Urban models 1

The sustainability of competing urban development models: The myth of the global city model

By Ioana Dumea

Capstone Project Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Public Policy and Administration June 2010

Urban models 2

Abstract

The modern intellectual debate regarding the sustainability of urban development models has

predominantly favored the gains of the global city model over the lamentable approach to city-

building displayed by the world’s slums. Drawing on Jeb Brugmann’s city-building approaches,

the elite theory and the large body of work centered on the global city topic, this paper examines

the works of urban and political-science scholars in the attempt to re-assess the sustainability of

these diametrically opposite models of urban development. The comparison, while not resulting

in an outright winner, brings forth a new conceptual paradigm: the overreliance on the global city

model will only exacerbate the formation of the slums and increase the overall instability of the

global economic, political and urban systems.

Urban models 3

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………4

Literature review……………………………………………………………………………5

I. Locus of economic development: The role of cities in the global economy…………….12

II. Urban development strategies: The global city vs. the city-system ……………………15

II. A. The global city model………………………………………………………..19

II. B. The city-system model: the slums……………………………………………31

III. Economic sustainability of the two models: The lessons of the Great Recession……...39

IV. Socio-cultural sustainability: The effects of the megaproject………………………….49

V. Conclusion: The intersection between the global city and the slum…………………….54

VI. References………………………………………………………………………………58

Urban models 4

Introduction

The change from a manufacturing-based to an information economy has transformed the

appearance and feel of the world’s cities and, in the process, has created a transnational urban

culture. This culture, due to the global forces driving it – transnational corporations, banks,

service firms – can be looked at as a legitimate urban model that delineates space to

accommodate global economic actors rather than preserving local communities. This is the

global city model,1 which is visible in the metro areas of New York, Tokyo or Chicago. At the

other end of the urban development spectrum stands the bottom-up, locally-driven city model

that is fueled by the need of low-income individuals to find economic opportunities and integrate

in the global economy. This is the city-system model,2 exemplified in the Chinatowns of the

developed nations or the slums of the developing countries.

These two models, while diametrically opposite in terms of their origins, are highly

interdependent. The global city model, by entailing the construction of high-income residences

and commercial spaces carves out for itself the best and most valuable property areas of the

urban environment. What and who it displaces seems insignificant in comparison to the urban

riches and global status it promises to the developers and the government authorities that

embrace it. Conversely, the bottom-up process of city-building practiced by migrant populations

all over the world gets ignored for lacking the ability to stimulate the new industries of the

information economy: banking, tourism and telecommunications. In the attempt to envision the

future pressures exerted on the global system by the internal structure of urban centers, this paper

1 Sassen (1994) defines the global city model, as the physical expression of the liberalization of markets,

telecommunications advances, and increased levels of international trade that originated in the capitalist West . Its

main architectural symbols are the high-rises. 2 A city-system is about the interaction between the city’s dwellers to create the most efficient, cohesive and

advantageous urban environment possible. A city becomes an ecosystem, where each group of residents depends on

and supports the life of the existing groups (Brugmann, 2009).

Urban models 5

will compare the two city-building models. The exercise leads to a surprising conclusion: the

fact that the global city model displaces rather than integrates, that its continued growth is

directly fueled by monetary expansion policies, overinvestment practices and financial

speculators, and that it favors the highly educated professionals over all other workers translates

into a myriad of economic and socio-cultural problems3.

In the words of urban scholar Jeb Brugmann (2009), the practice of developing urban

strategies is about organizing city space in a way that maximizes the ability of its dwellers to

interact and maximize their potential. With cities playing the central role in the globalized

economy, comparing two of the most prevalent urbanization patterns can shed light on the true

and multifaceted pressures globalization exerts on the urban environment. Moreover, as city

managers all over the world are aspiring to secure, or just renew, the “global city” title,

understanding what being a global city really entails – economically, socially, culturally and

environmentally – could re-shift economic development policies at the national, regional and

local levels.

Literature Review

The gradual exposure of local affairs to the influence of global trends, such as the

advances in technology and the liberalization of trade, has incited scholarly work on all sides of

the argumentative spectrum. Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism have hailed the increased

global connectivity by highlighting the ability of underdeveloped nations to acquire wealth as

they participate in the world economy. On the other hand, anti-globalization scholars (Stiglitz,

2006; Barber, 1995) cite a wide-array of problems, ranging from increased social inequalities to

3 Some of the main problems associated with the global city model are overinvestment, economic speculation,

gentrification and increased socio-economic disparities (Brugmann, 2009; Longworth, 2008; Sassen, 1994; Barber,

1995).

