Understanding Global Cities: A Critical Analysis of Global City Theory, Lecture notes of Architecture

Download Understanding Global Cities: A Critical Analysis of Global City Theory and more Lecture notes Architecture in PDF only on Docsity! POLITECNICO DI MILANO Faculty of Architecture and Society Master of Science in Urban Planning and Policy Design Analysing the ‘Global City’ Meanings, evolution and challenges Author: Marcio Siqueira Machado Advisor: Carolina Pacchi Academic Year 2009/2010 2 Index Index ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 02 Abstract in English …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 04 Abstract in Italian ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 05 1. Introduction 1.1. Motivation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 06 1.2. The organization of the dissertation …………………………………………………………………. 07 2. Methodology 2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 2.2. The analysis ………………………………………………………………………….…………………………… 12 2.3. The dissertation …………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 13 2.4. Limitations and constraints ………………………………………………………………………………. 14 3. Global city as a theory: the global cities research evolution 3.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..…………………………… 16 3.2. Difficulties for definitions of global cities …………………………………………………………. 16 3.3. Antecedents and the foundational world city hypothesis of Friedmann …….……… 19 3.4. The dissemination of the global city of Sassen ……………………………………………..…… 21 3.5. The work of Taylor and other authors ………………………………………………………..…… 25 3.6. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….. 26 4. Global city as a partial view: the global myth 4.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………..……………. 29 4.2. The evolution of the global city research segregation ……………………………………..… 30 4.3. Current criticism .……………………………………………………………………………………………… 31 4.4. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 33 5. Global city as a model: the global diffusion of the concept 5.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………..………………. 35 5.2. Building a model ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36 5.3. The model ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 39 5.4. The diffusion of the model …………………………………………………………………………….….. 42 5.5. Model becomes a myth …………………………………………………………………….……………… 45 5.6. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 6. Global city as numbers in a ranking: the global competition 6.1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….……….. 49 6.2. Evolution …………………………………………………………………………………………………..………. 49 6.3. Criticisms about global cities rankings ……………………………………………………………… 51 6.4. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 7. Global city as a driver of urban planning: the global practice 7.1. Introduction ..……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 58 7.2. Designing government …………………………………………………………………………………….. 59 5 Riassunto Essere una città globale” è diventata l'obiettivo di molte città di tutto il mondo. Questa tesi si focalizza sul capire la letteratura che ha creato l’idea di città globale e discute della sua implementazione . L'obiettivo è quello di trovare un concetto di città globale e le possibili lacune all'interno della letteratura. Per raggiungere questo obiettivo, l'analisi si propone di questa terminologia. Il concetto di “Città globale” ha diversi significati per diverse discipline, per le diverse pratiche e per le diverse prospettive nei quali è inteso tale termine. La costruzione e l'evoluzione sulla teoria inerente la città globale sono anche state studiate in modo approfondito. Gli autori principali come Friedmann, Sassen, e Taylor hanno investigato nel profondo I modi di tale teoria e di come essa è correntemente osservata. L'analisi proposta ha confermato l'esistenza di diverse lacune nella letteratura sulla città globale. Una visione parziale e occidentalizzata, basata sulla ricerca empirica in alcune città ricche è una di queste lacune. Altra lacuna è la mancanza di buoni dati sulle città prese ad esempio nello studio sulla città globale. E’ stata confermata anche un'importanza esagerata della classifica mondiale delle città riguardo ai risultati che hanno prodotto. L'esistenza di un modello semplificato fatto per la diffusione dell'idea di città globale in altre città è un'altra constatazione. Ancora un altro gap che risulta dalle ricerche è la poca comprensione politica delle città globali. Questa tesi ha confermato la mancanza di una chiara concettualizzazione della città globale. A causa di questo, è stato anche possibile osservare come le diverse discipline utilizzino e siano utilizzate dalla città globali. Nelle considerazioni sulla teoria globale delle città di São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro, è possibile confermare alcuni di questi fallimenti osservati nella letteratura. Per colmare queste lacune è urgente che gli approcci multidisciplinari entrino definitivamente nella teoria sulla città globale. E’ necessario infine l'incorporazione delle critiche correnti nel programma di ricerca. L'inserimento di un tema senza un indirizzo preciso per gli studi di città globale: l’ambiente urbano, deve essere considerato troppo. Parole chiave: città globale, teoria della città globale, Saskia Sassen 6 1. Introduction 1.1. Motivation The term ‘global city’ is widely used. It is often bantered about as if everyone intuitively knows what it is. A ‘global city’ automatically reminds one of city landscapes in London, New York, Singapore or Dubai. It is quickly connected to images of skyscrapers of glass and steel, lots of people in a business center, sophisticated airports, hi-tech concert halls, outstanding museums, luxury hotels, and fancy restaurants. It bestows an idea of an urban place that is contemporary, international, multicultural, ‘wired’, cosmopolitan, polarizing, and having geographically boundless power (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 23). These images are present inside discussions among global city researchers, architects, economists, geographers, planners, sociologists, mayors, politicians, investors, journalist and population. However these discussions are never exactly the same. Each discipline has some differences in focus or perception of the same phenomenon. The concept of a ‘global city’ has been largely used in different social and disciplinary contexts. Architects design museums thinking about global flows of tourists and about the other museums present in top global cities. Even if not clearly stated, architects have been influenced by the architecture of global cities. Developers think about fostering a global city image to compete in the global real estate market. Geographers explain several phenomena in the urban space using the global city theory. Economists think about flows of investments and goods having the global cities as key points, gateways for these flows. CEOs of international companies always have in mind the power of global cities in order to decide the next location for their headquarters. Few of these disciplines discuss the creation and the validity of such concept. Influenced by all this discourse, mayors have aimed to transform, as much as possible, their cities in global cities. They put large amounts of public money in this strategy. Metropolises like Shanghai and Manila, for example, are aggressively seeking to become global cities by improving their infrastructure, by expanding their Central Business Districts, and by promoting rapid development in the finance, insurance, and real estate sector (PIZARRO, WEI, BANERJEE; 2003, page 116). In developed countries, business and governmental leaders of large cities typically aspire to reach the global city status (FAINSTEIN, 2006, page 112). Not only in developed countries. Every substantial city nowadays aspires to a world role, at least in some specialty (SIMON, 2006, page 207). This is a critical aspect. 7 Despite all the different disciplines and professionals talking about global cities and their different perceptions, they all share a single master narrative ‘intense urban competition for a share in global market’ (FRIEDMANN, 2002, page XII). Sassen, for example, supports a better look at these strategies: ‘foreign firms have profoundly marked the urban landscape, and their claim to the city is not contested, even though the costs and benefits to cities have barely been examined’ (SASSEN, 2006, page 87). Robinson argues: ‘to aim to be a ‘global city’ following strict formulas may well be the ruin of most of these cities’ (ROBINSON, 2006, page 220). The lack of a robust theoretical construction of the global city theory may help to explain the utilization of some of its ideas without wider consideration about its consequences. The literature fails to produce a common identity for setting the global city apart empirically and in analysing policy issues related to it (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 3). There is little evidence of consensus in perspectives or analytical content in global city theory. This has given room for different actors to use the concept according to their interests, especially economic ones. Academic discourse about cities picked up on diversity but it became economic dominated (FRIEDMANN, 2002, pageXI). This dissertation will show and try to understand these theoretical gaps. Some of these gaps are explicitly perceived by some authors, like the decision of Sassen to not address political issues in her studies: her ‘focus is on production not power’ (SASSEN, 2001, page 6). Others topics are surprisingly not regularly addressed, like for example the real estate market that is considered by Haila a ‘neglected builder’ of the global cities (HAILA, 2006, page 283). Others themes are intentionally hidden like the ‘dirty little secret’ of the lack of reliable urban data in global cities studies demonstrated by Short (SHORT, 2004, page 53). Global city research has been carried out within segregated paradigms of scholarly tradition which remain largely uninformed by each other work (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 23). This dissertation will try to join some of these concepts. It will use visions of different disciplines to understand the misinterpretations, the doubts, and uncertainties of this theory. Few appear to acknowledge the global city as an interrelated complex system (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 4). This dissertation tries to respond to such necessity. 1.2. The organization of the dissertation Following this introduction, will be a chapter explaining the methodology used. The other nine chapters address specific aspects of the meaning of global cities. Roughly, they can be understood as four main parts. Four chapters, from three to six, discuss conceptual issues of the theory about global cities: the evolution of this concept, a problem in this theory, how such 10 task but also one that is quite motivating. It has a “dark side’ (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006; page 251), ‘black holes’ and a ‘secret’ (SHORT, 2004, page 30). It has controversy, multidisciplinarity, politics, and justice. It works with images, numbers, schemes, experiences, discourses, emotion. It influences cities all around the world. 11 2. Methodology 2.1. Introduction A clear methodology is something very important for any study. Explaining the tools, the object of study, the context and the aims is very useful, making it clear is as important as having it. This makes the analysis, comparison, and classification easier and provides a better comprehension of the dissertation. Exposing the reasons of the methodological decisions is interesting for further studies that can be based on this one or eventual corrections that may be necessary. Some authors strongly criticize the lack of an authentic urban planning theory (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 146, CHOAY, 1997, page 256). This work is a small attempt for better understanding the literature about global cities. This chapter will discuss the kind of thesis it is proposed, the way it is organized, and the reasons for these decisions. After, it explains and justifies some practical decisions. Finally, it shows some limitations and constraints of this study. This dissertation is, using the definition of the Italian professor Umberto Eco, a ‘panoramic study’. It is not a monographic one (ECO, 2006, page 7). It talks about a concept in a very wide scope and it opens it up even more, considering the different meanings it can have. According to Eco, this is a very risky strategy. Studies like this have the tendency to lose the point, to be superficial. In this kind of approach, some fundamental authors may be forgotten and others less important may be overrepresented. However, in my opinion, this kind of panoramic view is quite necessary for studying global cities. It is a subject strongly related to so many disciplines; it is a subject that can be seen through so different lens; that this kind of approach becomes necessary. My objects of study are ideas rather than the global cities in a physical sense. Cities are the locus of the implementation of such ideas. Buildings, architects, plans, data, images are part of this. However, books, authors, publications and their discourses, concepts and terms, are the main scope of this dissertation. Like in the book of Choay, The Rule and the Model, in this dissertation, the ’object of study belongs to the order of the text’. Like in her book, it will address ’space and the city as they have been written’ (CHOAY, 1997, page 1), and also as they have been used, commented, advertised, and described. This will be done by focusing on the idea of the ‘Global City’. Discussing theory is potentially difficult. Architects are more used to act rather than to see, or to observe and create theory (KOOLHAS, 2007, page 320). However it pays. The power of ideas is outstanding. Single projects can influence others, become paradigmatic, otherwise, 12 most of the time, they are only one project. They generally change the life of their users and influence closer neighbors. Ideas are much more powerful, they may influence several projects. That is why theory is so important. Choay talked about this relation between theory and practice. She points out the difference between practitioners and texts commentators. The first do not need further explanations, the second, according to her, works for ’favor imagination, passion or reflection’. They ’change the perception of space, shift meanings, motivate’ (CHOAY, 1997, page 15). My aim is motivate a reflection about the ‘Global City’, understand the meaning inside this idea, occasionally shift the preconceived meanings people may have and also change the perception of space, showing the disputes that are represented there. Finally, to finish this introductory part, it may be useful to make some clarifications. In order to avoid false expectations, it is important to explain what will not be addressed or what kind of approach will not be used. This dissertation will not talk about the global city network, and not about its dynamics. I will not use the classifications proposed by Sassen and Friedmann and currently, largely produced by Taylor. I will not create a pattern of analysis nor try to insert some cities in the existing rankings. There are already several studies using these tools. Cities have been classified, ranked and evaluated for a long time. This dissertation will, rather, talk about the way cities are influenced by these relations, by these classifications, and by this theory. This study works on another level. It will look for deeper reflections, for the real reasons of these classifications and the way it has been used by different actors. 2.2. The analysis The title of this study is the first piece of information that may help to explain the methodology used in this dissertation: Analysing the ‘Global City’. Initially, what is an analysis? The dictionary is resourceful to clarify this. The synonyms are first, ‘break down’ and second, ‘explicate’ (Merrian Webster, 2010). Both describe very well the aims of this master dissertation. The first is interesting because one of the main aspects of this study is to break down the several meanings and utilizations of the ‘Global City’ idea by different actors. It can be a product, a concept, a model, a discourse, a theory, etc. This dissertation proposes this analysis, to break down each of the pieces and detail in each chapter. The second synonym presented is also quite relevant as to make clearer, understand reasons, and “explain” what is a ‘Global City’ is a goal as well. The meanings of the word analysis also help to explain the work proposed. The first definition is ‘to separate (a material or abstract entity) into constituent parts or elements; 15 Especially in the master level, the discussion of theory is not so common. The urban planning field as a whole is not so committed with theory. The analysis of other plans, the learning by doing approach, the tradition of borrowing from other fields tools and methods, all together help to end for not encouraging the development of urban planning theory. During undergraduate studies and most of the master level studies, students had the opportunity to propose physical interventions, to apply theories in urban design studios. However, the master thesis is, in my opinion, the right time to think in a broader perspective, a chance to start questioning the reasoning of such theories. This dissertation, in my opinion, can be useful for individuals desiring to have a wider understanding of the ‘Global City’. It shows, for example, how Sassen’s works were strongly based on Friedmann’s hypothesis. It also shows other points of view completely different from hers. This dissertation can be helpful to individuals looking for some specific aspects, some overlaps areas of the global city concept with other subjects. As an example the idea of justice, the real estate market influence and the relation with urban planning as a discipline can be pointed. Finally, it is interesting a Brazilian write about globalization. The Brazilian cities are under a process of strong globalization. The dream of several cities in the country is to become a Global City. We do not have a long tradition of Brazilian researchers to effectively challenge this influence. The important geographer Milton Santos, the only Brazilian cited in the classic book of Sassen, is an exception much more than a rule of good thinkers about the urban space. We have some tradition in good practices in the urban planning field, like those proposed by Jaime Lerner in Curitiba, or the participatory budget in Porto Alegre. However, few theoretical studies were done by Brazilians about global cities and even these few studies were rarely made in English. This dissertation humbly aims to start understanding these gaps. 16 3. Global city as a theory: the global cities research evolution 3.1. Introduction This chapter aims to confirm the difficulties for conceptualizing global cities. The use of such term is spread in several circles of debate. Not only urban planning theorists and the specific global cities researchers but also politicians, businessmen, journalists, and architects frequently use such terminology. The media, in general, frequently uses it also. Cities became integral to understanding potentially epochal changes; in which globalization is the key macro- social process (TAYLOR, 2008). The ‘Global city’ is exactly the interplay between globalization and urban development (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006; page 9) The terms ‘global city’ and ‘global cities’ are now widely-accepted and widely-cited, having become an ubiquitous feature of academic writing on globalization, urban studies and the global economy (JONES, 2002, page 3). It became, what Robinson called, a ‘fashionable approach’ (ROBINSON, 2006, page 218). Due to this, some questions need to be considered. The first one is if there is a clear definition for global cities. Another question to help situate and better understand this concept is regarding its evolution. How has the concept evolved, based on which previous theories? Who were the most important authors and what were their specific approaches? 