urban areas  Urbanization = process, development of these factors; related to but is not industrialization or modern capitalism o Saw urban-industrial & rural-folk society, opposites  Neighborliness, traditions absent/weak w/  pop. diversity  Urban dwellers, more acquaintances & less close contacts; in rural small tightly knit community more likely o Social differences prominent in cities; natural spatial segregation by color/ethnic, heritage, economic, social status  ignores, restrictive covenants  “What is a City” by Lewis Mumford (1895 – 1990), thought city mostly as social institution o Physical aspects = secondary: buildings, infrastructure o Social aspects = primary: social-economic life of urban dwellers o For effective social interactions possible definitive optimum population size & physical  Ploy-nucleated cities  clusters of communities spaced out have benefits of metropolis of million+ pop. w/o negatives Psychological, philosophic definition  “The Stranger”, Georg Simmel (1858 – 1918) o Cities filled w/ stimuli, shapes/creates different kind of person  “The Stranger” figure persistently present but lost/isolated o Difficult to maintain independence & individuality in modern life WEEK 3: Urbanization & Globalization o Cultural imperialism: traits adopted/adapted into developing Economic Globalization nations replace existing ones Global City  Ex. English = the world language, 2500 languages endangered Urbanization  Media & entertainment = Hollywood & American dominance –  <50% world pop. (3.42 billion) in cities (2009) ex. CNN, BBC global audience; Hip-pop in Asia o Urban dwellers 50%  69% world pop. (2009  2050) o Consumerism  pushed by TNCs, everything bought/sold  MEDC 75% pop. urban (0.9 bill)  66% (1.1 bill)  Global brands dominance, –ex. Starbucks, McDonalds  LEDC 45% pop. urban (2.5 bill)  86% (5.2 bill) o Homogenization of urban landscapes  same stores, same o MEDCs more urbanized vs. LEDC buildings (malls, offices)  N. America +80% pop. in urban areas; Europe +73% o Decline of national identity,  regional, religious, linguistic  Africa 40% pop. in urban areas identity (counter to homogenization)  Asia 42% (expected most urban growth) o Globalization =/= eventual place homogenization (Massey) o  urban slums: 1 bill (2008)  2 bill (2030) Each place has distinct mixture from  cultural connections  creates o 70% – 95% new housing in global south = slums / shanty towns uniqueness not found elsewhere  Largest cities by pop.: 1950 (mostly MEDC)  2010 (mix) o LEDC cities expected most increase growth ex. Indian Globalization & Urbanization (Global Cities) o Ex. China urban pop. 70 mill  600 mill (1950 – 2010)  Global Cities: nodes in global network (political, financial,  8.5 million rural to urban migrants yearly cultural/social)  replace nations  Cities w/ +1mill pop. United States = 9; China = 120 o Changes internal social & spatial organization of cities o Nation state’s role reformed, still important Globalization  facilitates connections (treaties)  Time-space convergence   technology, infrastructure & ICT =  Global cities: role in global networks, spatial dominance (regional, apparent compression of geographic space national, global), trend setters of (inter)national norms o Uneven/opposites effects less popular space & minorities o Require complexity & diversity  Ex. Cars  mobility of wealthy,  financial viability of public o Not always mega city; size may attribute to diversity &  transport ∴ mobility of poor specialized sectors –ex. Tokyo & Shanghai o Ex. circumvent world: 1850s – 1 year (sailing), 1920s – 60 days  Megacities like Mumbai, Chong Qing, Sao Paulo only large, not well connected; i.e. not global cities (ocean liners), currently 20 hours (jet) th  Economic effects:  connections b/c late 20 century deregulation & o Global cities usually reinvented old-world cities –ex. London trade liberalization,  capital mobility  Already contain complexity & diversity o Liberalization & anti-tariff encourage by gov’ts, WTO, IMF  Economic restructuring in global cities o TNC:  power; 51/100 largest economies –ex. Wal-Mart>Poland o  importance in economic network over nations  Nationless:  repatriation of profit –ex. 2005 US TNCs  Hosts financial centers (FIRE) –ex. New York, London $420bill profit offshore, $2.3bill repatriated  Even periphery cities –ex. MIrelona California, 600 trucks /  1/3 all world trade = within same TNC btwn subsidiaries hour delivered, population only ~1000  Enormous bargaining power w/ gov’t: threaten to relocate, o  1 cluster of high-level business service monopoly, effective in Global South  Finance, management, accounting, legal services, higher o Labor changes; manufacturing relocated to developing countries education, telecommunications, R&D (maquiladoras), outsourcing b/c costs o  2 cluster of employment, other service sector jobs;  Ex. post-NAFTA 880 000 high-wage manufacturing jobs lost,  Real estate, construction, hotels, restaurants, luxury retail, replaced w/ precarious work private security, entertainment  Rise of