For last week’s class, we read “The City as a Growth Machine” in Logan and Molotch’s Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, and Loughran’s article “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Spaces” in City & Community. In “The City as a Growth Machine,” Logan and Molotch examine the city as a “growth machine.” The growth that these authors refer to, is the economic impact that occurs as a result of the investment of elites, entrepreneurs, and business owners in cities, and the support that they receive from politicians. As these investments lead to the expansion of cities and the growth of the consumer base, the economic benefits yield profits for entrepreneurs and business owners. These investments into the city are also an opportunity for politicians to push forward their political agenda, and in some situations receive economic rewards from stakeholders to whom they show support.
My question for our class discussion, and the question that still lingers for me, is what agency do local residents have in urban growth. In our class discussion we identified that there is a clear power dynamic that exists when considering the ways in which cities grow, and that those atop the hierarchy benefit most from urban growth. This system, or “machine,” is maintained by these key stakeholders, and is perpetuated by their quest for continued economic advancement. Though they claim that growth in urban areas benefits all, theories of urban growth highlight the role that politics and government play, as well as the hierarchy and dynamics at play via capitalism, that advance the interests of the elite and leave many unrepresented and unheard. Though inclusion in decision making processes would solve the issue of residents being unheard, I am skeptical of the willingness of entrepreneurs, elites, and business owners to shift their focus to what residents want, if it does not yield economic opportunity.
Another theme that was raised in our class discussion was spatial capital. We discussed how residents can lay claim and power over space in their cities using the examples of parkour, and the spaces that residents in the San Francisco area have claimed as their own in “Places of Privileged Consumption Practices: Spatial Capital, the Dot-Com Habitus, and San Francisco’s Internet Boom.” Although these examples do provide counter narratives to the power dynamic that exists alongside urban growth and highlight resident agency, these examples only reflect the experiences of a select group of residents who are able to acquire social and cultural capital. These examples do not provide a response to how the socially and economically disadvantaged are represented.
In my initial question, my focus was on local residents. However, after our class discussion, I am more interested in how poorer communities are affected by urban growth and how those without social or economic capital can have input in regards to the changes in their cities. Though the hierarchy in cities and the political economy is not likely to change, politicians have the capacity to affect change, as they are able to speak on behalf of their residents, and ensuring that their voices are heard.
I agree that for economic advancement to improve the lives of the entire urban population there need to be changes made to the groups that influence the decision making process. I also agree that in the current political atmosphere these changes are not likely to be made because they will not directly benefit those currently in power. I think that for changes to be made on a large scale, people need to start on a local level. If local governments were to do a better job including all of their residents in decision making processes, maybe this change would scale up to larger areas and eventually have a lasting effect on cities’ political atmospheres and who is included in decision making processes.
I found Joshua Brook’s perspective and class lecture very interesting especially because I am an Economics major. As an Economics major, financial investment/stimulus in regions can lead to significant growth in an area. I do think the issue with having elites enter a region could be dangerous for minority groups if they are not represented by those elites. For example, a white man cannot fully relate to minorities lifestyle, cultures, and struggles so even if he/she is trying to help minority groups. Also, I think politician relationship with elites in an area can be extremely dangerous because politicians could not be acting in the publics best interest, if the rich are funding their campaign.
I think your blog highlights one of the major problems that is produced by the economic development of a city. As agents from the private sector beginning pouring in funds into a place. the people who live there are often excluded from the profits being generated through the development of their pertaining city, leading to displacement and social exclusion in the context of the greater community. As you mentioned, this problem is exhasterbated by politicians and other agents from the public sector who are often not active enough in regards to mitigating the problems that are caused by growth machine effect. In order to fix this, I think a better connection between the local bureacracy and residents in conjunction with improved execution of regulating laws could potentially allow for locals to integrate and become apart of the outcomes associated with emerging growth machines.
Joshua, after reflecting on our recent classes, reading your blog makes me wonder if DIY urbanism is a counter-culture to this growth machine ethos. You discuss how the goal of stakeholders to invest in the city and ultimately make it more profitable increases the exclusivity of the space. In many ways, the city as a growth machine describes the typical structure of gentrification in which capital is invested wealth white people move into the city and displace lower-class minorities. In class, we discuss how certain forms of DIY urbanism also require social and economic capital; however, in many ways, this DIY urbanism is more accessible because it does not involve the typical steps of bureaucracy. Perhaps this is one manifestation of agency by poorer residents.
Joshua, the new questions you bring up make sense, and Risa’s observations on how this may connect to DIY urbanisms are interesting. To further draw connections between these to concepts, it seems there is a shared theme between the two: how and by who should urbanism be handled? In the case of Growth Machines, you wonder how local, underrepresented residents might fight against the economic exploitation of the places they inhabit. Similarly, in another class we discussed when city change should be pioneered by local residents and when it should be done by city administration. The main difference between these two conversations is that in the one case, residents might want to resist urban change, while in the other, residents are looking to create it.
Such conversations are essential to the idea of exercising rights to the city.