3.2. Difficulties for definitions of global cities There is not a definitive definition of what a global city is currently. There are some common characteristics that regularly come to mind when someone talks about them. Cosmopolitan, strong financial centers, l businessmen, power, international architecture, big airports, spectacular museums, and flows of tourists are images that generally are linked to global cities. Not only physical and aesthetic aspects but also economic and political stability and cultural life (SIMON, 2006, page 207) are understood as features of global cities. Using these images, the idea of the global city is now firmly embedded in policy discourses concerned with urban planning, regional and national economies (JONES, 2002, page 3). Trying to discuss the definitions and nature of world cities (the previous concept from which global cities were created), Simon, for example, just lists three generic prerequisites for achieving world city status. The first is a sophisticated, internationally driven financial and service complex, the second is to have a hub of international networks of capital and information and the third is to present quality of life, attracting skilled international migrants 17 (SIMON, 2006, page 204). There is no theoretical consolidated definition. What being a global city means is a matter of controversy (FRUG, 200, page 303). Taylor, for example, made a list of 50 descriptions of ‘inter-city relations under conditions of contemporary globalization’ (TAYLOR, 2008). In such list, the global cities, together with other similar concepts, are present. Sassen, the most influential researcher about global cities, admitted the existence of several similar concepts (SASSEN, 2001, page 349). Confounding a collective understanding of the global city is a plethora of similar-sounding terms including ‘international city’, ‘world city’, ‘weltstadt’, and ‘mega-city’ (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 3). This leads, several times, to a misuse of the concept (MARCUSE, 2006, page 365). There is still a plethora of terminology and disparity in perspectives (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 4) This confusion is not a particularity of the media, politicians or society in general. Inside the discussions of global city researchers, there is no certainty about clear definitions. The global city ‘thesis’ has become a central tenet of contemporary urban studies (JONES, 2002, page 3). The development of a large and vibrant world cities literature is evident (TAYLOR, 2008) although it has not produced a solid conceptualization for the global city phenomenon. For a long time, research on global cities has stumbled over the inability to demonstrate clear conceptual and empirical distinctions about what constitutes a global city (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 23). The crisis in the lack of data for research is partially related to conceptual confusion (TAYLOR, 2008). Even though ‘these competing terms and disparate perspectives may be viewed as individual anatomic parts of an integrated whole, they seldom form a collective understanding’ (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 4). Even some basic theoretical approaches and empirical research are still questioned. Tokyo, considered by Sassen`s studies as one of three best examples of a global city, according to James W. White, has low levels of foreign investments, few foreign migrants and lack global command functions, consequently, ‘it cannot be considered a global city, at all’ (SMITH, M. P.; 1998, page 484). These contradictory perceptions show at least some problems in the premises utilized. Robinson, for example, makes a critique at the epistemological core of the theory itself. He supports the entire conceptual apparatus of global city theory as problematic insofar as it is grounded upon basically static, decontextualized categorizations and typologies. (BRENNER, NEIL; 2006; page 217) Besides this unclear theoretical base, two main critiques are regularly addressed at global city theory. The first is that the research is too focused on economic issues. The model for explaining global cities is ‘too economistic’ (SMITH, M.P., 1998, page 484). Robinson says there is a ‘strident economism’ in accounts of global and world cities. He adds that elements of 20 57) was, in my opinion, the starting point of the world city theory. His theory is similar in some points to that of Hall, but the larger focus in cities is decisively different. In his conception, the world city may be defined as an instrument for the control of production and market organization. The idea of the world cities as luxurious, splendid cities whose very splendor obscures the poverty on which their wealth is based, is also present in Hall`s definition. According to Friedmann, the economic space obeys the logic of capital because it is profit- motivated and individualized. These three points, command and control, cities as luxurious places and economic focus will be maintained by other authors like Sassen. However, Friedmann focused also on political issues. He posed that life space and economic space would interact in a way that new questions would emerge for the state, bringing multiple contradictions and difficult choices to be solved (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 65). World-systems theories had been transferred to the analysis of cities with its categorizations like core, periphery and semi-periphery (ROBINSON, 2006, page 218). Friedmann had in mind a heuristic for the empirical study of world city formation in which form and strength of integration and spatial dominance were fundamental. However, he always observed something that currently is not perceived by some scholars: to label them is just a matter of convenience because at every instance it may change (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 59). He was also strongly engaged with research underlining his studies as part of a process. The world city ‘approach’ was, as he explained, a methodology, a point of departure, an initial hypothesis, a way of asking questions and of bringing foot loose facts into relation. He said that there was not an all-embracing theory of world city formation. According to some scholars, there is not yet a complete theory for world or global cities. Four years later, Friedmann had a more consolidated hypothesis which he called ‘The World City Hypothesis’, published in Development and Change (1986). His taxonomy has been subject to critique and reformulation, however at that time, it created a powerful hermeneutic (NEIL, BRENNER; 2006, page 67). He insisted his hypothesis was a framework for research, not a theory, not a universal generalization about cities, but a starting point for political enquiry (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 67). He supported again the importance of economy for this process. The economic variable is likely to be ‘decisive for all attempts at explanation’, although it was not the only one to be considered. According to him, the contradictory relations between production in the era of global management and the political determination of territorial interests were important as well. The world city formation brings into focus the major contradictions of industrial 21 capitalism because cities used as ‘basing points’ by global capital (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 68). This political question had its influence on the local level. He remembered that corporations were not only exempt from taxes, they were generously subsidized in a variety of other ways as well. Furthermore, world city growth already generates social costs like poor migration, polarization, housing, education, health, transportation and welfare. Both needs are increasingly arrayed against each other, social needs against the transnational capital and the interests of the dominant elites (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 71). The theses of Friedman, as he defines, are a starting point for political enquiry, reflecting an evolutionary process focus. He did not want to establish a finite set of world cities at a given point time. He does not define world cities (SIMON, 2006, page 207). Another problematic issue was indicated by Taylor. He argued that Friedmann upscaled state-level modeling of inter-city relations (TAYLOR, 2008) without the necessary adaptations and with no empirical basis for this premise. To solve these three issues: establish a definition, create a specific approach (and also a specific name) for relations among cities and find empirical analysis were some of the aims of Sassen. Friedmann supported that an important ancillary function of world cities is ideological penetration, centres for production and dissemination of information and control. As examples, he suggested New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tokyo (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 69). The core concept of the global cities of Sassen is exactly the command and control idea. The three study cases of Sassen are inside the five examples of Friedmann: New York, London and Tokyo. She clearly adopted the ‘research agenda’ of the world city formation of Friedmann 3.4. The dissemination of the global city of Sassen The works of the sociologist Saskia Sassen were a mark in the global city studies. She is the single most influential and widely cited contemporary analyst of global city formation (BRENNER, NEIL; 2006; page 82). Even twenty years after the publication of her book The Global City, she is still known as the most important scholar within this subject. She popularized the use of the term ‘global city’. Sassen`s 1991 The Global City combines a global overview, detailed case studies and a concise theoretical argument to produce the most comprehensive approach to the world cities (PACIONE, 2002). One of her biggest merits was to take the global city research outside academia. 22 Before her work, the process of cities in the global networks was called as world cities. Sassen coined the concept of the global city (TAYLOR, 2008), but not the word ‘global city’ that had been used before by other researchers. She just reused an older terminology for naming her own concepts. They would be largely disseminated in her papers, lectures and conferences. Naming was, according to her, one of the challenges for contemporary researchers (SASSSEN, 2001, page XVIII). Currently in the media, the term global city is more used than world city. Among the scholars of the global/world city research, it has been more utilized as well. However there are still some researchers that insist in maintaining the former terminology. The Global and World Cities Research Network, directed by Taylor is an example of this dual way to address the same topic. In the important work, The Global Cities Reader, edited by Brenner and Keil, in the articles published after the book of Sassen, just Machimura in 1992, Douglass in 1998 (maybe because he co-edited it with Friedmann), Taylor in 2000, Smith R.G. in 2003, King in 2006, and Flusty also in 2006 used the term world city among more than forty authors that preferred the word ‘global city’ to define their concepts (BRENNER, NEIL; 2006). Another author that used both terms in her article was Robinson. She did it in order to compare them. She stresses the influence of the world-system theory in the world city, the hierarchical sense of this theory and the focus on economic process that conflict with social dynamics. She defines global cities as mainly based on the classification of cities on their power in the world economy. She proposes that if ‘the global had been labeled as just another example of industrial district, it might not have attracted the attention it did’. Robinson, a strong critic of the global city, actually observes that global cities should be called ‘new industrial districts of transnational management and control’ (ROBINSON, 2006, page 219). The global cities literature needs to be situated historically (SMITH, M. P.; 1998; page 486). Not only the aims and interpretations, but also the tools available, are influenced by the historical moment. One of the reasons Sassens’ work became so famous was her ability to mix theory and empirical studies. She benefited from the larger availability of information in the early nineties especially if compared with Friedmann. The three specific cities she takes as examples were based on this availability and were a fundamental part of her work. She defines her own studies as to ‘unpack the concept of ‘the city’ and re-present it in terms of specific/data and dynamics’ (SASSEN, 2001, page XVIII). Some of the goals of her studies were clearly a response to pertinent issues of the nineties, especially in her two first books, in 1991 and 1994. First, there were strong discussions about the end of cities proclaimed by analysts and politicians (SASSEN, 1994, page 13). Internet, modernization of transportation modes and development of communications 25 room for confusion. Cities around the world would aim for this even if most of these features are feasible just for few cities in the world. Sassen is responsible for this too, in my opinion. She seldom addressed the millions of inhabitants in the world that live in cities far from being global. She never studied these cities in depth. She did not discuss and make her voice heard about the consequences of cities trying desperately to become global cities. She helped to create the global city myth, as it will be further analysed in this dissertation. 3.5. The work of Taylor and other authors The work of Sassen changed the global city research. It become known not only among planners, sociologists, geographers, architects and other specialists but also among politicians, public officials, businessmen, developers and investors and became the aim of several cities in the world. Due to all this attention, two main groups of researchers started discussing the subject. A first group of scholars supported the global city theory and a second one strongly criticized it. Among those supporting her approach, Taylor is the most important. He founded, with other researchers, the Global and World City Research Network in the United Kingdom. It became the most important center regarding global cities in the world. Inside this research group, Taylor produced the Alpha, Beta, Gamma Ranking, the most well known rankings for global cities. The critical debate surrounding the global city thesis has largely focused on how global cities might be better defined and which cities might be included in this categorization (JONES, 2002, page 3). The GaWC group is very active, producing papers, hosting events, supporting researchers and mainly collecting data. Taylor supported that one of the global city research needs is more accurate data about as many places as possible. One of the main aims of the GaWC is to provide ways to measure global city links. Taylor supports there is a necessity for a consistent approach to the subject in which the development of theory and empirical analyses iterate in a mutually beneficial manner. He produces complex analysis based on numeric formulas using indicators like network connectivity (TAYLOR, 2008). The latest book of Taylor, ‘Global Urban Analysis: a survey on cities in globalization’ to be presented in the end of 2010 shows exactly this focus. It mostly contains analysis based on hard data about all the regions of the world. He barely disagreed with Sassens’ theories. He proposed, for example, a ‘more inclusive approach to counter Sassen´s exclusivity’, in which his response was the idea of ‘cities in globalization’. It is similar to the ‘globalizing cities’ of Marcuse and Van Kempen in 2000 (TAYLOR, 2008). 26 The authors that generally are committed to criticize the current notion of global cities are producing more research. In my opinion, the idea of Jones that ‘few contributors have engaged with the epistemological issues surrounding the global city concept’ (JONES, 2002, page 3) is not true anymore. Several researchers have also systematically questioned the work of Sassen. Some of these authors are cited inside different chapters of this dissertation. When the subject is related to the unfeasibility for all cities to achieve a global status, Robinson, Douglass and especially Short, are present in the chapter about the global myth. When the topic is the global cities aiming for the creation of images through architecture Koolhass, Piñon are the authors selected. When the diffusion of such concept is criticized because of the imposition of a model of development for every city, Simon, Lefebvre and Choay are the researchers cited. When the focus is on criticizing the exaggerated importance of indicators, the authors more cited are Smith, R.G., and Robinson. Finally, when the lack of politics inside the global city theory is addressed, the main texts used are from Harvey and Fainstein. This dissertation can be understood historically as part of this moment. It can be seen as an attempt for better understanding this criticism. 3.6. Conclusion Understanding the difficulties for conceptualization of global cities and the evolution of the global city theory is very important. It was possible to perceive how historical moments are decisive for the creation of concepts and theories, especially in the social sciences. The focus, the objects of study, the main authors are part of the explanation of some of the directions some theories take. This is quite useful for helping to question the utility of the ‘global city thesis’ as a framework for understanding and theorizing economic activity in the contemporary global economy. This is not to argue that Sassen`s thesis is ‘somehow wrong, nor that it is not a helpful and insightful theoretical perspective to make use of in certain debates’ (JONES, 2002, page 5). The aim is just to continue the perpetual questioning and answering of the scientific method. We should consider the construction of the ‘world city hypothesis’ of Friedmann, to sharpen its definitional clarity (SIMON, 2006, page 209). Devising a robust construct that integrates different perspectives into a collective understanding of the global city is a difficult matter because scholars frequently come from different social science disciplines and have competing agendas about what should be studied (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 4). Even Sassen calls for the development of new categories of analysis, new lines of theorization, and perhaps 27 some new political and economic practices as well, taking in consideration the urban and community level (SASSEN, 2006, page 83). Presentism and uniqueness of globalization rely exclusively or primarily on an encompassing strategy of comparison with purely economic indicators are all problems the global city research still faces (BRENNER, 2001, page 143). With few exceptions (such as Short), most of the past research is single perspective and not interdisciplinary, like the dominant view proposed by Friedmann 2000, Castells 1989, Sassen 2001, and Taylor 2004 (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 17). There is a need for more contextualized, causally messier, and more sociolologically complex views. The comparative-historical method world city theory could be useful (BRENNER, 2001, page 143) Regions of the south represent a rich arena for research geared to practical issues of policy and planning, as well as at the level of the theory (SIMON, 2006, page 208). Sassen stressed this also but others authors and Sassen herself did not follow this direction. Global cities theory is too focused on the top cities in the hierarchies. Friedmann had indicated the rise of regional inequalities (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 66). Inequality and poverty at all scales within the core, semi-periphery, and periphery are just important as those between these entities. (SIMON, 2006, page 208). However, neither these authors nor most of the other early contributors to world cities research engaged systematically with the politics of the global city (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006, page 249). We must interrogate our assumptions, disaggregate our categories, and address the questions of whose city and for whom (SIMON, 2006, page 208). This clearly calls for more than global economy as the principal independent variable (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 23). It is fundamental to examine how political economy articulates with the social and cultural realms of plurality. Deprivation and disempowerment go hand in hand with wealth and power (SIMON, 2006, page 209). Contemporary economic restructuring has been understood by mainstream economic theory with emphasis on market competition as the only driving force of economic change. Due to this, the reallocation of industries to countries with cheaper labor, deregulation of economies of such countries and reduction of transportation costs are analysed regardless of the consequences in the social aspects. Other theorists, generally from the left, see the increase of profitability as a result of weakening of the influence of labor (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 6). Fainstein is, in my opinion, a good complement to the work of Sassen. She made important contributions in the relation of globalization and local transformation in a political-economic view (FAINSTEIN, 2006, page 112). 