Spatial Implications of Industrialization and Globalization and different views on Structuring of Space in Urban Areas

To understand the urban structure and its dynamic transformation, one has to know the pre-industrial cities, the effects of industrial revolution and the impacts of capitalism on urban land. Economic specialization and commercial expansion, in particular, industrialization, were the driving forces behind the transformation of urban structure. In the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, cities were essentially small-scale settlements based on mercantile economy and a rigid social order stemming from the tradition of medieval feudalism.

Ahrentzen (1989) points out that the work and residential spaces had the momentum until industrial revolution. The overall structure of a city was the existence of a fringe population of the very poorest of the proletariat and a central core area inhabited by

the city’s elite due to high rent in the central location. However, after the industrial revolution the spatial form of urban structure has transformed radically and this can be explained by the principle of factory-based industry and the resulting physical and psychological separation of home and work place; the impact of intra-urban transportation innovations; the expansion and differentiation of central business districts (Knox. 1987). Therefore, the new urban structure became increasingly differentiated, with homes no longer used as workplaces and residential areas graded according the rent and income groups. Social status, newly ascribed in terms of money, became synonymous with rent-paying ability, so that, neighbourhoods were, in effect, created along status divisions.

Flanagan (1990) points out that the city, as a physical environment, exerts an effect on human behavior and relationships with physical space can be an ecological idea. So, urban ecology can also be understood in a somewhat more restricted sense, having to do with the process and patterns by which the spatial features of urban areas emerge and the ways in which various population and functional elements in the city arrange over its limited surface. The ecological approach first developed in order to

investigate the way various city functions evolved and to give ideas about the factors that are effective for spatial changes of our cities. An explicit model of the city

pointed out by Burgess in 1925 shows the patterns of urban growth and the forces that shaped the urban environment by concentric zone hypothesis. In his model the urban function and the residential patterns has been discussed and how the elite groups are changing residential spaces with the working class of the periphery has been

elaborately discussed. In his model, the working class has been shown within the proximity of the city center (which is still valid in many Third World cities today) for job accessibility and the migrants can only afford the cheap rental accommodation in

the zone of transition. The CBD (Central Business District) is the dominant element in the metropolitan community and when CBD expands the other zones are pushed further and further outwards. Thus the residential areas are under the process of invasion and succession. This model reflects the development of Chicago in particular but not valid anymore due to drastic changes after industrial revolution where the industries have moved from its central locations (Brunn and Williams, 1993).

An extension and the criticism of the Burgess model by Homer Hoyt also

concentrated in US cities and suggested a sectoral pattern of the urban form. The shape of U.S. cities had already begun to change dramatically over the course of the first four decades of the twentieth century, producing a more decentralized urban pattern. In 1945, Harris and Ullman’s multiple nuclei pattern describes rapidly

growing cities that were annexing or incorporating formerly outlying and independent townships. They argued that, as the cities are developing faster than ever, no single concentric zone or sectoral model can fit or be applied to such amalgamations of population. This model however, resembles many Third world cities as new satellite towns are evolving today However, all three models are not anymore valid at least for developed nations as the new trend of globalization and industrialization has changed in to more flexible production.

Along with industrial revolution one has to also analyze the colonial city pattern where today’s offshore industries once have taken place. For example, the Indian subcontinent was a British colony for about two hundred years and still bear the colonial influences in their urban structures.

Figure 2.1. A Model for the Internal Structure of a Colonial City in South Asia (Source: Brunn and Williams, 1993: 360)

Brunn and Williams (1993) points out that the urban pattern of Indian cities can be explained as hybrid model being neither Western nor Indian nor the same as other world regions (see Figure 2.1). The basic and important features of such models are the need for trade and a minimal port facility and costal location, which were prerequisites for colonial-city site. A walled fort adjacent to the port is not only a military outpost but also the nucleus of the colonial exchange (see Figure 2.1).