high-tech, biotech, new media, and other industries; o De-industrialization:  manufacturing employment not traditional; encourage innovation and creativity o  Informal economies, precarious work, chronic unemployment o Financial flow, capital movement mostly btwn MEDCs  Ex. temp. & contract workers, hours/shifts uncertain, no benefits/vacation times  3 cores: USA, Europe (Eurozone & UK), Japan; US & Europe = +50% world financial assets  Political changes in global cities  FDI inflow highest: developed country & emerging markets  o Goal:  city’s economic competiveness  done through policy USA = 17% world FDI, China = 6%  facilitate growth of city:  Planning, transportation,  Net FDI inflow to global south: $25bill (1990)  $250bill education, policing (2005)  10 folds; for industrialization / manufacturing  City’s urban form & planning done to attract investments o  Remittance b/c  immigrant labors o Ex. Singapore & Dubai = global cities created by gov’t policy  $170bill  $300bill (2002 – 2010)  Singapore mandatory English second language  China, India Mexico = 1/3 remittances  Social restructuring in global cities  Political effects: nation-states lost of sovereignty o  Middle class,  wealthy professionals,  precarious wostersnd o  Dominance of TNCs & supranational governing/regulatory  Political, economics, and cultural dominance by 1 & 2 bodies (EU, trading blocks, WTO, IMF) employment sectors professionals  Ex. NAFTA, IMF, WTO, regulations/agreement’s supersedes o Polarization of race, immigration status, social status nation’s control on trade o Increasing reliance on police to manage social life  Ex. EU nations = unified economy & currency, freedom of  Physical changes in global cities movement btwn countries, supranational gov’t body o  City size & population b/c immigration o Cities  political power, connections btwn cities skips o Polarization of city areas  ghettos and citadels state/provincial levels  Gentrification of industrial areas, downtowns, waterfront (by o Post-national citizenship, transnational elites ‘flexible citizens’ gov’t planning to  city’s competitiveness)  –ex. Green card / dual citizen   poverty concentrated areas (some b/c gentrification)  Cultural/Social effects  diffusion of Western cultural traits  Case Study: Miami  historically unimportant;  Diversity and  Ranking global cities: competitive urban development complexity of Miami caused by: o Economic competitiveness indicators: # of bank head offices, # of o Deregulation  Miami as banking center for Central America corporate HQ, # of flights, etc. o Real estate developed by wealthy South American investors  Tier 1: London, Tokyo, New York o 1990s – 2000s opening of Latin America; global firms (ex.  Tier 2: Los Angeles, Paris, Singapore Taiwanese, Korean) set up regional HQ in Miami  Tier 3: Miami, Mexico City, Seoul o Cultural center, art circuit w/ museums & theatres o Alternative measures of global city status: cultural, religious, production, political  Religious: Mecca, Jerusalem  Political: Geneva, Washington D.C  Production: Sao Paulo, Chong Qing  Cultural: Paris WEEK 4: Work in City New Economy Precarious Employment ‘McJob’ New South Polycentricity Poverty by Postal Code Ghetto Enclaves Deindustrialization & Loss of manufacturing  Case Study: Steel Belt  Rust Belt – regional deindustrialization  #1 = business services sector 7 million jobs o 5 core states: Ohio, Michigan, Illinois… & S. Ontario o Service sector  ambiguous includes financial to food services; o 1900s region core to American economic power, gov’t support large income range vs. manufacturing  produced steel, auto, machinery, WWII arms production  1993 US: avg manufacturing $42k – $70K; avg services $12K  Led to region’s transport network  water transport (food services) – $96k (brokerage, law) (great lakes), rail network after 1860s o Precarious work “McJobs”;  1970s – present  Height of steel & auto industry, Detroit & Buffalo =  Poor benefits: no pension, no holiday pay, non-unionized; low N.America economic centers wages, high risk of ill-health,  High insecurity: shift work (uncertain hours), night work, part- o 1970s – 1980s region lost 900 000manufacturing jobs  production moved south & offshore time, contracted, temporary o “Spatial mismatch”  in cities, jobless population & new jobs  No career & future prospects, low skill req. at different places  but migrant works trapped  Mostly immigrant workers, b/c immigrant skills not recognized  1940s – 1960s African Americans moved from south to  More health risks  low wages, less access to health care north b/c manufacturing jobs  Ex. American FDI auto-parts plants  temp jobs; hired in morning, fired at night; states w/ lose labor legislations; temp  Case Study: Toronto Manufacturing – urban deindustrialization agency located in auto factory o Decrease in manufacturing, but still present o Dismantle welfare, income support systems, precarious work  Most European gov’t (welfare states) unemployed receive o Toronto region 400 000 manufacturing jobs: 1 in 7 jobs  Important sectors: 80% aerospace