Urban models 6

decreased democratic activities, to point out the negative consequences of open markets left

unchecked.

In the extensive and highly controversial globalization debate, one of the topics pertinent

to this paper examines the extent to which the liberalization of markets has been the product of

national, transnational or local actors. To sum up all the “competing visions of the global

economic development landscape” is a task reserved for larger works, so the goal here is to

breakdown the dominant theories of the field in order to understand why comparing urban

models is an important piece of the global economic puzzle (Feiock, Moon & Park, 2008).

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (2007) has been an important contributor

to the debate over the true locus of economic development with his most influential work entitled

The world is flat: A brief history of the Twenty-First century. In searching for the key drivers of

the newest wave of globalization, labeled “Globalization 3.0”, Friedman (2007) explored the

main players of the previous globalization phases: the first phase, Globalization 1.0 (1492 –

1800), represented the encounter between the Old World and the New World and was the by-

product of countries and governments competing with one-another for military power, manpower

and gold; the second era of globalization, Globalization 2.0 (the 1800s – 2000) – with moments

of intermission represented by the two World Wars and the Great Depression – became

synonymous with the success of multinational companies to shrink the world through the

Industrial Revolution, innovating means of transportation (the steam engine and the railroad) and

advanced telecommunications (Friedman, 2007, p.9). While governments and multinational

companies surfaced as the main players of the first and second stages of globalization,

Globalization 3.0 distinguished itself from its predecessors due to “the newfound power of

Urban models 7

individuals to collaborate and compete globally [and to form a] flat-world-platform” (Friedman,

2007, p. 10).

In response to Thomas Friedman’s leveled economic playing field, sociologist Richard

Florida (2005) argued that the agglomeration of human capital, infrastructure, culture and

technology within the city limits made urban centers the dominant players on the global scene.

And while he acknowledge the importance of individuals (the “creative class”) in the

information economy, the fact that these resided in the world’s cities made Florida (2005)

entitled to portray the economic world as spiky instead of flat.

The primacy of the urban environment in the global economy is well documented in a

variety of theoretical works (Sassen, 1994; Brugmann, 2009). One of the clearest explanations of

the symbiotic relationship between cities and globalization comes from the famous urban scholar

Saskia Sassen. The first to coin the term “global city,” Sassen (1994) outlined a three-part

argument to explain why cities became the drivers of today’s global economic development: 1)

the current global economy is most predominantly characterized by international financial flows;

2) “the crucial sites for these [international] transactions are financial markets, advanced

corporate service firms, banks and the headquarters of transnational corporations”; 3) these sites

are located in the heart of the cities (p.9)

There are many scholars who dispute the limited choices used to describe the current

global economic environment. Having to choose between Friedman’s flatness and the urban

spikiness, they choose none. Among them are Feiock, Moon & Park (2008) who identify

metropolitan regions as the drivers of global markets. For them, the wealth of one urban

environment is the direct result of its ability to connect with, and use the resources of the

surrounding cities. From another perspective Kantor (2007) explains the newest wave of

Urban models 8

globalization through the critical role national and local governments play in creating the proper

business environments (through lowered taxes, decreased regulations, financial incentives)

needed for cities to compete in the global economy.

And while the competing views on the locus of economic development demonstrate the

richness of the subject, ultimately the literature overwhelmingly embraces the City as the

quintessential center of economic opportunities and political freedoms (Magnusson, 1996;

Norquist, 1998; Sassen, 1994; Brugmann, 2009). The City is the place where density, diversity

and ideas mix to create economies of scale, test political credos and build the social patterns

defining the direction of entire civilizations (Norquist, 1998; Brugmann, 2009; Friedman, 2007).

The City never sleeps; it is defined by constant action. The “global city” then becomes only a

small piece of the entire urban puzzle, limited to analyzing the effects of global markets exposure

on those multidimensional spheres of city life.

Since the global city literature is relatively young, dating back to the 1980s, the studies

done on the delineation of space in the global city indicate a commonly-shared development

pattern (Grant & Nijman, 2002; Sassen, 1994). In this particular urban fabric, the same economic

actors responsible for driving foreign direct investments to unprecedented levels in the post-1980

era are the same ones that dominate the internal spatial structure of the global city. Thus, as

Sassen (1994) so eloquently explains, in response to the needs of international corporations,

banks and service firms the global cities display distinct spatial patterns: centrally- located

corporate and governmental offices (forming the central business districts), luxurious residential

buildings for the individuals of the top socio-economic strata, but also manufacturing zones, sub-

par housing units and migrant enclaves.

