A metopolis of the 21st century | Dubai (By Roy Xin)

Mike Davis wrote this article from what appeared to be a factual view. It was able to show you more about what Dubai actually was rather than expressing huge amounts of his opinions. Following his description was like reading a travel brochure, it took tourist to accept Dubai at first glance, the scene was set poetically of the seat of the approaching airplane as it’s landing. However, when Daivs once touched the ground, the surroundings became more resolved. His following text revealed more detail about the subject and truths.

I still remember the first time I heard about Dubai in TV in 2005, it said everyone around the world was excited about the potential of the place. Every newspaper and magazine had run some expose about what happened in Dubai; televisions continuously cyclepalyed about those amazing constructions and sites: the seven star Burj Al-Arab had been opened recently, the worldwide tallest building etc. it’s true that dubai is spectacular, they had strived to construct the biggest and best of everything conceivable to the human spirit. Dubai had invested billions in becoming the biggest and best in all physical human endeavour and material pursuit. In later text, Davis metioned about the comparing between Dubai and Chinese cities. And I thought Shanghai’s features are the most similar to Dubai’s. First of all, both of them had became a commercial center in the world, both of them constructed themselves very fast and compelted their evolution in a short time. Plenty of skyscrapers were the visual symbol in people’s mind. However, there were still many differences between them. The very basicly physical feature of them is location. Honestly, Shanghai has a better location than Dubai since it locates at middle latitude, it has more seasonal and comfortable weather than Dubai. Shanghai is near to the center of Asian market, and has more convenient access to Pacific Ocean. The biger size of land and the larger population base provides more opptunities to investers and people who have dreams to create their own careers. Dubai is a pearl in desert, those fancy architechtures, luxury productions and supreme life quality are the most attractive flashing points to tourists. Although, those things make you feel like paradise, it’s not reality. So if I have to choose one to live at, I prefer Shanghai, because the place you spend lot of time to live cannot be paradise, if it always convey feelings as a paradise, well, rest in peace.

The creation of a tourist paradise was part of their end-game for when the dark part does eventually run out.Dubai tried to present itself as free and progressive to the investors with the huge tax breaks and other incentives available. But it fell down in Davis’ article. Towards the middle of the essay, Davis brought us back to earth and told us about the conditions of the foreign workers who made the dreams of the designers and investors came true and describing it as ‘virtual slavery’. He metioned how police didn’t arrest those involved in illegal diamond and gold imports but were diligent in exporting foreign workers who complained about their wages. Dubai had an appalling safety record in construction- nearly thousand construction workers had been killed so far on the job- not something expected from a city with such high profile projects. Several riots and protests had taken place and Dubai’s addressed to solve this matter include expulsions, mass arrests and limiting franchising. I found it hard to understand, even back in China, the foundation workers started getting the protection, respect and reputation from the government that they should already have decades ago after the leadership realized those people were crucial to the development of country. Therefore, democracy shouldn’t appear in 21^st centries again, it should be left in the history. Without reform and fundamental changes in Dubai, it did not matter how much money you throw around the place, it would become a negative example in the Capitalist world.

Dubai was still run under a feudal system of government- the Sheikh was firmly in control. Questions about working conditions for the construction workers had been raised for a long time. Conditions were often reported as horrendous with minimal pay and human rights violations were surfacing all the time. Davis unveiled the real nature of the city in the desert, he did well to convey the terrible conditions endured by the millions of Dubai’s immigrant workers. The concept of a nation building feats of architectural wonder off the backs of a poor immigrant labour force is not new but it begins to beg the question how long will this relationship last? Any visiting tourist was going to ask about the human rights issue and as Davis reveals it is not a heart- warming tale. However, you might get the feeling that many views of Dubai as an over the top, unrestrained monster that was getting out of control. Sheikh Mohammed was determined for Dubai to be number 1 and that everything should be world class. But, in order to do this, he spent so much money that Dubai is not economically sustainable. Even though, someone would think of Dubai was same as the Las Vegas, the motivation of both city appeared very different. Las Vegas was a city want to give anyone- poor, hoemless but talented- an opportunity whereas Dubai uses these people to build itself as a city for the elite. It’s unlikely that the Sheikh would suddenly lose his vast wealth, the oil run out or he passed away, there must be a question mark about what would happen to Dubai. And recently, the oil price was extremely declined, it also became a disaster to Dubai’s economy.