30 of the population in developing countries is able to understand another language beyond their native one. The consequences for cities in developing countries, due to this lack of research are catastrophic. The problem is not only that cities in developing countries are not studied. Sometimes cities are studied but they are assessed in terms of the pre-given standards of world city-ness that is mainly based in urban economic dynamism (ROBINSON, 2006, page 218). Non-world cities are defined by the prevailing paradigm (SHORT, 2004, page 32). This helps only to ‘perpetuate an urban hierarchy that seem to be emerging where highest order cities are the beneficiaries of global dynamics, whereas lower order cities continue to be shaped by older endogenous forces’ (PIZARRO, WEI, BANERJEE; 2003, page 116). According to Robinson, these widely circulating approaches to current urbanization impose substantial limitations on imagining or planning the futures of cities around the world (ROBINSON, 2006, page 218). Another reason that leads to this concentration of interest for research in some top hierarchy cities is the evolution of the global city theory itself, especially with the studies of Sassen. 4.2. The evolution of the global city research segregation In the beginning of the global city research, Friedmann had analysed a considerable number of cities. This was still a consequence of the world-systems approach that influenced his job. His traditional scheme (FRIEDMANN, 2006, page 69), presented in The World City Hypothesis, in 1986, contained 25 cities. There were 14 cities from developed countries and 11 from developing ones. Surely these 14 cities were indicated as the more ‘globalized’ ones, just the fact that he considered almost the same number of cities in developed and developing countries shows his intention to take into consideration a wider range of cities. This situation would be transformed with the famous book of Sassen, The Global City. It meant a change in the global city research. First, this book would stress economic aspects as the drivers of the classification and construction of global cities. Advanced services sector were seen as the main producers of command and control centers, core to Sassen`s definition of global cities. Sassen clearly indicated that the ‘majority of the cities, however, including the largest part of the big cities do not take part of these new transnational urban systems’ (SASSEN, 1994, page 47). Second, her study cases would be extremely focused in the three cities on the top of the hierarchy: New York, London and Tokyo. In her classic book, she argued that the locations of 31 interest of that study were ‘major cities, specially New York, London and Tokyo, rather than for example, export-processing zones in third world countries’ (SASSEN, 2001, page 35). She supported her approach with numbers, observing that ‘a hand full of countries account for 70% of global activity in services’ (SASSEN, 2001, page 64). This economic focus of her research was a conscious decision. Different than other authors that came after her, she made this clear. The author stressed the necessity of other studies to check the consequences of these new urban system in different cities in the world: ’not examined at length in my study, but important to its theoretical framework, is how transformations in cities ranging from Paris to Frankfurt to Hog Kong and São Paulo have responded to the same dynamic’ (SASSEN, 2001, page 4). Analysing the three most famous books of Sassen, The Global City, Cities in a World Economy, and Globalizations and its Discontents, it is possible to notice that she barely discusses other cities than the global cities. She always does it inside an economic focus. Just in the last book of this list, she addressed in more depth some social aspects like immigration, women in the labor market, and unskilled workers and industrial cities in knowledge based economies. In the only moments she mentioned other cities she said, ‘this is a regime connected to the increase of the concentration of wealth, of poverty and of inequalities over the world’ (SASSEN, 2002, page 26). In other studies of Sassen, there was almost no mention to the cities outside the major global economic dynamics. She discussed, for example, that there are three places, among all the others, that symbolize the new forms of economic globalization: Global Cities, offshore financial centers, and export-processing zones (SASSEN, 1994, page 34). No mention to places outside this classification. 4.3. Current criticism As a result of this approach, a ‘view of the world of cities thus emerges where millions of people and hundreds of cities are dropped off the map of much research in urban studies’ (ROBINSON, 2006, page 219). Several authors identified this gap. Taylor seems to be an exception. His hierarchies do not take in account the “world cities beyond the West” (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006; page 189). His influential GaWC Research Network, for example, created the Alpha, Beta, Gamma Ranking. However, analysing the cities present in this classification, it misses the largest part of the populations, countries and cities in the world. It would be necessary maybe to create new levels like Delta, Sigma, Omega in order to address more significant shares of the world population. Other authors seem to be much more aware of these gaps. They create and 32 discuss new classifications that to try to define these cities and at the same time implicitly criticize the former classifications. Four authors can be recognized as following this approach. The first one is Short, maybe the strongest critic of the existence of these gaps. He classifies cities as global cities, globalizing cities and black holes. He presents a list of 35 large, non-global cities with at least 3 million inhabitants. Inside this list there are also huge cities containing 10 million inhabitants, like Tehran and Dhaka. There are others, not so big, but also extremely populous like Belo Horizonte (Brazil) and Wuhan (China) with almost five million and Medellin (Colombia) and Pusan (South Korea) with almost four million inhabitants. All these cities are not considered global, consequently they are ‘off the map’ (SHORT, 2004, page 49) for most of the researchers. With this example, he criticizes two aspects. First, he criticizes the common requisite for the size of population of a city to be considered a global city. Second, he shows how this approach just ignores the largest part of the world population. He goes even further, stressing that the research is not just focused in developed countries cities but focused mostly in three specific cities. SHORT presents a table containing the number of citations in some selected case studies. There is a concentration of studies in each of the three top global cities, New York, Tokyo and London. Beijing, for example, has 5 times less studies than the top three (SHORT, 2004, page 33). The second researcher is Timothy Luke. He also strongly criticizes the global city theory and the scope of the global city theory. According to him there are ‘Global Cities’ and ‘global cities’. The difference in the capitalization is explained by the opposite functions of both types of cities. He supports that we should stop focusing upon few ‘Global Cities’ which serve as the core nodes in networks for global capitalism, working as real command centers, controlling and influencing others. We should ‘ask instead about the collective impact of all ‘global cities’’ (LUKE, 2006, page 277) Olds and Yeung, also created what they call typologies of global cities. According to them, there are hyper global cities (OLDS, YEUNG, 2006 page 394) and the emerging global cities. They stress that their classification could be equivalent in some aspects to the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma hierarchy of the GaWC. Their novelty is the creation of the Global city-states, using Singapore and Hong Kong as examples. However, they criticize current research about these hierarchies, pointing out that ‘analysts need to become more cognizant of the sheer variety of global cities, and the differential pathways to global city formation’. They also say that ‘the existing literature has focused too narrowly upon a few ‘champions examples’’ (OLDS, YEUNG, 2006 page 394). The fourth author, used as an example of criticism to the current model of global city classification and research focus is Shatkin. He used the term ‘Fourth World’ Cities to talk 35 5. Global city as a model: the diffusion of the concept 5.1. Introduction Is there a global city model? The current existence, or not, of this model is a fundamental question. What are the reasons that have led the global city into the form of a model? Finally, if there is a model, how was it spread? Which institutions and specific groups of people were inside this process? According to Sassen, in her classic book, The Global City, the answer to the first question is positive. She talks about a global city model and argues that the point of convergence in the ‘global city model is the development and partial importation of a set of specialized functions and the direct and indirect effects this may have on the larger city’ (SASSEN, 2001, page 349). However, it is clear it was a descriptive model that was misinterpreted or used in a different way. It has been used in a normative way. Other authors confirm the existence of a global city model. Friedmann talks about the idea of a “typical world city” (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 63). Robinson says there is a formulaic sense to aim to be a global city (ROBINSON, 2006, page 220). So, if there is a formula, it is supposed to exist a known possible result to be followed, the model. Brenner agrees that this aim of becoming a global city is a model, a ‘successfu’ model of urban development (BRENNER, NEIL; 2006; page 218). Short talks about a ‘model of competition between cities’ (SHORT, 2004, page 7). He does it trying to explain that it should be abandoned and replaced by a ‘network of cities’ however he also talks about prerequisites for being a global city. David Simon also discusses some prerequisites for world city status (SIMON, 2006, page 206). These simplifications like prerequisites, norms, principles, and rules are a fundamental aspect of every model as it will be explained in detail further. In the initial studies about the world city hypothesis of Friedmann (FRIEDMANN, 2006, page 69), the global city theory started using a model. It had a different ‘meaning than the way it is currently being used. The first authors of the global city theory use the term ‘model’ in order to explain a situation, in a more a descriptive way. The word was used with the meaning of: a description or an analogy used to help visualize something (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, 2010). Lefebvre argues that there is a complex process of analysis in which it is necessary to select objects or build models (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 126). The ‘Global city’ was shown through a model. It was a representation shown in order to explain the hypothesis of Friedmann. 36 The world-systems approach was being reinterpreted, emphasizing the role of cities in the globalizing world. The aim was to make understandable the relations among world cities and the hierarchy created by these connections. The cities participating in this system, the different levels of participation, the number of connections, and the strength of these connections were presented through a model. This model was a tool for better understanding the global city. However, with the development and success of the studies of Sassen, the global city theory started to become a model, but in a different sense. Her descriptions became an example to be followed. Currently, the meaning of the global city concept in the discussions by the media, public officials and marketing experts can be described as a model but with the meaning of an example, a pattern to be emulated. 5.2. Building a model In order to check this affirmation, a question arises: what is precisely the meaning of the word model? Going to the simplest definition, in the dictionary, the synonyms for model are ‘example, pattern, exemplar, ideal’ (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, 2010). Besides the meanings of ‘miniatures’, or ‘a person employed to display clothes’, one of the possible meanings is ‘an example for imitation or emulation’. This is the closest meaning, in my opinion, to be used in the global city model nowadays. Imitation of an example are key words for an updated conceptualization of it. It is not being used anymore to explain something; it is an exemplar to be copied. Few researchers clearly use the term model to describe the global city process. However it is, in my opinion, the way the global city theory has been used currently by several actors. This same exercise of defining the word ‘model’ was done by Dominique Lorrain when she tried to explain economic models of capitalism in Europe. She initially argues the term ‘model’ may be defined as a simplified formalization that allows us to account for an entity made up of a large number of objects or of situations (LORRAIN, 2005). Based on her description, three core ideas are central for understanding a model: simplification, formalization, and situations. A forth core idea, which came from the dictionary, is important to be analyzed: emulation. These four concepts will be better analyzed also regarding the specific global city model. The first one is simplification. Lorrain says that it is necessary in any model to identify regular features and deliberately minimize the details that make comparison impossible by their excess of singularity (LORRAIN, 2005). This definition suits the global city model very well. 37 A city is already a complex set of phenomenon, difficult to be fully understood. A global city with its variety of characteristics, actors and scales is even more complicated to be described. The global city model is an apparently way to make easier to understand it. The global city model can be seen as a simplification. It benefits from lack of clearness in the global city theory. What a global city means is a matter of controversy (FRUG, 2007, page 303). This epistemological gap was filled with a model. Lefebvre argues ‘myth’ has occupied largely an absence: knowledge supported by/about a practice (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 106). I would say that nowadays, global city model occupied this space. Urban studies popularized the global cities idea in intellectual and policy circles (ROBINSON, 2006, page 222). This simplification fits very well, responding to the needs of these public officials, marketing experts, real estate agents, and other actors. They benefit from simpler assumptions. Their clients, electors or audience, in general, are also better able to understand and agree with easier descriptions. This is an important issue. One of the reasons the global city model is spread all over the world is this simplicity. Global cities rankings, as it will be discussed further, work in the same direction. They simplify the performance, the aim of global cities, in just a number, a hierarchical table. The global city model is simplified, with few details, and decontextualized, which make it easier to be copied by other cities. This gives room for strong critiques of the epistemological core of this theory. For Robinson, for example, the entire conceptual apparatus of global city theory is problematic insofar as it is linked to decontextualized categorizations and typologies (BRENNER, NEIL; 2006; page 218). The second concept linked to the creation of a model is the formalization. The features in a model must have an internal coherence, that is capable of some level of change but are based on principles or rules. These rules or principles, according to Lorrain, are common to several sectors (LORRAIN, 2005). In the global city theory, for example, economists, urban planners, public officials, geographers, sociologists, marketing strategists, all share the ‘rules’ for following and analyzing the global city model. In the same direction, Choay, forty years ago, stated that the specialized tradition of theorizing architecture and urbanism, since its emergence in the fifteenth century, has been organized by two principal formulations: the rule and the model (CHOAY, 1997, page 3). Rules or principles configure a model. This formalization could be the beginning of a deeper theoretical thinking of the model, however, its function is just to create a necessity for specialists. Due to this, researchers, professors, planners, and journalists are necessary for explaining the formalization. It is complicated enough to be given a scientific consideration, however not so difficult that mayors, investors and businessmen cannot understand it. Actually, there is no scientifically or 40 for being a global city. They are seen by policy makers and investors almost as a checklist of items a city need to have for being considered global. It is also possible to observe how economic oriented they are. David Simon, when he talks about definitions and nature of world cities, quickly goes to the prerequisites for world city status (SIMON, 2006, page 207). For him, there are 3 main items: (1) sophisticated, international driven financial and service complex, (2) hub of international networks of capital and information, (3) quality of life attracting skilled international migrants. He talks as well that not only physical aspects but also economic, political, and cultural aspects (SIMON, 2006, page 207) are important. Short talks about ‘modalities’ of the global cities. He supports there are four types: (1) global connections: port, railway station and airport, (2) global spectacles: signature architects and global urban semiotics, (3) global cultures and (4) reimagining the global city: mainly done by a globalizing discourse. These classifications are descriptive but used or misinterpreted as normative by politicians, developers