Urban models 9

With the forces of globalization originating predominantly in the West, the theories

attesting to the sustainability of the global city urban model have displayed a certain Western

bias. In many cases, the financial wealth generated in the central business districts has

overshadowed for many modern scholars the socio-economic divide that characterizes the

geography of global cities. This positive portrayal of the global city has translated into the

determination of cities of the developing world to emulate, if not de facto then at least visually,

the symbol that has become synonymous with global wealth: the high-rise buildings.

The causal relationship between impressive constructions and economic power is not a

new revelation. From the earliest historical times, the tendency of the wealthy to dominate their

spatial surroundings has resulted in sumptuous palaces, imposing towers and symbolic

monuments. But contrary to previous eras, the influence of global markets and the capitalist

system has equated power and money with a uniform style of construction and spatial order,

devoid of cultural identity and national meanings. While this new architectural and urban

planning style, called McWorld by some scholars intent on highlighting its corporate origins, has

tried to maximize the availability of housing and raise the quality of life of the urban poor, it has

produced new issues for critique and analysis (Barber, 1995; Marcuse, 1999, Passanti, 1987).

This phenomenon has not been missed by the urban and the political science scholars of

the day. The physical division of the city along income lines and the overreliance on a singular

form of economic development has created a backlash against the promoted socio-economic

resilience of the global city. In his 1995 book Jihad vs McWorld: How globalism and tribalism

are reshaping the world, Benjamin Barber has warned that the organization of spatial patterns to

further encourage free trade, privatization and expansionary monetary policies has translated into

a clear division between the haves and the have-nots. This division is not novel; the poor and the

Urban models 10

rich have been able to co-exist for hundreds of years. The urban space, say some of the critics,

due to its primary purpose of bringing together people from all walks of life, is by nature a

contested space. However, a city dominated by an urban model that sees inhabitants as

consumers and producers, that marginalizes the majority - the poor – to make room for the

minority – the rich –, and that prevents the have-nots from reaping most of the benefits from

their own work is a place awaiting impending crises.

That is a point extensively developed by Mike Davis (2006) in the book Planet of slums.

Taking upon himself to analyze globalization through the lens of the urban landscape, Davis

(2006) discovers that the repeated enforcement of neoliberal practices to solve issues vital to the

well functioning of the urban fabric, housing, community building and economic opportunity,

has only increased the gap between the rich and the poor. So, as the poor find themselves farther

away from jobs, both because the central market locations have been taken over by high-rises

and because the information economy favors the highly educated worker, they fail to climb the

income ladder and leave the familiar environment of the slums. And, as the rural-to-urban

migration patterns causes the slums to grow at a faster rate than the rest of the city population,

the stage is set for the formation of what the author calls a “planet of slums” (Davis, 2006).

Urban scholar Jeb Brugmann (2009), in his book Welcome to the urban revolution: How

cities are changing the world acknowledges the growing socio-economic importance of the

urban poor and channels that awareness to bring forth a new “global city” definition. Contrary to

previous definitions, Brugmann (2009) holds that the unprecedented growth of the urban

population coupled with the greater connectivity between cities have made local affairs

increasingly significant on the global stage. So, instead of labeling “global” only those places

Urban models 11

housing headquarters of corporations and banks, Brugmann (2009) points out that migrant,

bottom-up communities are as important globally as the financial capitals of the world.

Another author trying to dispel the insignificance of the urban poor is Janice Perlman. In

her two studies The myth of marginality and The myth of marginality revisited: The case of

favelas in Rio de Janeiro, 1969-2003, she argues that despite the public stigma attached to the

slums, its inhabitants are important assets to the social, economical, political and cultural

dimensions of the larger urban environment. And, much like Brugmann (2009) who analyzes the

urban planning techniques of the slums to better grasp the effects of global markets on their

survival, Perlman (2003) delves deep into the life of the favelas to make the case against their

replacement with Western, more corporate-friendly forms of social organization.