 

Animals in the City (by Terri-Michelle Speirs)

 

Throughout history the city has been viewed as the pinnacle of human development with the formation of a distinctly human ‘urban’ domain becoming a “human stage for capitalist production”(Wolch, 1998, p. 120). Due to being viewed as a progressive and strictly human conception, cities have rejected the primitive notions that nature and indeed non-human animals presented. The divorcing of non-human animals (which in prehistoric times were regarded not just as resources but as teachers and friends)(Wolch, 1998, 127) from urban civilisations is due in part to how humans view other animals. The western world has typically viewed animals as divisible and fundamentally different from humans, the emergence of Darwinian theory despite highlighting a continuity between humans and animals, still cemented humans as the most advanced species(Wolch, 1998, p. 122). This, along with non-human animals being viewed primarily through the lens of biological incompatibility saw the assumption of animals as objects, devoid of sentience and thus exploitable for the provision of food, clothing and labour(Wolch, 1998, 122).


This view of animals when constructing cities is especially true in Australian cities, as colonialism was entrenched in foundations of dominating nature and overcoming ‘wildness’ and colonial cities like Melbourne the ultimate triumph of an advanced civilisation over nature(Thompson, 2007, 83)). The post-colonial mindset of nature thus became not just a separate entity from cities but a force that was directly in opposition to and threatening of the culture, technology and economy encased in urban life(Thompson, 2007, 83).


While there is now a growing understanding of the complex way that animals experience the world, I think the emergence of their ‘subjectivity’ in the urban context is generally superseded by the capitalist roots city life. Due to their inability to participate in our economic society, the value of animals outside of being a resource is hard to determine and makes constructing cities in a way that accommodates animals seem to many a poor way of allocating resources. Even when animals and nature are prioritised by governments and planners, this is often only in pursuing environmental or sustainability objectives, the motives and payoffs of which are inherently human-centric.


Animals in the City in History

Domestication of animals occurred almost simultaneously with the emergence of social human groups, the food scraps and protections provided by humans attracting ancestral animals like wolves. The human intervention of selective breeding initially saw humans retain those animals that were most tame and over time breed for qualities that best suited the newly domesticated dog in serving humans.


The role of the domesticated animal in the city was to provide a function for humans and therefore was one of either work or sustenance. Pre-motor car transport was dominated by horses for riding and carting as well as pack animals like donkeys for transporting goods. The domesticated dog was extremely versatile, bred selectively to perform specific duties such as hunting, protecting and rounding up livestock, bear-baiting and dog fighting as well as personal protection and transporting goods.


Urban agricultural production and processing also once prevailed in the city, most likely as a result of poor options for mass transport of livestock or refrigeration of meat after slaughter. Agricultural industries however brought with them issues of waste and public health concerns and as cities began to be more preoccupied with health and sanitation and increasingly less undeveloped space available, such practices were eventually driven out of the city [Voigt, p.541]. The presence of animals in the city and the issue of public health are heavily embroiled, with the much maligned rat serving as an unstoppable vector for disease in 14th century Europe[WHO] and creating a culturally ingrained aversion to ‘pest’ species and the threat of disease that unwelcome animals present in the city.


Today’s Animals in the City

As animals have proved to be pervasive in the urban landscape, better efforts are being made to understand these animals and where they and their human interactions belong in the city. While there has been a social shift in Western cities to view animals in a less objective light, there is still resistance to truly engage with them in the city context.