and some planners. They are used for creating an image, a model of a global city. In this model, according to Short, global cities need to have at least one million inhabitants, which would surprisingly exclude Zurich, for example (SHORT, 2004, page 3). Friedmann, in the 80’s, said that it would be necessary to have 10 million inhabitants to configure a world city. Short goes on, adding it is necessary to have an important international airport. He says it is a sure sign of global status (SHORT, 2004, page 68). Museums are very important too. Guggenheim of Bilbao turned into a model itself. It became a formula: ‘get a Guggenheim and live happily ever after’ (GERMAN GOVERNMENT, 2000, page XIX). The sprawl of similar museums became the ‘Bilbao effect’ (SCHULLER, 2009, page 56). Stadiums, concert halls, redeveloped waterfronts, business districts, hotels and fancy restaurants are all part of the must-have of a global city. Some skyscrapers or a high TV tower are desirable also. Architecture plays a fundamental role in this model. It is the most recognizable global language (SHORT, 2004, page 72).The international style is widely present in the global cities. Besides this, some invisible features like a large touristic flow, the constant presence of businessmen, a cosmopolitan atmosphere and a strong cultural life are mandatory. Short uses the term ‘polyculturalism’ as a ‘social attributional characteristic of a global city’ (SHORT, 2004, page 3). A global city needs to host events, expositions, and concerts. It needs to be performed. It has to become an image, a feeling rather than specific data or a clear concept. Media plays a fundamental role in this process. Cities need to be known as global cities, their 41 attractions need to be fresh in the minds of people. They are enacted and spectacularized (SHORT, 2004, page 12). In the economic area, the global cities model is characterized by a deregulated financial sector, by the presence of headquarters of international companies, and by the strength of the service sector, especially advanced ones. Creative and cultural industries are two typical examples of important advanced services of global cities (SHORT, 2004, page 3). The international trade is high in the global cities. They need to be in the network of international financial flows. One of these investment flows is driven by the real estate market. The global property market, especially offices spaces, is very active, responding to the demand created by the market and also for speculation. All these features are assessed by firms with indicators like ‘easiness for making business’, ‘political stability’ or ‘time required for opening a company’. The concentration of investments, public (mainly through financial incentives) and private in some areas and cities is part of the model. Polarization is a natural consequence of this practice. Spatial segregation is the way the elite find to protect themselves from this phenomena. The images of the poor in the outskirts of the cities, their claims, their problems are not showed but they are present, they are an intrinsic part of the global city model implementation. Capitalists call it an unavoidable byproduct, social movements a terrible and unbearable consequence. The global city model also has typical tools for its implementation. They have become part of the model. Short argued that global cities are also a planning issue (SHORT, 2004, page 10). Global city model implementation happens mostly with Public-Private Partnerships, following a strategic planning and through an Urban Operation in order to get more advantages from the public sector. Development Agencies also work granting incentives for private actors, especially international ones, concentrating their investments in particular cities. According to Short, planning has become a way to improve economic efficiency and market success (SHORT, 2004, page 11). Poorly managed cities should learn from those that have become more globally ‘competitive’ (GERMAN GOVERNMENT, 2000, page XIX). The paradox is that this model is so present in our cities but its roots are not so clear. There are no epistemological foundations of it, no deeper reasoning about it. There isn’t any ideology clearly related to it. It pretends to be an apolitical way to solve urban problems but surely it is not. There is no sense of justice. Equality, a huge need in the contemporary cities, is not addressed. It is a just model, assessed mostly with numbers in rankings. Elements of urban theory have become transfixed with the apparent success and dynamism of certain stylish sectors of the global economy (ROBINSON, 2006, page 218). 42 Lefebvre argued that ‘the science of the urban phenomena is build slowly, using both theoretical hypothesis and practical experiences, as established concepts’ (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 128). Global city models are weak because of weak theoretical thinking. The use of practical experiences is weak as well because it misses a solid previous theory, so it became only based on ‘best-practices’. Although, it is not seen as a model, it is seen, as observed Lefebvre decades ago about the science of the urban phenomena, as an established concept. 5.4. The diffusion of the model International Institutions and academia, both encouraged by economic forces, are primarily responsible for the transmission of the global city model around the world. IMF, World Bank and United Nations, with mainly the UNHABITAT works, and the World Economic Forum are the main institutions working about urban issues. In the academic sector, a number of universities and their research centers, mostly located in Europe and United States, are the leaders in urban research and teaching. The Urban Age conferences are a good example. They were a series of conferences in several large cities in the world, Istanbul, São Paulo and Mexico City to name a few. Sassen Sassen and other major professors were invited to speak about globalization and cities. It was organized by the London School of Economics, however it had the financial support of the Deutsche Bank. Certainly the bank did not influence the agenda of each researcher or lecturer, although, they all knew in advance that research and initiatives about globalization, global cities or with an economic focus would find financial support easier than if they were researching about other subjects. Other examples are some papers presented by Saskia Sassen during her lecture in the same Global Age Conference in São Paulo (SASSEN, 2008). She used several data sources provided by the credit card company: Mastercard. Their tables contained information about business in several cities in the world. This availability certainly did not drive researches, like this one, but it may have influenced at least the focus. Studies about business and economic issues have more chance of going deeper because they can be based in more robust sets of data. Besides this, the ease of getting information helps this kind of study. This availability of information and funding are indirect ways the economic forces influence the research agenda in the academia. Besides the influence universities can make with their research, they can disseminate ideas through teaching. Universities in developed countries receive many students from developing countries. This exchange is interesting; however, the opposite direction of people 45 have led to widespread political and public support for some initiatives’ (SIEMIATYCKI, 2006, page 278), in which I would add mainly the ones inspired by the global city model. Sassen goes in the same direction when she says that the concepts linked to global capital interests are mainly performed in the global cities, where they are legitimated and fulfilled with positive values (SASSEN, 1994, page 35). Legitimating is something important. The novelty is the use of other cities, not as a model for new ideas nor as a lesson to learn from their experience, but as legitimation for certain measures (HAILA, 2006, page 284). The example of Finland, that used London and Sweden as a model for reforming planning law, and Helsinki that wanted to beat Berlin and become gateway to Russia, are important. I would say that ‘good city’ and ‘global city’ are presented currently as if they had a similar meaning. Global cities are cosmopolitan, boasting numerous foreign visitors and a panoply of opportunities to consume (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL, 2002, page 8). All these are “cool” adjectives that every city would like to be considered with. The global city model is seen as if it was scientifically and technically correct, however it is ideologically influenced and theoretically weak. Strong economic interests are behind its implementation, acting as the driver of such changes. This explains why, even when it is not possible to transform a city in a real global city, several actors insist on it. 5.5. Model becomes a myth What happens when the model cannot be applied? If, for a variety of reasons, the global city model cannot be implemented, what does it become? The answer is myth, utopia. This impossibility of being a global city is not the exception, it is the rule. Relatively few cities can hope to participate (ROBINSON, 2006, page 222), most of the cities in the world will probably never be one. The goal of becoming a global city is seriously unrealistic for most urban centers in the developing world (BRENNER, NEIL; 2006; page 218). As a result, global city as a concept becomes a regulating fiction (ROBINSON, 2006, page 221). However the global city model is presented as feasible, realistic, and scientific, never as a utopia. Not only this. It is shown as the only way for cities survive in the growing competition among different regions of the world. It offers an authorized image of city success. But, why can’t most of the cities really be global cities? First, as explained before, the global city model is strongly related with economic forces. Most of the cities in the world are in poor countries. Their economies cannot be compared with the economies of rich ones. Consequently, the financial flows are not so sizable, the real estate market is not so developed, and the number of international headquarters is not considerable. 46 Second, there are some technological, infrastructure and knowledge gaps that work as real bottle necks for the full implementation of global cities model around the world. These gaps in the short and middle term cannot be eliminated. These cities still face problems concerning to housing, water and power supply, illiteracy, and urban violence. Especially in the advanced services sector, a core sign of global city-ness, a real global city needs very skilled professionals. They are layers, advertisers, architects, economists and CEOs, fluent in English, generally holding MBAs or other post graduation degree. These very talented professionals do not exist in sufficient number in developing countries. To give two examples that will be further detailed, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, some figures can be presented. Currently about 12 percent of households in Rio de Janeiro lack running water, over 30 percent are without sewage connections, and formal electricity lines reach only 70 percent of the population (UNHABITAT, 2010, page 19). In São Paulo, the situation is similar. Despite being considered by some research a global city, it presents several problems that put this classification in doubt (FERREIRA, 2003, page 30). There are 13 percent of illiterates in the city (URBAN AGE, 2008). In developed countries, this number is generally between 1 percent and 2 percent. The number of students enrolled in universities in Brazil was just 25 percent in 2006 (UNESCO, 2009, page 334). How can we talk about advanced services when going to university is not common? The problem is that most mayors think a modern business district, a brand new airport, can overcome these problems and turn their cities into global ones. This has terrible consequences for most of these cities. The worst utopia is the one that does not say its name (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 147) because, as it is not a clear and feasible concept, it is harder to discuss or criticize. This myth or utopia benefits from the weak foundations of the global city model and lack of ideological honesty. A myth and ideology are so close that it is hardly possible to separate both aspects (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 97). This helps to encourage the confusion that makes it difficult to understand that the global city model is a myth for most cities. The importance of the ideological and political issue for the global city formation is also stressed by Haila when she says ‘instead of global cities I prefer to talk about the politics of the global city’ (HAILA, 2006, page 283). Faced with this triple alliance- the myth, ideology, utopia-, conflicts and contradictions are solved by magic: reported to past or to the future (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 99). In the global city model, these contradictions are, in my opinion, reported to cities competition. If a city is not attracting skilled professionals, if its economy is not going well, if the urban environment is not good, the reason is that the possible investments or firms that could arrive in the city and 47 solve all the problems, are not coming because there are better cities, more globalized ones taking them. So, the solution is to work even harder to achieve more global city status. Calculated attempts at world or global city formation can have devastating consequences for most people in the city (ROBINSON, 2006, page 221). Robinson continues arguing that to aim to be a ‘global city’ may well be the ruin of most cities (ROBINSON, 2006, page 220). Policy-makers need to be offered alternative ways of imagining cities, their differences and their possible futures. Rather than a solution, the typical concentration of investments in some areas of the city and in some specific economic sectors helps to increase the problem. 5.6. Conclusion We might see ways to break the political, imaginative and institutional constraints which have, for too long, inhibited the advanced capitalist societies in their developmental path. (HARVEY, 2002, page 434). One of these constraints, currently, is the urban planning practice and its models. Urbanism makes the implementation of several actions with its models difficult (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 147). In the same direction, Robinson argues that these widely circulating approaches to contemporary urbanization – global and world cities, together with the persistent use of the category ‘third-world city’ – impose substantial limitations on imagining or planning the futures of cities around the world (ROBINSON, 2006, page 218). The global city model, in my opinion, is certainly one of these models. The challenge is not to replicate rich countries model (JAGER, GAINES; 2009, page 19). The way to do this is to understand the difference between the model and the theory that originated it and the process that configured it as a model. One of the reasons the global city model is spread all around the world is its simplicity. It is not epistemologically well discussed and it is not embedded in a strong conceptual framework. Sassen, during the World Congress of IFHP (International Federation of Housing and Planning), said that most of the mayors and public officials never read her books (SASSEN, 2010). They discuss it, they apply what they think should be applied, but with no theoretical base. Even this conceptual base is not so solid, as was discussed previously. As a result, it is usually misinterpreted, fragmented, and used according to different interests. Models are easy for understanding, for explaining, for teaching, for demonstrating, however, based on false premises. Cities are too complex to be able to receive straight models from outside. All cities are different, management techniques are difficult to transplant (GERMAN GOVERNMENT, 2000, page XIX). It requires a complete contextualization, a geographical, historical, and social contextualization and also a theoretical and conceptual one. 50 (GIFFINDER et al., 2008, page 2) experienced a boom. Getting data from different cities could be completed more easily using government websites or data collection institutes websites. The Global and World Cities Research Network has a major data inventory and data analysis in the global cities theory as well (SHORT, 2004, page 18) with a very robust set of empirical indicators to support their outputs (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006; page 190). The Alpha Beta and Gamma classification of global cities completed by GaWC researchers is widely used in the literature and media. Recently, the magazine Foreign Policy talked about global cities and one of their main outputs was the new edition of the Global Index of World Cities (FOREIGN POLICY, 2010, July). Saskia Sassen’s classic book is full of cities classifications according to different criteria. She did not create any global city ranking, but her book has several charts and lists ranking cities considering different indicators (SASSEN, 2001). SASSEN also uses and analyses other’s rankings from different sources (SASSEN, 2008). Internet has also helped to distribute ranking results all around the world. Besides this, informatics made it easier to present hard data in the form of classifications. They are quickly understood by politicians, investors and citizens. Especially politicians are very receptive to this kind of way of presenting information. This happens maybe because, in most contemporary democratic systems, ordinary people with no previous preparation can be elected, receiving power to decide about municipal strategies. These decision makers are using cities rankings in order to understand the strengths and weakness of their cities. The utilization by policy makers and marketing experts in the formulation of municipal strategies is currently increasing a lot (GIFFINDER et al., 2008, page 2). Investors require precise data to compare and decide about their business locations or investment flows in the world market. Global cities ranking fit very well for these aims. International investors need simplified ways to see different cities around the world. They need numbers to build graphics and make calculations regardless of the history, traditions or social relations of that place. This “economistic approach” (SAMERS, 2006, page 385; BRENNER, 2001, page 143) started to set the research agenda, in which the above quoted GaWC Network and their rankings play a fundamental role. The focus changed: cities are seen as business locations: numbers are more important than people. The seduction of numbers, the magic use of statistics (SANTOS, 2000, page 54) finds their peak in the rankings. Global cities rankings are largely produced, read and used but at the same time, criticized by scholars. Why? Sometimes, the scholars that criticize how the global city research has developed, looking strongly for indicators, are the same that produce these results. Why is the distribution of the global cities rankings criticized? Sassen, in the epilogue of the second edition of her book, talks about the ways global cities theory changed after the first edition in 51 1991. She said that: “the key issues in the debate around this subject have centered on questions of measurement and use of indicators” (SASSEN, 2001, page 359). PEARCE & WYLY go in the same direction, arguing that: Concern with world cities has not only become a paradigm of researchers who seem obsessed with rankings (and researchers obsessed with people who are obsessed with rankings) (PEARCE & WYLY, 2008). 