Studying the building patterns of the global cities alongside that of the slums is not

coincidental. The market liberalization policies spread by Washington Consensus-abiding

organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade

Organization has led to an influx of capital into developing countries. This capital, brought in by

major corporations, banks and service firms, was used to replicate in these host-territories the

same business conditions and luxuries existent in their home-towns. Thus, over time, Mumbai,

Rio de Janeiro, Dubai – to only name a few locations – began displaying the signature structures

of a Western transnational urban model: skyscrapers, malls, luxury hotels. Their rise meant the

displacement of the shabby, improvised, low-income buildings and their residents. In developing

the strategies needed to transform the “Cities of Crisis4” into the “Cities of Great

4 For Brugmann (2009) a “City of Crisis” is a city where different socioeconomic groups, with distinct city -building

approaches, compete with one another. The competition for urban space becomes a zero -sum game: the more one

group advances, the more the other group loses (p. 130). Mumbai is considered to be this type of city.

Urban models 12

Opportunities5,” these patterns of development have shown that the urban center cannot be

analyzed in the absence of the city’s margins (Brugmann, 2009; Sassen, 1994).

I. Locus of Economic Development: The Role of Cities in the Global Economy

Long before the State became the single most important political entity, cities have

effectively organized the social, cultural, economic and political aspects of human life. In fact,

by leveraging their geographical location, access to human and material resources and military

power, cities exerted significant political influence. The earliest accounts of cities playing the

role currently bestowed upon the State come from the city-states of ancient Greece. United by

the ideal that human association is the true creator of value, be that economic, cultural or

religious, city-states like Athens and Sparta created flourishing civilizations that dominated well

beyond their physical existence.

Historically, cities continued to be the dominant form of political organization until the

1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which political scholars traced as the birth-date of the modern state.

And while the creation of larger political entities served mostly to cement common languages

and traditions around the all-encompassing concept of nationalism, the cities remained –

according to all available sources – the primary economic and intellectual drivers of their day.

None is more convinced of this fact than the author of the Wealth of cities: Revitalizing

the centers of American life, former Milwaukee mayor John O. Norquist (1998). In his own

words, “people, places and products are the ingredients that, when mixed together in a city,

generate wealth and, in turn, culture and religion” (Norquist, 1998, p.153). Moreover, the organic

formation of urban centers around the benefits of the marketplace, which contrasts heavily with

5 “Cities of Great Opportunities” are the cities that have the economic and human resources needed to maximize

their comparative advantages, but that lack the civil and political alliances instrumental for adopting a coherent city-

building approach (Brugmann, 2009, p. 131).

Urban models 13

the political origins of statehood, entitles Norquist (1998) to support the legitimacy of the City as

the true locus of economic development.

However, in view of the recent advances in technology and communications, some

scholars dispute the predominance of cities in the global economic context. One of them is New

York Times journalist Thomas Friedman. In The world is flat: A brief history of the Twenty-First

century, Friedman (2007) argues that the previous importance of geographic location to the

creation of economic clusters and trade comparative advantages has been diluted by decreased

transportation and communication costs. So what was previously a world dominated by cities,

regions and nations maximizing their natural and human capital became in Friedman’s view a

flat world where individuals held the power. This transfer of economic influence from political

and corporate entities to individuals was the result of a mix of ideas “whose time has come”:

availability of internet, large investments in fiber optic cables, and the change in nature of

international transactions, to only name a few (Friedman, 2007; Kingdon, 1984).

Richard Florida (2005) joins Thomas Friedman in acknowledging the importance of

human capital to the creation of wealth and comparative advantage. However, unlike Friedman,

Florida (2005) maintains that cities still maintain their relevance in the global economy

particularly because the “creative class,” – the educated individuals who create value in the new

information economy – predominantly resides in the urban centers of the world. For Florida, the

world looks more spiky than flat (Feiock, Moon & Park, 2007).

Arguing against both Friedman and Florida’s arguments, Richard C. Feiock, M. Jae

Moon and Hyung Jun Park (2007) highlight the importance of regional economic networks in the

creation of economic wealth. The basis of their argument is that cities, while important, depend

for their labor and industrial supply on the talent and resource pools of neighboring communities.

Urban models 14

For Feiock, Moon and Park (2007), industries do not form individually but in clusters, which

makes regional areas the true environment where economies of scale are created.

The competing views of economic development outlined above are extremely significant

to policy makers, business owners, administrators, scholars and citizens alike. Picking one

theoretical framework above the others carries with it important consequences. If the world is

dominated by regional economic clusters, as Feiock et al. (2007) suggest, than it is important to

find ways to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation and retain the talented workforce within

the metropolitan jurisdictions. If, as Friedman (2007) pointed out, global wealth depends strictly

on individual innovation and ideas, than all governments should focus on improving the quality

of life aspects of their own countries.