 Perhaps one of the most harmful urban human-animal paradigms that exists today is the disconnection between the animal products we eat and where they came from. Our ability to remove the realities of meat consumption from view and the intensity in which we can produce it in factory farms is not only at the expense of animals, but also to the environment as meat production puts considerably strain on water, land and air resources and quality.


While Australia is one of the world’s most urbanised countries, we still have very high pet ownership rates with about 63% of households owning a pet [RSPCA]. Consequently domestic companion animals increasingly interact with urban life, a reality that has been addressed well by some cities and not others. Australian cities in contrast to European or American cities are very dog-unfriendly with few public spaces or services allowing access to dogs or only under extremely restricted conditions. Issues of contested space begin to arise when spaces allocated to dogs in cities are opposed by those who feel that the limited urban open space we have should be there to service humans, not animals [Gomez, p.83]. However the provision of spaces for dogs is not just for their benefit alone with spaces such as dog parks proven to be positively associated with creating human-human relationships and attachment to place[Gomez, p. 81].


Though humans express fascination with more exotic wildlife through visiting our cities’ zoos or sponsoring an endangered tiger, this respect for wild animals does not extend to those we are most likely to experience in our own city[Wolch, p. 132]. The underlying view that cities are inherently in opposition to nature sees us struggle to embrace the migration of animals into our urban spaces, believing them to be ‘refugees’ who are truly in need of a ‘natural’ habitat [Thompson, p. 89]. While seem to care more about the habitats of our wildlife we still seem hesitant to allow habitat to become theirs, continuing to exert our dominance over wildlife like possums and bats, relocating them to areas we view as better suited them (though usually better suited for us) [Thompson, p. 80]

I think the key issue moving forward in animal-human relations is finding a balance between viewing them as valuable creatures they are, while recognising they will always need to be controlled by humans. This does not have to be inherently negative however as we can still control and decide for animals while taking their needs and wellbeing into account and does not need to be viewed as ‘dominating’ but rather a necessary partnership. The championing of animal ‘rights’ activism over animal welfare opens up a dangerous territory where the ‘rights’ of animals are perceived through the eyes of humans [Wolch, p. 124] and generally seeks to completely abolish human relations with animals in the pursuit of them being ‘free’ rather than seeking to entrench positive interactions (for both humans and animals) into our urban lives.

 

References:

Edwin Gomez, “Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts and Suggestions”Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 31(4), 2013, 79-91

“How Many Pets are there in Australia?” RSPCA, retrieved from http://kb.rspca.org.au/How-many-pets-are-there-in-Australia_58.html

Jennifer Wolch, “Zoopolis” in Wolch and Emel (eds) Animal Geographies of London, Verson 1998, p 119-138.

Kate A. Voigt, “The Backyard or the Barnyard: Removing Zoning Impediements to Urban Agriculture”, Environmental Affairs 38(2), 2011, 537-566.

Melanie Thompson, “Placing the Wild in the City “Thinking with” Melbourne’s Bats”, Society and Animals 15, 2007, 79-95

“Plague”, World Health Organisation, last modified November 2014, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs267/en/

Heritage and Gentrification (by Charles Wood)

 

In Melbourne the changing face of the city is increasingly a contentious issue, especially considering the exponential influx of city dwellers, putting further demands on the urban landscape. It’s the fastest growing city in Australia with around 100,000 new inhabitants a year (ABS, 2014) and policies on the preservation and character of the streets that make up Melbourne are as important now as they were when then population hiked with swathes of immigrants from Europe after the war.

 

During this time modern forms or architecture were flourishing and Henry Bolte, the Victorian Premier, saw the opportunity to re-energize the state with new buildings. There was a widely shared opinion that older structures only retained value if they were being fully engaged with by the public, with complete disregard thrown to their aesthetics. This enthusiasm for modernism led many to believe that new buildings were always the answer and that new practices allowed the betterment of the streets in every case. It is worth recognising the desires of the community at this time and realising that it was part of a cycle of fashion and style tastes, which invariably change constantly. However in this circumstance there was such certainty in the style of the time that the demolition of the fabric of the city was celebrated, the presence of Whelan the Wrecker (the demolition company) filled the people with joy; heritage was virtually non-existent.