employment benefits, ensured 80% lost earnings  Income support system ‘workfare’   # welfare Employment in post-industrial dependents, force unemployed into low paid jobs  Ex. US Work Opportunity Act 1996: welfare rolls 14mill  9  “Metropolitanization” of employment: employment concentration mill created: ‘working poor’ class in/around cities; usually largest cities o “Functional specialization” networked spatial clustering of  1980s – 1990s NYC families w/ college+ degree below particular economic activities poverty line 8%  18%  Ex. Steel belt fostered water & rail transports in region o (some) employment suburbanized  contradictory to  Case Study – New South states concentration of jobs in large cities o Southeast states grew b/c ‘Right-to-Work’  forbid unions  Ex. cultural jobs, usually concentrated in city center  While Northeast & Midwest (unionized) lost industry  Ex. banking industries, HQ in downtown but data processing & o 1970s – 80s manufacturing  (Texas 30%, Florida 47%, Nevada 126%, California 34%) employment mostly in suburbs  ‘New Economy’ o R&D, telecommunications, and defense related high-tech o service sector, professional/knowledge intensive work (ex. R&D, industries (b/c defense contracts) universities), new “creative industries” in downtown o Other growth industries: low wage manufacturing  42% of southern economy vs. 29% nationally   High end services FIRE: Finance, Insurance, Real Estate o Mid-1990s service sector = 75% of world GDP, 65% of OECD jobs o 1991 – 1996 top 14 fastest job sector growth = services sector Postindustrial urban landscape THREE CITIES REPORT GOES HERE  Polycentric urban form  numerous centers in metropolitan area o Ex. GTA area Toronto Downtown core w/ Scarborough, Markham, Mississauga town Centre  Shift: dominate space industrial  consumption  Ghettos  area of city inhabited by minority group(s), b/c socio- economic pressures o precariousness creates spatial/social polarization, urban poverty o Poverty by Postal Code 2 decade study on concentration of poverty in Toronto   concentration of poorest families, mixed-income neighborhoods   higher poverty neighborhoods, area increased  Poorest neighborhoods usually minorities  Elite Enclaves  area w/ groups of power, wealth, high status o Related w/ gentrification, securitization  Yaletown, Vancouver, old neighborhood cleared for condos o Blurred lines btwn public/private space  Usually minority, poor excluded WEEK 5: Politics and Planning ‘Creatures of the Province’ Status & Structure Political Influences  “Creatures of the provinces”  municipal gov’t no legal  Real estate  neo-liberal economy, cities dependence on property constitutional standing tax revenues o 1997 lawsuit on Ontario municipal mergers; status unchanged o Cities  interest in private real estate markets, encourage o Provincial gov’t can create/dissolve municipalities redevelopments  control some budgets –ex. Social services, transportation  Central Gov’t  promising urban areas favored by fed. gov’t,  o Canadian municipal system models British system funding, special exceptions  Purpose: implement & finance central gov’t policies locally o Ex. China Special Economic Zones: Shen Zhen, Shanghai, Guang  Federal gov’t no direct authority over cities Dong  heavy investments from central gov’t o Indirect influence, national policies –ex. Immigration, labor, trade  Established 3 cities as global production/economic centers (ports & transport networks)  Urban Social movements  activism usually not in formal political  Municipal authority varies btwn cities institutions o Ex. City of Toronto Act (2006) allowed Toronto more power o Civil rights, feminists, LGBTQ, immigrant rights, and environmental  Allowed: urban planning control, raise new taxes movements  New taxes: Land Transfer tax, Vehicle registration tax  Urban space = place for activists o Usually: police, parks and recreation, libraries, tourism, waste and  Ex. Occupy wall street  global urban movement; 900 cities recycling, local roads, fire services, economic development involved o Some control in land-use, provincially appointed boards has o Other movements focus = urban spaces  ex. greener city ultimate authority movements  Ex. Ontario Municipal Board; overturn city’s land-use decisions  Urban communities  inclusion of some = exclusion of others  Municipal gov’t structure o Communities distinguished socially & spatially  creates divisions o Mayor & city council  elected officials  First nations, Canadian cities caused displacement/dispossession of  Canada = weak mayor system, unable to veto policy/propose aboriginal people legislation  need council support o More than 53% of indigenous people in Canada live in cities  Councilors election by ward, some by entire city (at large)  USA 60%; New Zealand 84%; Australia 76% o Standing committees  permanent panels, seat councilors o Rapid urbanization (sprawl) cause conflicts btwn cities &  Ex. Community Services Committee, Finance and traditional indigenous lands Administration Committee, Transportation Committee, Public  