6.3. Criticisms about global cities rankings Analyzing the global cities literature, there are four main reasons widely discussed for this criticism. The first is about the competitiveness among cities encouraged by these rankings. The second is that having such results demonstrated through rankings is not good because it diverts the issue from the social construction of this theory. The third reason for this criticism is that exaggerated use of global cities rankings does not take in consideration the impossibility of such rankings to describe minimally the complexity of global cities networks and dynamics. Finally the fourth reason for criticism is the bad quality of data used to build these global cities rankings. In spite of this availability of quantity of data that provides the necessary input for global cities rankings and the ease provided by media and internet for distributing these rankings, there is a phenomenon that feeds this process and simultaneously is a criticized aspect: competitiveness. Global cities rankings, at the same time, increase the interest for cities competitiveness, and such competitiveness is fostered by the existence of so many rankings. Urban planning is in the middle of such process. It is reduced to discover which indicators should be used to measure competition (EISENGER, 2009, page 27). TAYLOR argues that hierarchies are ‘there to be climbed and hence incorporate a competitive relation between cities’ (TAYLOR, 2008). There is a strong cities competition literature taking it into consideration. This is not a clear process, but implicitly encourages them to aim for the top (ROBINSON, 2006, page 221). However, what is the problem with cities competition? There is no certainty that this is the best way for cities to achieve a better quality of life for their citizens. There are always ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ cities (GIFFINDER et al., 2008, page 8) in this competition. The main problem is that at the end of the race there are few winners but many losers. Is the competition the best form to deal with economic crisis, the efficient use of resources, the environmental questions and respond to people needs (SCANDURRA, 1997, page 21)? Cities are just imitating the same tools as companies (SANTOS, 2000, page 163). Although companies can bankrupt, and can be closed, cities cannot. Most of the time, the 52 resources spent in upgrading some feature of a city in the global cities competition does not pay. Cities could not compete for companies. The opposite could be the rule. Global corporations need cities. Geographic space became a major resource in the globalization process (SANTOS, 2000, page 163). Sassen argues that city leaders should ask for more benefits for their municipalities from global firms (SASSEN, 2008). Rankings are an important part of this problem. They give the numbers that helps to feed this destructive competition process. Enter this race for being a global city in this formulaic sense may be the ruin of most cities (ROBINSON, 2006). The second common critique regarding the global cities ranking is the absence of a discussion of the social construction of this theory when such classifications are the only or the most used output of the global city research. Professor Michael Peter Smith is one, if not the biggest, supporter of this critique. He argues that global cities should be understood inside the discourse of globalization, a political project of powerful social forces. It is part of a complex historical, social and economical construction where the accumulation of capital has a main role (SMITH, M. P., 1998, page 484). Such duality ends for creating what ROBINSON calls an ‘analytical tension’: a wider vision encompassing the social influences of this theory versus a more rigid and partial vision (ROBINSON, 2006). The lack of the insertion of the global city theory inside these different approaches ends by weakening the usefulness of the global city concept (SMITH, M. P., 2006, page 378). Former collaborator of the GaWC Network, Richard G. Smith (another Smith) says that without questioning the fundamental contradiction in those theories which global cities researches follow, ideas of network ‘cannot be seriously taken’ (SMITH, R. G.; 2006, page 405). The global city theory became ‘a recognizable, if not formulaic character’ (SMITH, M. P., 1998, page 482). Some selected cities are ‘identified, labeled, processed and placed in a hierarchy’. There is almost no attentiveness to the diverse experiences of that city, or even to extant literature about that place (ROBINSON, 2006, page 219). Researchers committed to the analysis of rankings or their production hardly think outside of that logic. They think about new indicators, ways to correlate them, methodologies to guarantee more aspects of global cities are taken in consideration, they think about how to name their classification groups, etc. It forms a complete, conceptual toolkit (BRENNER, 2001, page 143). However, once you start to think inside this logic: criticizing other rankings, trying to improve them or looking for better data, it is quite difficult to criticize the validity of this information. They tend to be focused just on improving the reliability. 55 Besides this, I think, this problem is impossible to be totally solved. Cities have different forms in which their borders were designed, so what can be precisely described currently as a city? The political border, the urban agglomeration, the metropolitan area, the region it influences? Does Pero, a small town linked to Milan, where the Fair of Milan is located, need to be seen as part of Milan? London is composed just by the City, small and mainly composed of business offices, or all of Greater London? The area of the municipality of São Paulo is almost totally urban, around 90%, what does it mean when urban agglomeration continues in other directions invading other cities with no clear physical border, what should be considered as São Paulo? We need to think beyond borders (SMITH, R. G.; 2006, page 405) because they do not really matter as they did before. How can we have better data with no clear geographic borders? It is difficult, almost impossible. The other problem concerning global cities data is the lack of relational information. It is what SHORT calls the ‘dirty little secret’ (SHORT, 2004, page 30). According to him, all the global city research is not based on the flows, on the dynamics it should be. It is based on statistical and individualized characteristics of each city. This goes against the fundamental epistemological foundations of global city theory which advocates the importance of the interaction of cities, exchange of goods, ideas and power in a dynamic network. GaWC network has tried to transcend this traditional emphasis on fixed attributes (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006; page 190). TAYLOR, GaWC leader, argues that there is a need for relational data for uncovering flows and networks not attributes, because the nodes are already known, but not the links in this new metageography (TAYLOR et al., 2006, page 97). SHORT says these difficulties are not made clear in most of the contemporary urban studies about global cities. It is almost a trend to hide this methodological problem (SHORT, 2004, page 30). Often, rankings are not transparent regarding the methodology of data collection and processing. (GIFFINDER et al., 2008, page 13). These unsuitable or unreliable sets of data, together with lack of familiarity with some of the regions, can lead to a production of maps which are simply inaccurate. (ROBINSON, 2006, page 219). As a result of these data gaps, researchers have to, by themselves, collect data and/or process data for each study they develop. The difficulties are strongly due to the global scope of the data (TAYLOR, 2008). In almost each paper, Taylor and his collaborators in the GaWC Research Network need to look for specific data themselves. Giffiender, on his article about cities ranking, created a methodology and a new ranking based on information he selected. He designed groups of indicators based on other indicators he needed (GIFFINDER et al., 2008). 56 Ranci as well used EU data to construct graphics and rankings for comparing European cities competitiveness and social cohesion (RANCI, 2008). Unclear methodological procedures associated with this need for data collection by each isolated researcher generates a lack of uniformity. Each study has a different focus requiring different indicators and consequently producing different results (GIFFINDER et al., 2008, page 2). Sometimes very different results give room for criticism. City rankings change according to criteria (EISENGER, 2009, page 28). SHORT, for example, compares the results of Globalization Index completed by the magazine Foreign Policy with the ranking developed by GaWC, Alpha, Beta and Gamma world cities ranking. He stresses the big differences between them (SHORT, 1997, page 30). In 2010, an updated version, now called Global Cities Index, was published. One of the organizers of such initiative was the Chicago Council of Global Affairs. So Chicago is ranked 6th, the best classification of the city comparing to other major rankings (FOREIGN POLICY, 2010, July). It is ranked less than 10th in the GaWC ranking, for example. Why such big differences? SHORT also disagrees with some common assumptions of other global cites rankings. He, for example, insists that Los Angeles, considering only economic transactions, is a relatively provincial city despite ‘the academic boosterism of the LA school’ (SHORT, 2004, page 30). Such huge differences, as they are not analyzed carefully, are leading (in addition to the other problems discussed previously) to a weakening of the global city rankings as scientifically relevant for the global cities theory in general. How to revert this process? 6.4. Conclusion Observing the way global cities ranking are conceived and used, they are part of the problem. Ranking the command functions of cities is an interesting but limited exercise (TAYLOR, 2008). We need to break the free of categorizing imperative (ROBINSON, 2006, page 222). According to TAYLOR, just after solving this conceptual confusion, clearing this brushwood, the global city theory will be able to advance, using better empirical results to understand cities under the process of globalization (TAYLOR, 2008). They are currently built based on weak methodological procedures, they do not discuss the social construction of this theory, they are far from explaining, even partially, the global city dynamics and they foster a destructive competition among cities. As a consequence, shouldn`t it be abandoned from the global city theory? In my opinion, the answer is no. Global cities ranking, if well used, can be very useful. It allows us, for example, to have some idea of the relative economic weight of cities and provides an antidote to the mere 57 assertions of previous studies. (SHORT, 2004, page 15). So, they need to be seen as an initial description, providing clues, first insights for further questions (TAYLOR, 2008). It can never be the final product that reduces possibilities of approaches for addressing the global cities. Interrogating these categorizations of cities and theoretical divisions within urban studies is very important because they limit our potential to contribute to envisioning possible cities futures (ROBINSON, 2006, page 221).They should, according to me, be used as a tool among others to understand global cities network dynamics. Following the emergence of non-representational theory and complexity theory (SMITH, R. G.; 2006, page 400) we should look for a more cosmopolitan urban research that could be more accurate, resourceful and creative in its outputs (ROBINSON, 2006, page 221). We need to abandon simplistic visions. We need to perceive things and events that can not only be represented by lines, diagrams where we can calculate fixed hierarchies. There is constant movement, vibration, flows, like the space of flows of CASTELLS (CASTELLS, 1996, page 453), that cannot be reduced to a segment, to things, to structures or processes (SMITH, R. G.; 2006, page 445), nor to a final classification in a list. One of the interesting ways of dealing with global data is the one proposed by an Italian non-profit organization, the Foundation Enio Enrico Mattei. They created the FEEM sustainability index, where they join a wide array of features of cities in one indicator. Despite the use of countries instead of cities to analyse information and make comparisons, they integrate social and environmental issues with the common economic approach. Second, they understand these outputs as they should be understood: a tool for further studies, a partial explanation of the reality. Third, the complete methodology of construction of such output is provided in which they explain the aggregation and creation of their indicators. Finally, they compare and discuss these set of data with policy making theory in order to propose new strategies for better urban policies implementation, not as a final aim. To conclude, an example given by Sassen shows how hard data can be badly used. She explains that ranking of cities by back bone capacity of internet is a misleading measure frequently used to show a city`s chances for becoming an international business center (SASSEN, 2001, page 115). This example, the internet capacity, is useful information, but it needs to be seen inside the tradition of that city, the educational level of its population, the owners of those facilities, and the effective utility of that as a globalizing tool. The number of bytes exchanged, the velocity of data transmission will just seem a conclusive. Instead of understanding this, scholars, according to ROBINSON, are more likely to blame on others – capitalists, elite urban managers - never on their own erroneous analyses (ROBINSON, 2006, page 222) in which global cities rankings are playing currently a fundamental role. 60 affect the economic, social, spatial, and political structure of world cities and the urbanizing process to which they are subject (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 60). The major urban challenges of the 21st century include the rapid growth of many cities and the decline of others, the expansion of the informal sector, and the role of cities in causing or mitigating climate change (UNHABITAT, 2009, page 16). Other new issues also further complicate the role of planning. The fragmentation of administrative borders (SCHULLER, 2009, page 14) is one of this issues which made finding consensus a harder task. Political parties are no longer able to represent these new configurations of societies (SALZANO, 2008, page 14). Multiscalarity and multidisciplinary (SALZANO, 2008, page 18) approaches are mandatory for responding to these transformations, however, in many parts of our world, urban planning systems have changed very little (UNHABITAT, 2009, page 3). In order to deal with these new social and political scenarios, Frug points out that the task of designing government (FRUG, 2007, page 298) is extremely important. Urban governance is quite a decisive issue. To foster cooperation, tolerance, and real democratic values is a complicated duty but essential for the well functioning of urban policies aiming a more liveable city. Despite the common sense supporting the contrary, there is a number of precariously democratic societies (FORESTER, 1989, page 3). This is the worst scenario because to run democratic decision processes, even precarious ones, is as difficult and time-consuming as democratic one but it does not give the same legitimacy for the final decision. Dealing with heterogeneous social groups, immigration, urban violence, and dynamic populations currently is not an exceptional situation but the most common one. In this pluralist world, the decision-making becomes more complex (FORESTER, 1989, page 56). Planners are directly engaged on this contested terrain (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 58). Economic differences are the main drivers of urban conflicts. Bridging this urban divide needs to be a goal for every plan, cities must build equality (UNHABITAT, 2010). Due to this, planners need to have new skills that were not so evident before. In planning practice, talk and argument matter (FORESTER, 1989, page 5), especially now because most of the planning tools are based upon the capacity to communicate and involve actors (BALDUCCI, 2008, page 1). Participatory tools are present in several urban interventions. To encourage participation is decisive for obtaining legitimacy. Among the roles of planning, one is to create and nurture hope (FORESTER, 1989, page 21), in which the use of the imagination cannot be avoided (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 28). Creativity is the key for building better alternatives to face the new challenges of a globalizing world. 61 Understanding the political dimension of every urban development or policy is also quite relevant. The criticisms of specialized sciences, like urban planning, cannot be made without the criticisms of specialized politics, of its tools and ideologies (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 123). They need to give rise to a sustained, comprehensive ‘vision’ for any given city, and one that speaks to the aspirations of the whole population (UNHABITAT, 2010, page 4) not only specific political groups. According to John Forester, to solve a problem, you must define it and after, collect all the relevant info, rank values and finally evaluate alternatives (FORESTER, 1989, page 49). How to define what is relevant information in complex societies like the ones we currently have? How to rank values if people have different values? Sometimes they have contradictory ones, sometimes they do not know how to express it, and sometimes they easily change it during processes. These are the complicated issues which planners are dealing with. 7.3. ‘Global city’ as a planning issue The second transformation that decisively influenced the challenges for urban planners is the alteration of the object of urban planning action, the cities. Globalization changed the cities around the world with several features. This was foreseen by Friedmann during the eighties: “the mode of world system integration will affect the urbanizing process to which they are subject” (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 60). According to Short, the second of the two ways planning has fundamentally shifted is the changing definition of urban planning (SHORT, 2004, page 11). I agree with this; however, I support that cities changed first. They became global or globalizing cities. According to Friedmann, these “world cities are the concrete materialization of the world economy” (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 60). Life space and economic restructuring meet in the global cities (FRIEDMANN, 2006, page 65). The problem is that this makes cities more contradictory, they are constantly living in transformation. Internationalization of capital is a combination of complex processes that are indeterminate, contradictory, and irregular (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 60). Urban processes tend to follow this dynamics of the economy, which is even less controllable (SCHULLER, 2009, page 14). The global economic processes and their influence need to be considered in urban planning interventions and theory. Consequently, Short remembers that Peter Hall already emphasized the idea of the global city as a planning problem and focused on how to deal with population and economic growth (SHORT, 2004, page 9). Short himself argues that global cities should be seen also as a planning issue (SHORT, 2004, page 10). 