 

Many schemes were drawn up to reform suburbs and introduce masses of social housing. Height limits were drastically increased and the city began to get taller. In one case there was a plan to demolish the entire stock of terrace housing in Paddington (Sydney) and replace the whole suburb with new large-scale housing. There’s a case to be made that many of the Australian citizens saw Australia as a modern, young nation and that they had to continue to keep up with the times to represent what they stood for as a country, almost to give nationalism to the country; a sense of pride to the people. However ironically, whilst many where still searching for this uniqueness as a state, this radical change in planning gave realisation of the underlying heritage values within the city. As Graeme Davison (2006) points out in his book ‘The view from the Palisade Hotel’ many people continued to question the distinctive features of where they lived, although it wasn’t until the settlement of immigrants in the 60s and 70s that they began to realise their inherent qualities. The immigrants massively favoured the old Victorian terrace houses, with the cast iron work and the suburban lifestyle that came with it. They wrote books promoting the terrace house such as ‘Let’s Buy a Terrace House’ by Rob Hillier and after the tragic defacing of Collins Street, during the demolition years, sought to restore many of these wrecked homes once realising their preserved worth. Previous ideas on buildings began to change, such as the Exhibition Building in Carlton Gardens being seen as ‘redundant’, where it was noticeably symbolic of the International festivals taking place towards the end of the 19^th century. Or Flinders street station, once proclaimed an eyesore was now starting to be appreciated in its representation of Australian history. This led to the Whitlam government to begin to put in legislation to protect and preserve significant buildings and stop the terrible wrecking of landmark structures from ever happening again.

 

Another example of government intervening to protect the heritage of the city is when the Hamer government restricted the number of freeways due to be built around Melbourne, he bought in ‘green wedges’, which saved the suburbs from being harmed by easements cutting across them as had happened with the Tullamarine freeway and Moonee Ponds. This kind of act shows foresight as at the time provision of more road accessibility seems like a good idea to increase mobility however its abolition has allowed the preservation of valuable communities either side of Merri creek and restricted the detrimental impact that excessive use of the automobile has on society.   

 

The suburbs of Fitzroy and Carlton are also a great example of immigrants coming in and recognising the worth of the area, something unanimous with its gentrification as a suburb. As mentioned in Howe, Nichols & Davison (2014, p.161) both Carlton and Fitzroy went through this cycle of being a favoured place to live, they suddenly became unfashionable and ‘people looked down their noses at Victorian houses and passed through the inner suburbs,’ leading to the occupancy of poorer families. Consequently new cultures settled in these suburbs considered ‘slums’ when they moved to Melbourne and as Nichols (2015) examined in his lecture, they began the process of gentrification. These creative classes came in with their bohemian lifestyles and over time gave rise to the extremely valuable real estate through the individual character they created.

 

Currently challenges and changes are still being dealt with, mainly due to the pressure and strains the growing population puts on the city. ‘Melbourne 2030’ was a policy adopted by the state government in the previous decade, which has severely affected the heritage and character of an area through its ultimate aim of consolidating the city. The theme seems to ignore or be oblivious to qualities that make Australian cities stand out with their suburban sprawl and emphasis on the outdoors, by trying to conform the city to an international model. This has led to power being taken away from local councils and given to authorities at state level, there are many examples of developments being given approval across Melbourne against the will of the locals, upsetting the make up of a community and devaluing its character.   

 

In conclusion we need to be fairly holistic in our approach to protecting the environments that we live in, it’s no use constantly reshaping the urban area as it leads to a streetscape were buildings are perceived to have been preserved yet simply look out of place. More power should be given at a local level to the development of communities in order to maintain their qualities and character, with their knowledge of the suburbs being greater than anyone else’s.      