However, after taking all arguments into consideration, it is clear that cities remain the

nexus of the global economic life. Friedman (2007), while correct in describing the events that

fueled the spread of globalization forces, ignores the fact that the creative individuals holding the

key to economic innovation choose to live in the urban centers of the world. Based on the last

statistics, there are 3.5 billion of them and their numbers is expected to almost double by the year

2050 (Brugmann, 2009). As far as Feiock, Moon and Park’s (2007) theory is concerned, the

reality is that every region has a dominant metropolis at its center around which suburban life

forms and prospers. Moreover, the government policies that create the business and quality of

life conditions attracting employers and employees alike are municipal in nature, and the record

shows more competition between local governments than a move towards a regional cooperation

model (Goetz & Kayser, 1993; Hamilton, 2002).

As demonstrated, the city continues to be to this day, due to its advantageous mix of

“scale, proximity, and diversity,” the most organic form of economic organization (Norquist,

Urban models 15

1998, p. viii). The city-system, by driving the co-location of suppliers and consumers around the

central economic principle of the mutually-beneficial transaction, is one of the most successful

forms of economic development. Warren Magnusson (1996) describes the allure of city life and

its economic comparative advantage over all other political entities in the following way: “It is

where people come to do things outside the domain of sovereignty, in relative freedom from the

domains of church and state” (p. 256). Therefore, addressing how cities are built and the main

planning strategies deciding how people interact and how resources are divided within the urban

environment is critical to understanding the fragility or strength of the entire global economic

system.

II. Urban development strategies: The global city vs the city-system

Urban scholar Jeb Brugmann (2009), the author of Welcome to the urban revolution:

How cities are changing the world, defines urban strategy as “the practice of shaping the growth

of cities to address global problems and to achieve great ambitions” (p. x). In his attempt to

analyze competing models of urban development Brugmann (2009) ignores the modern

intellectual bias of looking at the process of city-building as an exclusive top-down approach.

Instead, he points out numerous examples where local groups of individuals, united by common

goals and interests, have established thriving urban environments with a socio-economic reach

far beyond their geographical confinement.

One such environment holding hidden urban planning treasures for Brugmann (2009) is

the slum. A slum is generally defined as a “densely populated usually urban area marked by

crowding, dirty run-down housing, poverty, and social disorganization” (Merriam-Webster

Dictionary). None of those characteristics sound appealing to those used to at least a minimum of

Western urban comforts: running water, electricity, plenty of living space. Jeb Brugmann (2009),

Urban models 16

according to his own account, was initially the representation of the skeptic on his first visit to

Mumbai’s largest slum, Dharavi. However, once introduced to the internal layout, diversity and

economic output of Dharavi, Brugmann (2009) uses it as a stepping stone for understanding

urban city building approaches worldwide. I

In developing a theoretical framework around the city-building process, Brugmann

(2009) zones in on what he sees as Dharavi’s main sources of economic strength: cheap land,

low transportation cost, well utilized property space and extremely low business/logistics costs.

All by-products of an astounding conglomeration of people, “16 to 25 times the population

density of greater London,” Dharavi’s economic success can be summed up in two, overarching

concepts: association and competitive advantage (Brugmann, 2009, p. 98). Since the goal of city-

building is to maximize the benefits of association and advantage, Brugmann (2009) evaluates

urban development in terms of four city-building approaches: 1) ad-hoc building; 2) city-

systems; 3) city-models and 4) the master-planned city.

Ad-hoc building has the end user in mind. Whether the process involves the construction

of a single edifice or a collection of buildings, the main goal is to fulfill the needs of the

inhabitant(s). The main criticism Brugmann (2009) has regarding this type of construction is that

it is experimental and “does not create any purposeful nature for the city” (p.103). His comment

is relevant: if anybody would be allowed to build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted,

without consideration for the value and function of the adjacent buildings, the city would become

a maze with no rhyme or reason. Most importantly, without regulation, this type of layout can

negate the actual growth potential that an agglomeration of economic interests brings to the

urban environment.

Urban models 17

The second city-building approach Jeb Brugmann (2009) identifies is the city-system.