The urban structure of MDCs (more developed countries) and LDCs (less developed countries) are different and many cities in the LDCs follow somewhat different patterns. The preceding models of Chicago school apply primarily to cities of the MDCs (more developed countries) and to American cities in particular. Although the new trend of industrialization and opening up of the global market have drastically changed the urban pattern of LDCs, the marginal economy, enormous population and cultural traits can be some obstacles for not changing to its full extents.

Brunn and Williams (1993) illustrated a more frequent model that corresponds the LDCs is the inverse of concentric zone pattern. Unlike most cities in the MDCs, social class is inversely related to distance from the center of the city. The reason firstly because lack of an adequate and dependable transportation system, which restrict the elite or upper class to reside near work places and secondly, the functions of the city which are dominated by the elite and concentrated in the center of the city.

Davies and Herbert (1993) criticized this idea and mentioned that due to global

economy, many of the LDCs have begun to industrialize especially in the last 30 years and their urban form resembles the multiple nuclei pattern for such cities. Moreover, in LDCs the city centers tend to be too congested and with little land or few

advantages and therefore, they are no more suitable for heavy industrial plants.

Although industry has been primarily urban oriented, the newer and larger industrial establishments tend to locate not in the city centers but in the periphery or suburban areas.

There has been considerable debate as to whether the process of urban growth in today’s Third World cities is similar to or qualitatively different from that, which took place in Europe and the United States during the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Some

sociologists (Flanagan, 1990; Davies and Herbert, 1993) claim that what happened to the developed countries some 40 years back in the developed countries are realizing by the developing nations today. To understand this, Hall (1984) proposed a five-stage (under conditions of limited economic and technological development)

development of urban growth, focusing on how a city gains or looses its importance and the way it becomes a Mega-City. He argues that substantial rural-to-urban migration is toward a primate city where the bulk of the nation’s industrial activity is located. With the spread of transportation arteries, the second stage brings heightened

industrialization throughout the region and results in the formation of secondary cities as alternative magnets for rural migrants, though the primate city continues to grow rapidly. Eventually the primate city core becomes so densely settled that “spill-over”

to the suburban rings begins. In the third stage, suburban slipover accelerates and the principle areas begin to grow faster than to lose population while its suburbs continue to grow. The city’s degree of primacy declines as secondary cities become

increasingly attractive to industry and migrants. Finally, during stage five, population loss of the primate city core accelerates and its immediate periphery suffers relative (though not absolute) population losses to secondary cities and non-metropolitan areas.

Hall (1984) further suggested that many of the least developed countries are in stages one and two, newly industrializing countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Korea and those of southern and Eastern Europe are in stages two and three; most northern and western European countries in stages four or five, and the United States and Great Britain clearly in stage five. His model is consistent with traditional regional growth theory in that it posits that eventual declines in primate cities translate into gains by subordinate urban agglomerations.

Kunzmann, (1998) claims that the concentration of economic power of the developed nations causes the uneven development of our cities by the virtue of global economy today. The spatial polarization in the World Cities can be seen as a result of such implementation. Here, polarization means the existence of territorial units that benefits from certain trends and urban regional competition, and others that have to bear some or all of the negative implications of specialization and spatial

differentiation. The diagram shows the transition from spatial specialization to spatial

polarization and uneven spatial development. Webber (1991) claims that the search for surplus profits is essentially a matter of exploiting certain classes. In earlier waves, that uneven development had been spatial: first, the difference in development

between town and country; and later, differences in levels of development between countries of the core and of the periphery. There is much empirical evidence that ongoing economic developments tend to favour spatial polarization within the world city regions due to the globalization. Moreover, the social fragmentation is obvious due to changing values. The spatial differentiation process separates respective privileged and underprivileged urban classes and the result is uneven development in spatial formation of the cities. Land value and property prices tend to explode in certain locations and thus class differentiation arises with the power of investing and settling (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. From Spatial Specialization to Spatial Polarization (Source:

Kunzmann, 1998: 56).

The above discussion is not merely a comparison between MDCs and LDCs but about the mechanism by which we understand the way urban spatial development occurs

within the context of globalization and technological innovations that further create uneven developments in our cities.

2.1.2. The Neo-Marxist Approaches to Urban Structure and Residential