 

 

Suburban Heaven and Hell (by Nicholas Wright)

THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN DREAM

Suburbia – for generations it has been the source of many Australians’ dreams as well as our nightmares. The history of housing policy has been a blend of attempts to progress the nation towards our ideal state, and to save us from the evils of what came before – slums, disease, immorality. Pain and suffering.
Earlier in this blog, we have talked about large-scale public ventures, like the construction of a national capital, the Garden City movement and other grand plans; however the story of individual states and the housing policies they undertook throughout the 20th Century had just as important a role to play in the shaping of our urban life, and of us as a society.

The conceptualization of Melbourne as a city was heavily influenced by prominent individuals – Oswald Barnett was an example of someone with considerable influence, bringing together the resources of charitable middle class households during the Depression era for what he considered charitable works, and persuading governments and the wider population to acknowledge the existence of slums and the misery they housed.
An unacknowledged reality was that these inner city suburbs also housed a lot of social capital, hard won by generations of the working poor who had maintained family and wider social connections through the waves of exogenous changes that had forced them first into the cities for work, then to war in 1914, and then into denser and less sanitary living conditions as the economy stalled in the inter-war period.

Public ideals of modernistic progress ran roughshod over the values and wishes of slum dwelling Australians, including recent immigrants, who had a way of life that departed from the dominant Anglo-Australian middle class view. Housing authorities like the Slum Clearance Board and later the Victorian Housing Commission (HVC) enacted a modernist vision of housing improvement, and whether it was flats or bungalows that were built by these authorities, their format and construction reflected the modernist ideal of ‘efficient and space-saving’ technological advancement (Pascoe 2001, p.89-90).


GENERATIONAL TRANSITION

In the documentary ‘A Place to Belong’ you can see that this new kind of housing provided to slum dwellers from the inter-war period onwards was nevertheless welcome. It would be inaccurate and unfair to portray that era’s housing transformation in simple binaries. The good will of visionaries like Oswald Barnett cannot seriously be doubted and it was only later that real conflicts of interest worked against the social fabric of the working classes, because, as we saw in the documentary, in the beginning most re-housing took place in situ or very near to the existing communities. And in the case of the housing for veterans program, the Lalor Co-operative housing project was beautifully explained and analysed by Moira Scollay (2012). That was an example of governments and community organisations coming together to empower working class people to create and shape their own communities. I was particularly touched by the account of a funeral in 2007 that brought together hundreds of the founding residents of Lalor – an anecdotal proof of the lasting power real social capital can weld even decades after the investments in time and effort are made (Scollay 2012).

At a national level the debate throughout the post-war era can be characterized, with hindsight, as a reaction to the destructive nature of war. World War 2 broke up families from all social classes – so Menzies era politicians would use housing to put families back together (Pascoe 2011, p.90).
It is interesting to note the revival of conservative politics in the 1990s was accompanied by nostalgic social and tax policies meant to re-create a 1950s ideal family unit. This 1950s vision hearkened back to a gentlemanly Victorian way of life that was idealized, and arguably never existed outside a very small group of aristocrats. The contemporary Australian Dream of suburban heaven is based on a fiction, which is itself based on an earlier fiction.

Reality in the 1950s of course was different, and although it improved over the long term, such gains were unevenly spread, both geographically and socially. Home ownership, a vaunted Menzian ideal, occurred at more than double the rate in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne than it did in traditional inner urban suburbs like Carlton (Pascoe 2011, p.91).