Unlike the individualistic and “experimental” nature of ad-hoc building, a city-system centers on

the interaction between a city’s dwellers in order to create the most efficient, cohesive and

advantageous urban environment possible. A city becomes an ecosystem, where each group of

residents depends on and supports the life of the existing groups. Brugmann (2009) refers to this

type of city-building process as “co-creating” and sees it as the best way to maximize the

economic and social benefits of a high density area (p.105). Most migrant enclaves in the major

European and American cities seem to be built as city-systems. The slum, as an urban

organization form, is a city-system too.

The practice of building cities or units of cities, either commercial or residential, that

have been “standardized and cost-optimized as building industry products” is called city

modeling (Brugmann, 2009, p. 108). A name reminiscent of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Model Cities

Program (a Great Society initiative coordinated by the Department of Housing and Urban

Development), the impetus for city-modeling is primarily economic with developers, urban

planners, and business and community leaders looking to re-create an urban model believed to

generate a profit. The aggregate effect of combining multiple interests to the development of an

area is a desired level of financial and planning expertise. However, not soliciting the input of the

end users limits the understanding of the true economic and political impact of the development.

Examples of city models are abundant and they do not have to be confined strictly to the

suburban environment. Skyscrapers are a good example of a city model: they are quintessential

“business industry products”, they are build for the end users and not with them, developers

embrace them as they think of the potential profits, urban planners see them as a solution to the

Urban models 18

high density problems of the urban area and community leaders believe their construction would

enhance the global image of the city.

The master-planned city is Brugmann’s (2009) fourth and final city-building approach.

As a large scale, special purpose project, the master planned city is largely the implementation of

a planner or an architect’s vision and enjoys governmental support. As in previous cases, the

success of this type of development project relies on the alignment of the builder’s vision with

the needs and wants of the users. One of the biggest master-planned developments that come to

mind is Baron Georges Haussmann’s redesign of Paris. Commissioned by Napoleon III, the plan

allowed Haussmann to implement an idealistic vision for the city that was first seen as sterile by

the city’s residents. Eventually, however, the large boulevards and the standard architectural look

were adapted to the Parisian way of life and the cultural shift it initially caused soon became

imperceptible (Carmona, 2002).

The importance of cities magnifies the relevance of urban development strategies and

their impact on the current global socio-economic system. Aware of the fact that urban

population will grow by three billion people in the next twenty-five years, Brugmann (2009)

proposes the practice of New Urbanism as a counteracting force to that future pressure (p.110).

With lessons taken from Dharavi’s effective city-system, New Urbanism advances the argument

that the clogged and overpopulated urban centers of the future will be able to achieve stability

and economic growth only if they are user-friendly cities, created by the people, for the people.

In the attempt to envision the future pressures exerted on the global system by the

internal structure of urban centers, this paper will describe and analyze the two most

predominant city-building models: 1) the global city model and 2) the city-system model as

outlined by the development of the urban slums.

Urban models 19

II. A. The global city model

As Neil Brenner and Roger Keil (2006) suggest, “all major maps of the global urban

system must be understood as representations of power, centrality and exclusion in the

contemporary global economy” (p. 189). And that is exactly why using the elite theory model to

explain the impact of global actors on the urban landscape makes the most sense. Tracking the

movement of corporate actors across national boundaries, Grant and Nijman (2002) acknowledge

the distinct impact global firms have on the spatial fabric of cities by distinguishing several

distinct patterns: 1) the business districts of foreign companies specializing in financial and

producer services carve out the most valuable urban land and represent the pulse of the city’s

role in the global economy; 2) domestically controlled companies settle in and around the foreign

business districts; 3) the rest of the city space is reserved for the lower-end local markets of the

economically deprived classes.

The elite theory model, instead of explaining political and socio-economic decisions

through the use of logic, understands the policy-making process in terms of the influence exerted

on it by prominent members of a society. Expressed differently, the elite model states that

policymakers actually serve the interests of the wealthy and connected social strata – the elite.

Among the most widely known and cited elite theorists are Robert Michels (The iron law

of oligarchy), Floyd Hunter (Community power structure); Charles Wright Mills (The power

elite) and Robert Dahl (Who governs?). While the premise of all these works is the ability of

private actors with private interests to influence policy-making outcomes towards the detriment

of the public at large, the methods used to arrive at the conclusions differ from author to author.