62 In strongly capitalistic societies like most of the ones we have (FORESTER, 1989, page 3), it should not be surprising that cities are seen as a product (SCANDURRA, 1997, 91). The ‘entrepreneurial city’ is a concept linked to this same logic, the logic of money, as discussed in the previous chapter. Public administrators, economists and investors are decisively influencing the design of cities and urban spaces according to this vision. Cities are seen mainly as places for business, not residents. Citizens are considered users, consumers or workers in this new political culture (SHORT, 2004, page 60). Besides this economic influence, globalization transforms cities in a wide range of factors. The increase in the exchange of ideas, like habits, cultures, and knowledge is one of these important changes. The power of influence by distant organizations or cities is considerably bigger as well. The physical flow of people, like immigrants, temporary workers and tourists is also important. After analysing this new vision of the cities, the challenges globalization brings, and the importance of global cities as a planning issue, a question needs to be made. How can planners specifically intervene in globalizing and global cities with all these changes occurring? 7.4. Urban Planners and their roles in ‘global cities’ Planners are performing three main roles now. They are not required to think in social practices, long-term consequences, and quality of life of the whole population. Their role was reduced to first, and mainly, produce projects based on economic criteria. Second, the creation of modern and ‘polished’ (ZUKIN, 2006, page 139) environments, typical of global cities, for the establishment of advanced services, fundamental for the global city economies. The use of marketing as a tool in order to show those realizations is part of this job. The final aim of these projects is to be competitive in the global dispute for investments. This strategy need to be supported, or at least not disturbed. Politicians usually do this job but planners have the prerogative of being neutral (SCANDURRA, 1997, page 56), and being based in technical reasoning only. Due to this, their third task is to legitimate all these practices. Conflicts, discussions about some complicated aspects of this strategy need to be avoided. Stability is a valorized as important by investors. Urban development comes to be regarded primarily as a question of how to develop business location (SCHULLER, 2009, page 26). Planning has become a way to improve economic efficiency and market success (SHORT, 2004, page 11) rather than a process of improving social welfare. The solely importance of planning seems to be only make evaluations following economic principles. As it was the only and most important principle of the reality 65 importance of the discussed actions it allows. It gives the impression, for the ones using such representations, that it is possible to manipulate things and persons in a positive and innovative way (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 141). Planners need these exaggerations to justify their role and the lack of theory in their practice. Research has fundamentally remained separated from planning culture, which has long preferred more simplifying views (PALERMO, PONZINI; 2010, page 42). Reflection, reasoning about their actions should be more common than it currently is for planners. Discourse of urbanism is a normative one; it can be only indirectly connected to any scientific practice (CHOAY, 1997, page 2). Choay goes deeper and says the computer and the resource of statistics are being used to analyze urban data, while information theory, econometrics modeling, and even thermodynamics are helping to construct a theory of the development of human settlements (CHOAY, 1997, page 48). This assistance is not a problem considering it comes together with a social approach. Planning deals with cities and social practices, it would be useless to wait for a rigid and clear scientific answer for each of the urban problems. It is not a rocket science (GAINES, JAEGER; 2009, page 114). Although the theory of urban planning could be more frequently analyzed, evaluated, and enriched. Texts in urban theories contain no auto-critique and are not made the object of any epistemological interrogation (CHOAY, 1997, page 256). Scholars, according to Robinson, are more likely to blame others – capitalists, elite urban managers - never their own erroneous analyses (ROBINSON, 2006, page 222). They only produce the linguistic indicators of scientific language. Urban planning could be commensurate with modern thought (GAINES, JAEGER; 2009, page 114). Besides this increase of quality, urban planning could also have an increase of quantity of literature produced. The discussion of urban issues should be more present among urban planners. The task of talking about cities, especially global cities I would add, for a long time has been given to philosophers, sociologists, and also geographers. Multidisciplinarity is a good aspect, however it is desirable that such a task come back to be discussed also by urbanists (SCANDURRA, 1997, 9). Koolhaas, besides arguing that planners and architects have stopped thinking about the city, said that in the meantime, as they are reluctant in step into this void, others are stepping into it with a degree of eagerness that is about to change the whole nature of the city (MIMICA, 2009, page 52). In the American context this is even more evident. Pacione directly asked ‘Who plans America? Planners or developers’ (PACIONE, 2002, page 223). Friedmann, for a long time, has called attention to the ‘world city’ as a planning issue and the role of planners. In his classic ‘World city formation: an agenda for research and practice’ 66 (FRIEDMANN, WOLFF; 1982), the authors underlined in 1982 the ‘tasks we face considering the world city formation’ and ‘their implications for planning’ (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 60). He put forth a fundamental question that is still asking for an answer: how could planners gain ascendancy over the world economic forces? (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006, page 58). Talking about planning, Lefebvre made a radical critique to the reductive disciplines, of the partial sciences, specialized, institutionalized as such. According to him, taken isolated, they get lost in the fragmentation, confusion, dogmatism or nihilism (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 123). Currently, the urban planning studies, especially in global cities theory, are influenced by other disciplines like geography, sociology, management and primarily, as Friedmann noted, economy. Otherwise, other disciplines could give their contribution to this main core of urban planning theory. In order to understand the politics of the decision making processes and their ideologies, political science should be better integrated. In order to understand other scales of these political and economical connections, international relations could help. In order to integrate sustainable practices in different scales and moments, environmental engineering could be used. Finally, urban planning, in order to understand itself, in order to question the meanings and motivation of several of its norms and practices, philosophy could be an interesting resource. The use of philosophy can be useful for escaping from prejudices, preconceptions and tradition, to question the reasons; the meanings of apparently established concepts (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 129; SANTOS, 2000, page 47). Theoretical terms depend on the premises (SCANDURRA, 1997, 109). The current theory that justifies urban interventions is based in weak premises. Urban studies, for example, have accepted the categories of world/global city as analytically robust (ROBINSON, 2006, page 222). Philosophical questioning is the only way to correct these mistakes. Planning teaching difficulties are a reason, a consequence of this weak epistemological foundation of urban studies. UNHABITAT perceived that planners may not have adequate training. There is a significant need for updating and curriculum reform in many urban planning schools, particularly in many developing and transitional countries where urban planning education has not kept up with current challenges and emerging issues (UNHABITAT, 2009, page 20). Among these new challenges the question of understanding different approaches from different places is underlined. Urban planning schools should educate students to work in different world contexts by adopting the ‘oneworld’ approach (UNHABITAT, 2009, page 21). Another challenge is the efficiency of the advice given by planners as they may be good or bad, taken or ignored (UNHABITAT, 2009, page 4). 67 7.6. Conclusion The current crisis in urban planning has both an internal and external dimension. The way societies now try to solve their problems is related with the internal dimension. Heterogeneous societies require adequate tools for dealing with their conflicts. The use of real participation, with cooperation, involvement, trust and solidarity is the key for building solid democratic practices and foster community sense. These changes need to be present inside the whole planning process. The external dimension is about the cities. They changed a lot under globalization processes. New scales, new actors, new dynamics are present. Another fundamental feature of global cities is the huge power of economic agents. This concentration of resources and power is typical of global cities. To fight against the interests of these actors is useless. In the urban planning field, even more than in the architecture, a more reflexive, adaptive way of viewing planning and architecture is quite important. Wall calls this “archinomics” (WALL, 2010). It supports that it is necessary to consider economic factors not as obstacles but as factors that need to be totally considered from the beginning of the planning process. Like Palermo and Ponzini underline, it is the construction of the possible (PALERMO, PONZINI; 2010, page 68) or what Short calls a viable, livable city (SHORT, 2004, page 9). The three main coordinates: territory, society and economy (SALZANO, 2008, page 30) of Salzano are very similar to the three e’s: ecology, equality and economy of Gaines and Jaeger (GAINES, JAEGER; 2009, page 211). In both descriptions, economy is present. Not as a main driver but among other aspects. This more adaptive approach help prevent urban planning from becoming used only for justifying preconceived projects of other actors. This would give room for planners to come back to perform their main task: representing public interests and thinking about the future (SALZANO, 2008, page 15). They are called upon to clarify the issues and to help in searching for solutions (FRIEDMANN, WOLF; 2006; page 58). They have a new professional role: select problems, suggest paths for solving it, encourage the research of alternative views despite their own vision (SALZANO, 2008, page 6). One of the fields that are presenting this kind of holistic and innovative approaches in planning is in the search for sustainable communities. The city could also demonstrate the value of a more ecological approach to urban planning and architecture (LEHRER, 2006, page 337). However, this can also be used by interested actors for legitimating their urban projects. Each case needs to be extensively monitored because, according to Gaines & Jaeger, all the hype on the eco-cities should not be taken overly seriously (GAINES, JAEGER; 2009, page 9). 70 urbanization and modernization of cities and also of ideas should be present in each building through its modernist architecture. However, it did not last a century. Modernist architecture paid too much attention to numbers and strict models. It believed too much that the determinism of designed places would influence human behaviors. So it did not give enough space for diversity, for spontaneous ways of living. The date of the death of modernist architecture was even established by some scholars: It was in 1972 with the implosion of the Pruitt-Igoe Urban Housing Project in St. Louis, Missouri, USA. The prized project did not work. The decay caused by a lack of community sense of inhabitants and the several failed attempts to reverse this process led to this symbolic end. According to Piñon, abandoning the modernist tradition in the 50´s was suicide (PIÑON, 2009). Postmodern architecture did not fill the space left by modernist architecture. It is characterized by architectural provocation, irony and code-breaking logic with the use of many styles at the same time. There was an apparent feeling of freedom because there was no more the “tyranny” of a specific way to produce the space. However, as postmodern architecture pretended to celebrate diversity, it actually promoted uniformity (HAILA, 2006, page 285). There is a jump from modern to current architecture. As an example, Zukin talks about new skyscraper office buildings. He says that they lift the urban identity from the modern directly to the spectacular (ZUKIN, 2006, page 139). The ruler, dictating aims and norms to be achieved in this spectacular architecture is money. One year before the implosion of Pruitt-Igoe, there was another event, a political decision that would help to initiate a new period in the world economy. It was 1971, the breakdown of the Bretton Woods settlement. It was fundamental for the creation of a worldwide financial market that would mean the beginning of the globalization process. Consequently major cities started to be seen as possible important financial center. (TAYLOR, 2008) This was the start of global cities phenomenon. It decisively influenced architecture. 8.3. Filling the gap This lack of a strong conceptual framework in architecture, at the same time international financial flows started to be decisive in the development of cities, gave room for a new focus in architecture. It is more linked to marketing strategies, to commodification of urban spaces and lack of attention to local traditions in architecture. The ‘neglected builder’ of the global cities, the real estate market (HAILA, 2006, page 282), was the most evident intersection of these financial interests and physical urban space. 71 Castells says architecture is nowadays ahistorical and acultural (CASTELLS, 1996, page 449). Leach supports that architecture looks sideways if not backwards to a vision of some “lost” architecture once filled with meaning (LEACH, 1999, page 3). I do not think architecture is acultural. I think there is another kind of culture, new values are represented by such architecture. I disagree also with Leach, architecture is filled with a meaning, a new meaning. I think what we have now is another logic, the logic of money. Castells argues that the built space was one of the best ways for understanding the codes of the basic structure of society’s most important values. I think it still is. Architecture is committed to sell something or to sell itself, through its buildings and urban spaces. The theoretical gap was filled by investors, developers, and public authorities looking for a way to promote their cities. Professor Short argues, for example, that architecture became currently ‘a commercial art form’ (SHORT, 2004, page 75). The architect Ronald Wall, updating the former slogan, says that now ‘forms follows function follows flows’ (WALL, 2010). Zaera-Paolo goes directly to the point ‘form follows money’ (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 397). This is, in my opinion, the new slogan for contemporary architecture. I would just add that money, mainly as investments flows, follows global cities. Consequently form follows global cities. Façades, for example, are not viewed anymore as a way to protect a building and provide fresh air or natural lighting. They need to be fantastic. They may be of glass, to reflect the surroundings. They can also be counted as space for front lights. They can change colors through modern light systems, they may have high-tech screens with advertisement 24 hours a day to sell products or promote something. They do not work anymore to show the truth of materials like in the modernist period. They do not work to present different styles like in the architectural revivalism, for example. Façades now need to help selling products. They need to help to sell the building or maybe to sell the city as a global city. They need to help to make money. Besides this valorization of money, another feature that is typical of our societies is individualism. It is represented in architecture. Cities are competing with each other (SANTOS, 2000, page 47, SCANDURRA, 1997, page 97). Companies are competing with each other. Citizens are competing as well. They fight for jobs, to have a better car than their neighbors, to have space in the streets in order to use these cars. They want to show off. In the United States, the average size of houses is two times bigger than 30 years ago. This is partially a result of exaggerated individual consumerism. Most of what we consume is, maybe unconsciously, in order to posit ourselves relative to others (SHORT, 2004, page 120). However, how can architecture and architects be individualist? Buildings and designers can 72 compete for attention, for prizes, for certifications, for world records and for distinctiveness. How does it work? 8.4. Individual buildings: the rise of urban icons In the rise of these urban icons there is apparently a paradox. If, according to Sassen, globalization homogenizes standards for managing, for accounting, for manufacturing and also homogenizes standards for building state-of-the-art office districts and luxury hotels (SASSEN, 2009), how are these unique icons being built? The spread of these standards create a sense of homogeneity. They are novel but indeterminate. They are standardized but unique. The variations are found only in the shape of the building, in the rhythm of the façade, in some new material added or maybe in the colors used however, the pattern is always the same. The idea, the concept is to call attention, to have an eye-catcher. Architectonic decisions are arbitrary. The exceptions to this bad use of iconic buildings most of the time just confirm the rule (GAINES, JAGER; 2009; page 102). There is currently almost no real originality in architecture in the global cities. In order to confirm this idea, Scruton defines: ‘originality is not an attempt to call the attention anyway, or an attempt to shock or disturb, aiming to exclude competition with the world’. For him, it is not just to ‘challenge the past or a rude aggression to the expectations’. It is, according to this author, the surprise caused by the intelligent use of those forms. He concludes supporting that ‘tradition and originality are part of the same historic process because it is only against tradition that originality becomes evident’ (SCRUTON, 2000, page 45). Currently, there is no clear well established tradition, so it is difficult to find originality. I disagree with Sassen when she said ‘these standards do not exclude very original architecture’ (SASSEN, 2009). These standards are not traditions. They can be models to be copied, nothing else. While professionals have been presented a stunning outburst of creativity, it has also created an atmosphere in which novelty is often prized over innovation (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 397). Besides this problem of originality, iconic buildings, architects deal with other challenges. When architects build a project not considering the impact of that neighborhood or even that city, they start to design an individualistic project. To not consider local traditions, specific features of the site or historical social practices, are common mistakes of this kind of approach. 