OTHER FACTORS

Housing policy could also be trumped by other state initiatives and larger economic and social change that has little to do with the Suburban Dreaming illustrated above. In ‘A Place to Belong’ we see how working class families’ fortunes followed a trajectory that could be seen through the prism of ‘feast’ and ‘famine’ – they got jobs in the expanding heavy and manufacturing industries [FEAST], but the rental housing market quickly lost its ability to cope and they were soon living in slums [FAMINE]. New HVA housing re-housed residents, mostly in the same areas [FEAST], maintaining family and social connections. A few years later, the expanding influence of the automobile meant that roads were prioritized – an example was the rail overpass that suddenly divided the Port Melbourne community [FAMINE]. General prosperity increased following WW2, and the baby boom generation had unprecedented access to education and opportunity [FEAST] – but the inner areas could no longer accommodate population growth, so much of the new generation had to move away from their traditional inner city communities [FAMINE]; for working class young people this was because the new Commission housing was being built further away where land was plentiful, and for the newly minted generation of middle class professionals, the gentrification of their historical home made property much more expensive, pushing them out to the fringes where they could afford to buy.


FINAL WORD

Land availability, the switch from predominantly rail transport to road transport, the subsequent transformation of the urban form, and generalized population increases were not, it must be admitted, deliberate policies of white middle class paternalism. One thing becomes clear, however, when examining the history of housing policy in the 20th century: at every stage, whether it was charitable institutions, expert opinions, or government policies, the culture of the working classes and immigrants have only ever been partly understood, and rarely taken into consideration by those with the power to effect change. As observers of history we would do well to acknowledge these successes and failures, to give us the best chance of acting wisely and sensitively in the future.

Slum clearance (by Lucas Ng)

Introduction

There is a difficulty in data collection when dealing with settlements of the urban poor due to the inconsistency in the definitions given to slums. For example, in Rio the definition of what constitutes a favela is not consistent throughout agencies and studies (Perlman, 2010). This makes it extremely difficult for the establishment of policies to deal with such informal settlements. Nevertheless, it is evident that there is a wide socio-economic divide between the rich and poor that exists in many developing nations today. This is exacerbated by the inability to cope with the rapid influx of rural urban migrants as the cities begin to develop.

Slums are part of progress and are inevitable

Poverty in cities reflect urban growth and opportunities, intranational migration from rural to urban areas are influenced by push and pull factors such as rural poverty and better prospects respectively. (Glaeser, 2011) The “Urban poverty paradox” as mentioned by Glaeser is that of the simultaneous increase in rural to urban migration with improvements in infrastructure, defeating the purpose of upgrading slums in developing countries. This requires governments to anticipate rural urban migration instead of giving into the seemingly self-defeating purpose of slum upgrading through eradication.

Developed countries like America had gone through the same situations faced by deveoping countries today

The extreme polarising effects segregating the rich and poor have been an issue for developed countries such as America during the 19th century. (Glaeser, 2011) The divide between rich and poor is not something that is new, rather, it is a phenomenon that has existed for centuries and will continue to exist for many more. As Glaeser mentions, the Americans who are appalled at the living conditions of Rios favelas are not aware of the fact that Irish immigrants lived in “shanty towns” like New Yorks Hell/s Kitchen in the 19th century. However, while slums represent progress, it does not justify inhumane living conditions, slums represent a lack of urban infrastructure to accommodate the rapid influx of rural migrants. The problem is apparent and inevitable but it should not be looked upon as “cancerous” to the urban population. It should be embraced and while the task of restoring slums in developing countries might seem daunting, it presents a more economical and socially just method for dealing with the urban poor.

Case study: Rio show the development of urban policies surrounding Rios poor

Urban policies surrounding the favelas in Rio have undergone a significant number of changes over the past few decades. Initially the policies were centered around “removal and resettlement” (perlman, 2010), this meant eradicating the favelas and relocating its inhabitants to locations that were far away from the city center and into single roomed barracks, core houses or “conjuntos” based on their level of income. This policy was enforced by a national level program to rid Rio of its favelas and was known as “CHISAM”. As Perlman mentions, this policy had cost the government dearly in terms of financial and political capital and was unsustainable, leading to the gradual decline in the eradication policy and a final halt to the “CHISAM” program. The program faced political opposition as housing was not able to match the removal of favelas, the relocation of people seemed unmanageable in terms of both administrative and financial capacity.