Indigenous lands susceptible to urban development Safety and Environment Committee, Development Committee o Ex. the Caledonia standoff in southern Ontario b/c suburban dev. o Special committees  temporary panels, involve private sectors form the Greater Golden Horseshoe encroached on traditional  Ex. Waterfront redevelopment committee native lands given by the Haldimand Tract  The Haldimand Tract (1784)  land granted to Iroquois Planning loyalists in American Revolution  Develop city w/ consideration of prevailing social & economic trends  Agreement never renegotiated after Canada nationalized o Influenced by ‘growth coalitions’, interest groups o Tsawwassen Treaty (2006)  first modern urban indigenous land  Ex. firms & businesses interests  job growth, new factories; treaty quality of life groups  preserve amenities  Transferred 724 ha. to Tsawwassen First Nations  Involves: private developers, architects, municipal boards, city  Include access for public & residents: roads & waters councilors, residents’ association, activist groups, media  Highways excluded from land transfer  Gov’t, social services continued, police, utility WEEK 6: Migration and Transformation of Cities Push and Pull factors Points System ‘Monster Homes’ Migration & Immigration  Czech Roma refugees residing in motels Kingston Rd.  Global trends in migration  Negative reputations w/ local community o Growth  recent peak international migration  Protests w/Nazi & Confederate images, 6 sued for hate crime  161 mill  191 mill international migrants (1995 – 2005)  Schools & Immigrant  right to education = key facet of citizenship  (2010 – 2050) migrants to MEDCs (96 mill) = all MEDCs’ net o Proposition 187 California (1994)  later repelled pop.  (38 mill) b/c DR > BR  barred illegals from health care, public school, social services o Forced Migration  recent  b/c  civil conflicts, USSR collapse  Law enforcement must investigate suspicious detainee's  42 mill forcibly displaced (2008) 839 000 asylum seekers, immigration status 15.2 mill refugees, 26 mill IDP  250 000 marched against proposition 187  Refugees largest source: Afghan  2.8 mill; Iraq 1.9 mill o Deportations in Toronto (2006) o Since 1960s  women migrants % and migrant laborers  Immigration officials visited undocumented kids in school  –ex. Philippine house workers/nurses to UK & N.America  Purpose: track undocumented parents, mostly Portuguese, o Securitization  national borders tightened since 9/11; Visas forced to turn in o Migration regulations  Public Space & Immigrants  Supranational control  EU crosses btwn European countries o Arizona (2010) police question suspected illegals, based on looks = no security; in/out of Europe heavy border security o Clarkston, Georgia; small town, popular refugees area o Cities w/ +1 mill foreign-born residents  mostly in MEDCs w/  2006 mayor banned soccer (popular w/ refugees) in parks many job opportunities  Showed community saw refugees as unwanted change  Ex. Dubai (temp workers), United States (San Fran, LA,  Police, security & Immigrants  racial profiling/targeted policing Chicago, New York, DC, Miami), London, Paris, Moscow o US, Canada police forces have active ‘targeted policing’ programs  Immigrants usually take precarious work b/c: racism, foreign  impact new immigrant and radicalized communities credentials, language disproportionately  Push factors  negatives, push person to migrate o Police forces actively creating database, getting contact cards to o Poverty/ unemployment, natural/social disasters, etc. build more information o Ex. Vietnam War 1975, pushed Vietnamese migrants to Malaysia, o Amadou Diallo shooting, unarmed Guinea immigrant in NYC Australia, USA  shot 41 times in the back by 4 officers, all acquitted  Pull factors   Possible racial profiling  Impacts at source:  Place of Worship & Immigrants o Remittances  mainly to LEDCs o October 1995: East York council rejected mosque on vacant site o Removal of young, workforce (brain drain)  b/c inadequate # parking spaces & $90k tax revenue lose  Ex. After NAFTA  Mexican workers in Canada & US; 79%  several hundred Muslims angered, possible racial motives Mexican state funded students in US don’t return  Impacts at destination: Migration in Canada o Population growth  2.2mill  1.4 mill new immigrants (1990s – 2000s) o Larger, younger, workforce; replace aged workforce –ex. Japan o Early 1900s, usually European nationals  USA 40% foreign-born have tertiary education  British = 48% immigrants (1920s – 1930s) o Increased demand for services/housing o Currently Asian = 50% immigrants (2000 – 2006), less Europeans o Multicultural Enrichment o Immigration = 65% population growth (2003), b/c BR < DR  City susceptible to more global issues  international issues  2011  all labor growth = immigrants protests  b/c diverse population  Immigrants usually settle in cities  historically opposite o Racism, segregation, polarization –ex. Arizona’s anti-immigrant bill
More Less

Related notes for GGR124H1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.