75 easiest strategy. Many cities have sought to mimic aspects of the global city profile (BOSCHKEN, 2008, page 12). This actually reduces the role of architects. They just copy, emulate global city environments, following generally strict briefings made by developers. In the best case scenario, the architect is empowered by formalizing an envelope that will be attractive to potential customers, create brand value for the occupier or seduce local planning committees and politician to allow higher floor/are ratios (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 396). This kind of client arrives with a decision already made. This is problematic for architecture. According to Mahfuz, a good client is as important as good architecture (MAHFUZ, 2001). Currently the developer calls the architect just to legitimate the plans of something which is already decided (PIÑON, 2009). The superexposition and valorization of starchitects reinforces their role as stars, as important brands to be sold with the building. They benefit, especially very famous architects, from this large exposition in the media, so they do not claim more power in the decision process of the projects. Their silence is not adequate. Koolhass supports that architecture should never be passive, because it is an agent of change (KOOLHAAS, 2007, page 320). Architects became managers of images (MAHFUZ, 2001). In my opinion, they become managers of their own images also. When an architect has mainly to offer to his client his personal image and the brand of his name but not his experience, talent and technical knowledge, there is a decline of architecture as a relevant profession (MAHFUZ, 2001). In the global city spectacle, architects are not the main actors. The current lack of a deeper reflection about architecture as a discipline ends for encouraging individual point of views. Architects, with no clear conceptual framework and without solid architectonic values are easily influenced by other actors power. They do not collectively discuss their common problems. Most of the time, especially investors and developers will take the principal decisions instead of these architects. This exposes the crisis in architecture as a practice and also as a theory. 8.6. Individual practices: not a theory Despite the boosterism for technological architectonic innovations, large scale projects and enchantment caused by complex buildings, there is currently a very pessimist vision about the current value of architecture. Koolhaas, for example, states that ‘we are living the waning hours of the mythology of the architect’ (KOOLHAAS, 2007, page 320). According to him, the reason for this is the lack of a theory of cities. Since the seventies, there hasn’t been any 76 theoretical description of the city by architects. Architects should start thinking and reasoning about their practice. This gap in theory leads to conflicts that seemed already solved. One of the fundamental discussions of the discipline, debated from the time of the famous Roman architect Vitruvius, was the ‘venustas, firmitas and utilitas’ idea (beauty, technique and utility). It was apparently solved. The modernist approach of the ‘truth of the materials’ was the answer. However, it came to the arena again. Expression in architecture has become an alternative, detached from functional and constructive concerns. Tension between expression and efficiencies has never been greater (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 401). Other demonstrations of ‘architecture’s death’ is ‘at the hands of advertising culture’ (LEACH, 1999, page 3). Urban environments are very important for this debate about culture and consumerism. As explained before, the decisions are barely, effectively done by architects. The theory, or at least the discussions and debates about the cities have not been driven by them. The discursive ‘realm of architecture and urban redevelopment was not left to the self-aclaimed experts, but instead became part of a general public discourse’ (LEHRER, 2006, page 337). Architectural theory increasingly took on an extra-architectural dimension (LEACH, 1999, page 2). Discourse about creating an identity through the built environment was also about a cultural battle over the meaning of architecture (LEHRER, 2006, page 337). However, Leach asks: ‘how logically might we expect an architecture of any kind to emerge from such theory that today is largely extra-architectural?’ (LEACH, 1999, page 3) The globalization process and specifically the global cities, which can be understood as the best physical representation of this phenomenon, are in the core of this crisis in architecture. Traditional pillars of globalization are responsible for this situation. Architecture, having been enslaved in turn by monumentality, consumerism, and the spectacle, it has lost its vital essence. It traded substance for appearance, depth for surface, aesthetic form for image. (LEACH, 1999, page 3) Sometimes there are clearer conflicts between the theory of global cities and architecture. Koolhaas, for example, noticed how Saskia Sassen introduced the word ‘cityness’, and supports it is a unuseful word one. However it has immediately been picked up, proving there is a huge eagerness and a huge need for new words. Architects could at least try to find new words (KOOLHAAS, 2007, page 320). A serious ‘rethinking” of architecture is necessary. It cannot be undertaken without upsetting the ‘structure and emphases of the traditional profession, of traditional typologies, and of traditional modes of envisaging the architectural subject’ (LEACH, 1999, page 3). It is important to underline that such reasoning, if done outside architecture will unfortunately 77 only serve to widen the gap between theory and practice (LEACH, 1999, page 3). Going in this same direction, Koolhaas urges that the most important thing that architects can do is to write new theory (KOOLHAAS, 2007, page 320). Such theory needs to be aware of the global cities influence, aware of the role of urban space as democratic place, and aware of the political and ideological pressures that some actors can do over architects. 8.7. The construction of the global city Architecture and global cities both benefit from the dissemination of each other. They are strongly connected concepts. True global cities are full of exemplars of contemporary architecture. Architecture helps to disseminate the values and images of global cities and it helps as well to concentrate investments in some areas of cities. Many, if not all, cities act as transmission points for globalization (SHORT, 2004, page 45) and also architecture. Due to this, the conflicts and characteristics of both architecture and global cities are very similar in some aspects. Architecture and engineering companies are also part of what Sassen addresses as the advanced service sector that is in the core of the command and control concept of her global city theory (SASSEN, 2001, page 359). Asia's rising powers sell the West toys and oil and purchase world-class architecture and engineering in return (FOREIGN POLICY, 2010). In China, for example, the leading growth country in the world, there is a consistent import of western precedents, which is not really very useful (KOOLHAAS, 2007, page 321).Within the projects sent to other countries, inside the minds of architects sent to command such works, the global city image is largely present and adopted as an aim. Architecture has been strongly used to help construct this image of global cities. Individual buildings and whole buildings complexes are being used increasingly as a means of establishing a city on the map of world locations and destinations. (LEHRER, 2006, 334) Developers are quite literally building cityscapes that concretize global influences. (SHORT, 2004, page 78) Dubai, Doha, Shanghai, Singapore and other cities are very good examples. This phenomenon also happened in developed countries: there were those who wanted to use new projects in Berlin in order to connect with the global language of office towers made out of glass and steel (LEHRER, 2006, page 337). In Sydney, for example, they used the ‘Baltimore model’ (SHORT, 2004, page 60). Architecture, just like global cities model is transmitted to other places. International style became the architectural trademark (PIZARRO, WEI, BANERJEE, 2003, page 123), at the same time, being a global city started becoming the goal of almost every city. 80 of this architectonic typology. Even in Europe, where there is a tradition of exiling tall buildings far from downtown, like in La Defense in Paris or the Canary Wharf in London tendency (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 394), the rise of projects like the City Life in Milan strongly proves the rebirth of this trend. However it is no longer the outcome of land shortage and urban speculation or the consequence of construction technological improvements like it was in New York or London. It is a signal of global cities. The skyscrapers have become ‘the sine qua non of place in the global hierarchy of cities’ (ZUKIN, 2006, page 141). They synthesize features of global cities in one building. They are iconic, spectacular, designed by famous architects hired by powerful international investors. They are also a visible point where architecture meets global cities. The fascination is not just with their renewed importance and urban charisma, the glamour of high-life, the breathtaking views, the vertigo caused by buildings swaying in the wind or the experience of living with cutting-edge technology (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 394). The feeling of power, in my opinion, is the main cause of their importance; the power of the few able to afford to live there. The power of the few cities that can be interesting enough for investors to put giant amount of investments in just one single building in that city. The marvelous and doomed tower of Babel, for example, is erected against a horizon of ambivalence (CHOAY, 1997, page 47). Global cities towers are erected with the same aim. They concentrate investments, important people, and attention against other ambivalent places and cities. They are built to be the most important objects of a given city. They produce the identity of a city. If the European cities were recognizable by their cathedrals, the current towers have the same aim. Zaera-Polo argues that developers and planners are requested to produce dramatic tall buildings ‘sometimes’ driven by the goal of monumentality (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 401). I think they always are driven by it. They are designed to be iconic. As the global city model, they are shown as examples of urban quality by international developers. As the global city model, their aim is to be replicated as often as the market demand circumstances allow. Just like the global city model, these towers require a substantial level of investment. Just like the global city model, skyscrapers are often linked to global economic process, like foreign investment and migrant workers. They put also ‘unprecedented pressure on urban cores to accommodate new ones, often forcing the city leaders to rethink their planning policies’ (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 397). Consequently they are the ideal battleground for global trends and local users, having architecture as the mediator. As in the global cities, the discourse about towers needs to be carefully analysed. Despite the discourse of densification, developers, and especially policy makers, should realize 81 that high-rises reaching more than 300 meters into the sky are economically inefficient and technologically non-sensical, nothing in common with sustainable building. We must devise planning and architectural measures that emphasize precisely local specifics features (GAINES, JAGER; 2009; page 100). Skyscrapers in a city like Milan, with a consolidated historic urban fabric, and in cities like Dubai, with a strong natural horizontal image of the desert are frequently too aggressive for those environments. However, Zaera-Polo proposes a hybrid approach. In his article, Taxonomy of Towers, he first recognizes the complex relationship between high-rise buildings and cities but supports that the population growth requires more sophisticated policy than just limiting heights. (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 397). He exemplifies that strategic location of landmarks to construct new views, the design of guidelines or environmental performance for tall buildings, the delimitation of zones and finally density vs transport analysis could help to produce more sustainable skyscrapers. 8.10. Conclusion Architecture is fundamental in any discussion about global cities. The rise of starchitects, urban icons, cities as spectacles, the rebirth of skyscrapers and the problems in the theory of architecture are all related to the global cities process and its consequences. Architecture has a chaotic multifaceted nature, dealing with economics, politics, aesthetics, civilization, however it still maintains at least a sympathetic and sometimes impressive ambition to connect the dots (KOOLHAAS, 2007, page 321) like the global cities that are is a very wide subject, connected to different disciplines. Among these points, Lehrer supports the importance of the political question in this discussion. He urges that architects should understand architecture more than merely aesthetically or economically motivated. The discourse about it draws on previous time periods and their ideologies about architecture (LEHRER, 2006, page 337). These ideologies are linked in some sense to justice. Justice is the core concept that can synthesize, in my opinion, the solutions for all the issues in the architecture of global cities. Justice in global cities and its architecture can be explained by two main ideas. The first one is the justice against economical interests and its influence. The second is justice for the yet unborn, the sustainability of the urban space in global cities. Addressing the first topic, Ronal Wall observes that the influence of investors and their advertising strategies are controlling the way architecture and planning work according to their interests. Due to this, he proposes a more integrated view of seeing architecture (WALL, 2010). He argues that economics should be inserted inside the architectonic process and not 82 drive it. He calls this idea “archinomics”. According to him, this is the only way to avoid architects and planners becoming just executers of others ideas. He continues adding that this new way of viewing architecture requires a more reflexive, adaptive planning. It should be aware of its multi-scalar context and its multi-disciplinarity. This is a good example of how the field of architecture and planning are being increasingly destabilized because of the effects of globalization and external forces created by it that influence our cities. Still in the same topic and with a similar approach to Wall, Zaera Polo advocates the necessity of developing the typological knowledge that could reactivate the synergies across the divides inside architecture. For this, the creation of a new relationship between efficiency and expression, which cannot ignore the context of given technology and marketplace fundamentals (ZAERA-POLO, 2007, page 397). The second idea that can motivate solutions for the crises in architecture and in global cities is sustainability. However, even sustainability has become a commercial fetish because the architecture with quality has always been sustainable (PIÑON, 2009). As a discourse it is irrelevant. He supports also that this is a problem of justice. Non sustainable buildings are, for example, with a more expensive structure than it could be or with the façades inadequate for that environment (PIÑON, 2009). Edwin Heathcote gives good examples of real sustainable architecture principles. Huge shopping malls and big skyscrapers, two typical programs in our cities, do not have the flexibility to be used in other periods of history. Big stadiums and Expo sites could also be added to this list. He continues saying flexible architecture is one that permits modifications without losing the sense of place and without wasting resources that could be reused. As examples, he points the SoHo in New York and some inner areas in major cities in Europe. Artists, designers, studios used former industrial buildings in these cities. This possibility of continuity is just possible because this urban fabric was flexible enough to accommodate some changes like the reallocation of industrial activities. But he asks: ‘what will happen with giant skyscrapers or the current isolated shopping malls in the future?’ He asks also: ‘are they flexible to accommodate new functions without changing cities landscapes or requiring too many resources for adaptations?’ (HEATHCOTE, 2010) Heathcote concludes saying that if we consider some of the most interesting buildings designed last years, we can see how it is important to have some continuity in our cities and how this is not a constraint but an opportunity. In London, the reuse of a former power station for the Tate modern Museum is a good example. In Berlin, the Neues Museum used consolidated buildings as well. Both are innovative, modern and audacious projects. They are new icons reusing former structures, not destroying previous memories of those communities. 85 the amount of money involved. Consequently, the power of real estate companies and the size and importance of their interventions are huge. Foreign investments and the integration of markets, also real estate markets, created this scenario. The trend in urban development according to Haila is that this process is advancing even more (HAILA, 2006, page 286). One of the reasons is that such integration in the world economy increases the possibility of crisis in different places in the world. With such interconnected economies, one place influences other markets. The tendency for the financial flows during these turbulences is to concentrate even more in the property market (LEFEBVRE, 2008, 144). This change could be perceived in the recent crisis started in the American real estate market. The consequences were spread in the entire US and in the world economy. According to Sassen, the explanations were in the low income neighborhoods in the United States. The way these financial firms used to make profits was not payment on the mortgage, even with high interest rates; it was the bundling of lots of these mortgages to banks and international investors. Borrower capacity of payment was not decisive for the profits of investors. With few regulations in the sector, the beginning of the crisis was a question of time. It was the confirmation of how the real estate market is connected also to financial firms and especially international ones (SASSEN, 2010). With the rapid urbanization in Asia, the improvement of living conditions of people in other developing countries and consequently the search for better housing conditions, the scarcity of well localized land is increasing in these countries. This huge demand is leading to an increase of the real estate sector in these places. Developing countries are on the top lists of the portfolios of investments of global property companies. These places are balancing the losses of the European and American real estate market that have no prevision of short term gains. More about the functioning of the real estate market in two cities in a developing country, Brazil, will be showed in the next chapters. After understanding the importance of this sector, especially its increasing economical power, several questions come to mind. How do real estate developers enter in each city? What are the main tools to guarantee their interests? What is the global city image used for in the real estate market? 