Once democracy was re-established in 1985, the policy to upgrade the favelas in Rio gained more attention as a third of the city’s electorate lived there. (perlman, 2010) ‘Favela Bairro’ was the first large scale favela restoration programme (1994-2000) which focused on the integration of the favelas into the city through the upgrading of infrastructure and promoting social health and education programmes. (Xavier & Magalhães, 2003) While the favella Bairro programme was effective in improving the quality of urban life for 168 favelas as of 2009, it has 852 favelas left to upgrade and its goal of incorporating the poor into the surrounding neighbourhoods was far from reach. As perlman (2010) mentions, policy can only do so much when there is a lack of “community pride and ownership”, and in the case of Rio, the people of the 168 favelas restored did not feel like they had a sense of ownership and things went back to the way they were before after the programme ended.

Lessons learnt that could be applied to other developing countries

Perlman suggests three ways in which policies could be shaped to incorporate the urban poor into the city- (i) place based approaches (ii) poverty based approaches and (iii) universal approaches. Place based approaches are effective in focusing on “territories of exclusion” or informal settlements of the poor such as favelas. This provides a more direct and realistic approach when dealingw with such a widespread problem without falling short on quality. Also known as “Bolsa Familia”, the poverty based approach provide financial aid to families that fall below a defined level of income. This is done through the use of a monthly stipend which helps low income families fulfil basic needs while encouraging them to invest in healthcare and education for future generations. The universal approach aims towards establishing basic individual rights for each citizen, this includes the right to safety, decent housing and protection under law. It aims to break the socio-economic disparities between rich and poor by emphasizing on basic rights to use public spaces, participate in the job market, and to be able to participate in discussions about the city’s future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the prevalence of rural urban migration in developing countries today is not something new. As Glaeser (2011) mentions, developed countries have spent billions in countering urban diseases and vices. Cities attract rural folk because it presents opportunities for a better life not just for themselves, but for future generations. However, this does not mean that it is okay for people to live in inhumane conditions such as the favelas but calls for the government to adopt specific, strategic policies in order to anticipate and battle the “urban poverty paradox”. 

Bibliography

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the city. [London]: Macmillan

Perlman, J. (2009). Favela. New York: Oxford University Press.

Xavier, H., & Magalhães, F. (2003). The case of Rio de Janeiro (1st ed., p. 23). Rio. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-projects/Global_Report/pdfs/Rio.pdf

20th Century Middle-Eastern Cities (by Kate Siebert)

 

A brief history

During the Middle Ages, Europe had much to learn from the highly developed Islamic culture, in particular the transmission of Greek and Roman heritage. Europe also depended on the Middle East for ‘rare and desirable luxury goods’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 167).  During the Renaissance, Europe’s cultural development drifted away from that of the Middle East, before France colonised the first Islamic country, Algeria, in 1830. The Ottoman Empire obtained major power in the Middle East up until the First World War. During the 16th and 17th centuries, it was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire which controlled much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, and served as the centre of interactions between and the Eastern and Western worlds. The rise of European powers in the 19th century led to the loss of territory, especially to France and Britain (figure 1). After World War 1, the Ottoman regions were now European according to the Mandate system, subjecting the Middle East to political interference of Western nations.

 

         

 FIGURE 1

 

 

Modern versus traditional

 

There were different extents to which modernism was applied to Middle Eastern cities. For example between World Wars 1 and 2 it was much less evident compared to post World War 2 modernism. Furthermore, the 1970s brought about new development and conservationism. Bianca introduces this weeks reading with a quote contrasting the traditional and the modern. He describes traditional as ‘static and vertical,’ because it ‘refers to constant and universal qualities’, and connects the ‘lower to the higher.’ Modern is the opposite: ‘dynamic and horizontal,’ because it incorporates ‘the material and historical connections’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 160).

Zdanowski explores the idea that modernisation is understood as state formation, urbanisation, industrialisation, migration, and the formation of new global ties (2014). This process has shaped the countries of the Middle East. He also explores the implementation of socio-economic development, which aims to solve over-population, unemployment, lack of housing, water and land shortages, and lack of education facilities. The ‘new towns’ or ‘villes nouvelles’ incorporate a more rational street layout, plazas and public squares, and public transportation. Throughout the 19th century, there were new urban forms emerging in both the European colonies and throughout the Ottoman Empire. Modernism is also associated with vernacular modes of development, which is cultural expression that can ‘bridge the gap between tradition and modernity’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 182).

 

 

Development of Middle Eastern planning

 

Historically, Europeans had a large impact on Middle Eastern architecture and planning. For example in 1870, when ‘the Ottoman administration established new Western-type municipalities’ to supervise urban development. French and Italian architects were being commissioned, and Western-type apartments were lining the street fronts (Bianca, 2000, p. 169). A large number of railways were built to connect the provinces with the capital, and to give easy access to the people, especially for pilgrimage. The railways also provide ‘parallels to Western colonial architecture’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 169). In Cairo just after 1870, when re-planning and modernising the city, Khedive’s new town plan was ‘a small scale replica of Haussmann’s schemes’ for Paris. This meant the inclusion of several axes connecting the new city to the old, thus ‘cutting through the historic urban fabric’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 171). The European influence continues when in the late 1960s, French architect Michel Ecochard designed new thoroughfares through old city centres (Fez, Damascus and Aleppa). His proposition, although never fully implemented, was to use an ‘orthogonal Roman street grid by undoing the century-old organic growth’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 179).

 

          

 FIGURE 2

 

 

Throughout the 20th century there was a large shift in cities, because of the increased pressure for rural to urban migration, and shifting conceptions of urban space. The rapid population growth caused an influx of rural population, which therefore caused urbanisation to occur (Zdanowski, 2014, p. 216). This was combined with further advancements such as railways, tramways and new residential and commercial districts, to improve the efficiency of the city. Along with the modernisation of urban systems there is increased demand for transport, specifically vehicular access in the case of the Middle East. Bianca states that ‘vehicular access is a key issue for preserving both the viability and the authentic character of historic Muslim cities’ (2000, p. 179). However as usual a balance is needed so that the qualities of a city are not destroyed.

Over the past 50 to 80 years, there have been two approaches for setting out the ‘new towns.’ Decisions were made according to their ‘topographic preconditions, the geopolitical importance of the site and the cultural choices of the administrators responsible and their architects’ (Bianca, 2000, p. 176). New cities were either superimposed on the old historic fabric — which caused demolition of historic urban structures  — or were created new colonial cities on unused land. Usually, there were elements of both in what they called the ‘two town scheme.’ Some elements of Middle Eastern planning have remained constant such as religion and law, whilst maintaining a city’s cultural integrity, and are just as important in the 20th century. These include the congregational mosque, public bathhouse (hammam) and a market complex (suq), essential for communal life, and completely dependant on access to and efficiency of the transport system.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Some of the world’s oldest cities are located in the Middle East, for example Istanbul, Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo. Today, Egypt, Turkey and Iran have more inhabitants than Italy, the United Kingdom and France (Zdanowski, 2014). Most cities have undergone modernisation at different times and to different extents, whether under the Ottoman empire, under colonial or mandate rule, or due to nationalist development. In the last few decades, Middle Eastern societies have become urban societies, through European influence and now their own.

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Bianca, S. (2000). ‘The Impact of Western models on the contemporary development  patterns of historic Muslim cities’ in Urban Form in the Arab World: Past and  Present. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 161-184

 

Zdanowski, J. (2014). Middle Eastern Societies in the 20th Century. Cambridge Scholars  Publishing

 

Figure 1: “What World War 1 did to the Middle East,” accessed from  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-946052-651551.html

 

Figure 2: 1968 Master Plan for Damascus, accessed from   http://archnet.org/sites/10361/media_contents/96452