9.3. Operation of the real estate sector The real estate developers do not count only on this natural increase in their importance. They stimulate this process in order to become more powerful. How did they 86 achieve this? By making alliances. The first was with municipalities and public authorities in general. Mainly through the support of electoral campaigns, the real estate market creates strong links with mayors, town councilors and other authorities. In the American municipal governments, such intimate relationships between local elected officials and real estate market interest is quite common (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 12). Besides these political issues, some authorities believe, or at least pretend to believe, that the real estate market should be aided by public subsidies or flexible regulation. This happens because of competitive pressures among cities. In virtually all cities, policy-makers have perceived their economic base as endangered by competition from other places. As a response, they have created programs that would attract the expansion of business, usually office-based and hospitality sectors. Consequently, they have provided various kinds of financial assistance and regulatory relief to developers and occupiers of new offices, retail or entertainment-oriented space (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 11). These subsidies have also been supported by elite and middle-class consumers seeking a more exciting downtown and attractive, centrally located housing. Some sectors of the economy are considered ‘marginal business’, as a consequence, they have suffered from government neglect. (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 11). However, this idea of the priorities of public administration may not necessarily be shared by other parts of the population. These different comprehensions of the space are connected to different ideologies (LEFEBVRE, 2008, 142). Due to this, conflicts in the urban space are happening a lot (HARVEY, 2002, page 430). In order to avoid being regulated by the municipal laws, real estate market interests respond using three different tools. First, as explained above, they try to work inside the government, influencing public officials and politicians. Second, if the first is not possible, they try to work outside these regulations, mostly through urban operations. This well-know tool works in a project-by-project basis rather than a comprehensive planning (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 11). It makes easier for investors to influence the way some specific areas will be changed. This tool is also faster, with much less bureaucracy, than changing a whole masterplan, for example. The third way is with the government, generally with public- private partnerships. Consequently, Fainstein argues, that ‘The character of the built environment both determines the profits and looses that derive from investments made within a given territory’ (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 10). I would say that it is just the opposite: profits and losses are determining the character of the built environment. This is just possible because of the commitment between private market interests and public officials. The user became just a 87 possible space buyer (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 141) or space user. Space is manipulated mainly with consideration to market interests. A good example of this occurs in many central business districts. They result from a concentration of investment in office buildings and retail establishments in certain areas. They welcome certain kinds of activities and exclude others, enhance the potential profitability of buildings within their boundaries. This is the problem. The built environment is relevant for the whole population. Much of the quality of life of urban populations depends on the liveability of the urban space. Governments should act to balance real estate market interests with the public interest. Their commitment to the property market is very strong. If the state cannot work to support public interest, another important actor could take care of the interests of most of the population: the urban planner. What is the role of urban planners? There is no space left for their work (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 143). There is almost no chance to perform their primary task which is avoid that few take advantage on the costs of many (SALZANO, 2008, page 29). The only work left for planners is to dissimulate economic strategies (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 127), dissimulate that land renting is the main aim (SALZANO, 2008, page 29). They just legitimate actions following primarily market interests. It is the strategy of profit, the logic of the industrial space (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 143). The city is seen ‘just like firms and farms, they are creatures of the market’ (WORLD BANK, 2009, Page 128), mainly the real estate market. As a result, the task of the planner is only to put a positive, humanistic, and technological appearance, to the capitalist strategy. Urban planning hires this giant operation. It hires this fundamental aspect and its aims (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 141). This happens for two reasons which Lefebvre discussed. Some planners just ignore, or pretend that urban planning, objective in its appearance, is actually working for some class. The strategy needs to seem like logic. Planners do not perceive, or again, they pretend, that they are inside production relations, when most of the time, they are following orders (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 141). Another task left to urban planning is the city marketing. Selling the city is something important in this capitalist strategy, so marketing is a powerful tool. Due to this, some planners have become cultural managers (SACANDURRA, 1997, page 128), dealing with big events, managing spectacles and promoting new projects. According to Haila, the big importance of this symbolic aspect is a novelty in the global city politics (HAILA, 2006, page 283). In order to promote themselves, cities are promoting and selling not only their big projects but the whole building process. From the decision of the architect, generally a “starchitect” selected in an international competition, the design process, and now also the construction process. The importance is to use the new buildings for 90 10. Global city as a discourse: justice and politics 10.1. Introduction Wonderful images of modern global cities, scenes of businessmen walking between huge skyscrapers, astonishing amounts of investment flows, and considerable number of international headquarters are all used to show people how global cities can mean development and wealth. However, the final tool, the instrument used to join all this information and present it in a simple and pleasant way, in order to be convincing, is the discourse. Considerable rhetoric has emphasized the global city ideal (FAINSTEIN, 2006, page 116). The idea of the global city is now firmly embedded in policy discourses concerned with urban planning, regional and national economies (JONES, 2002, page 3) although it has not often been an object of research among scholars. The political visions that are the lens of these discourses are not well studied. Authors like Sassen or Friedmann nor most of other early contributors to world cities research engaged systematically with the politics of the global city (BRENNER, KEIL; 2006, page 249). Short, stressing this, argues that an important element in the global city research has been to identify the discursive strategies of global and globalizing cities (SHORT, 2004, page 11). Politics and its discourses are quite relevant in global cities. The investment in marketing strategies, in incentives for foreign companies, in providing better infrastructure for center business districts, or in hosting big events are decisions that should be widely discussed because they influence the life of many citizens. It should also be discussed inside the global city theory. But they are not. The decisions are only justified with the aim of becoming a global city. Researchers ignore the theme. Space that seems to be neutral and not political (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 148) is the object of these studies. At the same time, these investments are being concentrated in some advanced sectors of the economy, some ‘marginal businesses’ for this global dynamic have suffered from government neglect (FAINSTEIN, CAMPBELL; 2002; page 11). Who is thinking about this? Why aren’t politics and discourse focusing more research on global city theory? How have the difficult notions of justice discouraged such a debate? What are the consequences of such lack in the global cities and globalizing cities? Discourse in urban planning is a recurrent topic. The aim of this chapter is to discuss it with regards to global cities, marking its importance for global cities theory and practice. 91 10.2. The complex task Discourse is always based in some rationality, in some order (MERRIAN WEBSTER, 2010). To understand rationality is fundamental for defining better discourse. However, it is a complex issue; such complexity may be a first explanation of the lack of deeper studies considering discourse and global cities. Harvey made this connection in his writings. According to him, discourses are separate arguments, each with its own logic and imperatives (HARVEY, 2002, page 422), or rationality. Several distinct arguments are valid within their own logic. Rationality defined from the standpoint of corporate capital, for example, is quite different from rationality defined from the standpoint of the working classes, although both are rational. The problem is when some group tries to impose their rationality over other groups. There are ‘communities of interests’ which articulated a particular discourse as if it was the only one that mattered (HARVEY, 2002, page 422). Policy makers, for example, have deliberately embarked on courses that have been given the name ‘global-cities strategy’ (FAINSTEIN, 2006, page 115). They try to convince population in general, politicians, and media that aiming global cities brings development for the city. They are right, considering their logic. Cities that invest in becoming a global city generally attain some advantages. They can attract international companies, increase tourism or the flow of foreign investments. This actually brings some development, creates some jobs and can stimulate the modernization of some business centers inside the city. However, does it pay? Sassen questioned this (SASSEN, 2001, page 3) almost twenty years ago in the first edition of her book; apparently her voice was not heard. Is this strategy just creating more low income jobs and concentrating the high income ones in cities in higher positions in the global hierarchy? Do the incentives given to foreign companies or the money spent in marketing cities compensate the number of jobs created and the economic growth? Is this growth improving the life of the poor or just concentrating more income in the richest part of that society? Is this wrong, right, or just a byproduct of capitalism? Is this a conscious and democratic decision or are a few deciding for the majority? Is this fair? Simon asks, for example, what is the meaning of a global city, if it has some, for the different groups, especially for the impoverished (SIMON, 2006, page 209). All these questions are based on the principle of justice. Rationality is dictated by the nature of the social group and its project rather than the project being dictated by social rationality (HARVEY, 2002, page 424). Justice has no universal meaning but a whole family of 92 meanings. It is necessary to admit the relativism of discourses about justice (HARVEY, 2002, page 426). It strongly depends on the groups we are talking about. Currently, it is possible to observe that democratic tools most of the time are not working anymore. Public hearings arrive at no solution. Social conflicts primarily lead to no consensus. Besides all these issues, as discussed in the chapter about the role of urban planners, the globalization and heterogenization of societies brought new difficulties for finding consensus. Nowadays, it is harder to find a common rationality for different groups inside societies. The notions of justice are contradictory sometimes. The political systems are not able to represent this plurality. Inside this process, urban planning suffers from a crisis. Harvey underlines the changes from modernist to postmodernist discourses. Doubt uncertainty, and contradictions are currently features of the different discourses. 10.3. Politics and planning Choay, in the seventies, addressed some critiques to urban planning that are still updated. They certainly could be used to discuss global cities. She started saying that the texts of urban theorists pretend a scientific status not rightfully theirs, and that their claims are in fact based on ideological positions, that are not stated and not fully assumed (CHOAY, 1997, page 2). Her response to this is polemical: ‘denounce the imposture of a discipline, uncover secret intentions and tacit ideologies’ (CHOAY, 1997, page 2). These texts, this theory can be seen as part of a language with its rules, examples, and professors. The concept of justice has to be understood in the way it is embedded in a particular language game, supports Harvey. Each language game attaches to the particular social, experimental and perceptual world of the speaker (HARVEY, 2002, page 425). Urban planning and specifically the global cities idea can be this language. Statisticians, economists, geographers, sociologists and planners all converged to the same single master narrative: intense urban competition for a share in global market (FRIEDMANN, 2002, page XII). They all speak this same language. However, just a language, just norms and rules cannot be the only base of a theory or a practice. In a closer view, urbanism does not work. It is lost in intention wiliness and representation, institutions and ideologies (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 137). It has been the application of a power, much more than knowledge (LEFEBVRE, 2008, page 145). It has been used to legitimate such power too. This confusion is interesting for the actors dominating this process. Economic forces are not interested in clarifying this. 95 discussions about the politics of the global city research with the creation of alternative approach concerning its scope and focus (HAILA, 2006, page 282). Harvey insists, for example, that discourses are expressions of social power and that the idea of justice has to be set against the formation of certain hegemonic discourses which derive from the power exercised by any ruling class (HARVEY, 2002, page 426). Global cities are currently this hegemonic discourse. 96 11. Global city as a political choice: the globalizing project 11. 1. Introduction Politics really matter. Globalization is not only an economically driven process that crosses borders with no specific consequences based on local features. Globalization is largely influenced by the way societies and governments respond to it (SASSEN, 2001, page 365; SHORT, 2004, page 67). This is an important issue. Globalization in all its aspects is not a mandatory process. It depends on the creation of public policies to encourage, avoid or mitigate it and how this is achieved, if it is. The same happens with the implementation of the global city model. It is strongly a consequence of the way public authorities react to the demand for cities connected to this model. Variations in sociocultural, economic and political institutions strongly influence the way global impulses are amalgamated into real historic settings (DOUGLASS, 2006; 268). Global cities are desired and sometimes carefully aimed as in the case of Toronto (TODD, 1998, page 195) where there was a project for internationalization. Consequently, there is a range of possibilities for cities to engage or not in the global cities model and how to do it. There is no political or social homogenization, nor economic homogenization like some scholars predicted (SASSEN, 2001, page 3) decades ago. Global cities are very different, they just undergo some similar consequences but they still maintain and sometimes reinforce specific differences among them, creating complex patterns of hybrids (SHORT, 2004, page 4). They can vary from typical ones like London or New York, passing through new ones like Doha or Beijing, and finally arriving in the non- global cities like Pyongyang, Phoenix, and Porto Alegre. Certainly size, history, geographic position, culture and other aspects in these cities are important to understand this process but public policies are important too and they are not as well studied as they could be. It is not common to think about geopolitics, for example, if you want to talk about a city. The advantage of such an approach is the possibility of understanding the conflict between networks and territory (BOLOCAN GOLDSTEIN, 2010, page 6). Even taken into consideration, for example, similar-size countries from the same region: east-Asia: the differences among their cities are considerable. Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan were compared considering domestic and transnational capital behavior, labor policies and civil society organization. This simple analysis already showed how different globalization process influenced these places (DOUGLAS, 2006, page 271, table 1). 97 11.2. Different scales There are two scales of actions that respond to globalization that should be analyzed within the question of geopolitics. The first is the national level and the second, the local level. Like some top scholars, I do not agree that the rise of the cities as main actors in the globalization process goes against the power of the national states. Both still have their roles in managing globalization and more specifically the global city transformations. There are several examples with study cases about global city comparisons in the literature showing how different cities deal with this model. Analyzing some of these studies it is possible to see how politics is important for the construction or not of global cities. First, we can observe the influence of national scale events and policies in cities under globalization process. International relations, national economic views and political or religious conflicts are issues mediated by countries so they influence their cities. National governments directly decide about securities regulation, interest rate levels and labor-market restrictions (FAINSTEN, 2001, page 115), for example. Beirut was known as the “Paris” of the Middle East for its cosmopolitan atmosphere. It could be at the same pace as Istanbul in the globalization process, maybe further along. Before the civil war that almost destroyed the city, the capital of Lebanon was the entrance to the Middle East with strong links to European cities. Currently, however, Istanbul is a very successful globalizing city (KEYDER, 2009, page 45) and Beirut is far behind. It is mainly a consequence of the civil war and the political instability caused by religious conflicts. Political influence is decisive for global city implementation. Pyongyang in North Korea could be facing similar changes like the ones that some Chinese cities are undergoing. Both countries have a communist history with millions of people available as cheap labor. Both populations want also to become consumers of capitalist goods. The closed political regime in North Korea totally discourages international investments and a more globalized economy. Political choices again make a huge difference. Tehran is on SHORT’s list as the biggest non-global city in the world (SHORT, 2004, page 49). This is mainly for political reasons. Iran has huge sources of oil, like Dubai or Abu Dhabi, for example. Besides this, it has two interesting advantages. First, it is an enormous city, more than 10 million inhabitants. This is an important advantage when we talk about global cities. Second, Tehran is the capital of a big country with a network of medium and small cities providing both consumers and goods complementing the economy of the city. Another case of the influence of national politics in the construction or not of global cities is in South Africa (SIMON, 1995, page 204). It would