For example, in his book Community power structure, Floyd Hunter (1953) looks at the

“power connections” of an American “Regional City” (the actual name of the city is not

Urban models 20

provided) and concludes that the men of power identified can be divided into four groups:

“business, government, civic associations, and ‘society’ activities” (p. 11). Out of these four

groups, the business elite emerged as the most influential in the 1950s policy-making sphere,

being able to push its agenda undisturbed by the public will and unconcerned about the larger

social issues characterizing the Regional City environment (expressly the concerns of the

African-American people). Robert Dahl (1961) does not share Hunter’s analysis of a

community’s power relationships as his observations lead him to believe that power does not

reside with only one group but is actually dispersed among different socio-economic

communities (Eldridge, 1983, p. 86).

The work of Charles Wright Mills, who by 1962 was “reputed to be the most widely read

sociologist in the world” proposed a different analytic framework to the study of power

structures in society (Eldridge, 1983, p. 13). Among his large body of work, one of Mills’ most

famous additions to the elite scholarly work was entitled The power elite. According to John T.

Eldridge (1983), Professor of Sociology at the University of Glasgow, The power elite was the

result of the emergence in America of

“[…] a new corporatism: directed by military, industrial and political elites; unopposed by the trade unions following a policy of maximum adaptation to the new corporate

order, overcoming the interests of the ‘old’ middle classes; and untroubled by the ‘new’ middle class, which is full of status anxieties and empty of class consciousness. This new

corporatism points in the direction of war economy by way of handling the slump-boom cycle.” (p. 81)

This little passage suggests the overarching preoccupation of Mills with the possibility that, in

times of social unrest, the ability of certain groups to push their interests on the decision-makers’

agenda can take the entire American society in an anti-democratic and dangerous direction

(Eldridge, 1983). This insight can be extrapolated and applied to many other environments,

especially the extremely complex and socially vulnerable environment of cities.

Urban models 21

Before applying Mills’s elite theory to understanding the global city urban development

model, since it is the most pertinent elite theoretical framework to the corporate environment,

one last conceptual issue needs to be clarified. The group that he defines as the power elite does

not only come from the economic sphere, as is the case in Floyd Hunter and Robert Dahl’s

works. Charles Wright Mills displays a more expansive understanding of power and suggests

that power elites usually emerge within the institutional trends of “political, economic and

military orders and the growing coincidence of their objective interests” (Eldridge, 1983, p. 83).

To put that in more layman terms, the people at the top usually acquire power by changing roles

from one institutional setting to another. A good example of that would be the amazing job

mobility displayed by public officials and corporate top employees. Their high level of expertise

and personal connections in their career field makes it extremely easy for them to secure center

positions at the top of both public and private institutions. The strength of the “iron triangle”

links increases their chances to become key decision-makers in both professional arenas.

By applying Charles Wright Mills’s broad understanding of the power elite to the

perpetuation of the global city urban model, three overarching elements come to life: 1) the

urban model is driven by what Barber (1995) calls the image of the McWorld ; 2) the correlation

between the global city image and the promise of economic prosperity is a product of the

political and economic elites and leads to the predominance of the global city model over any

other type of city-building approaches 3) the application of the model in extremely diverse and

socio-economically polarized environments only leads to the perpetuation of those rifts and the

impending appearance of Cities of Crisis (Brugmann, 2009).

In the 1980s, the transformations set in motion by advances in telecommunications and

political unrest did not go unnoticed by scholars. The convergence of several factors, such as the

Urban models 22

availability of new information technologies, strategically-placed fiber-optic infrastructure and

the liberalization of formerly closed markets, led to unprecedented levels of international trade.

Thomas Friedman (2007) interpreted this new phase of globalization to mean that the economic

playing field has been leveled to such an extent that geographical location has lost its

competitive advantage. To him, the increased mobility of the workspace meant that cities,

previously the commercial nodes of the global marketplace, had lost their “prime mover”

economic status.

There is a long list of scholars disputing Friedman’s arguments. One of them, renowned

economist Joseph Stiglitz (2006), argued that while trade volumes have increased far beyond

previous levels, most financial transactions still occur between a very small number of financial

centers. And even though new players have entered the marketplace and are now more integrated

in the global system than they ever were, there is no reason to assume that their new status has

put them on an equal footing with the leading economic capitals of the world. In some cases,

Stiglitz (2006) points out, the world seems less flat now than before as exposure to global

markets forces has left some countries worse off.

Urban scholar Saskia Sassen (1994) joins Stiglitz in rebuking Friedman’s concept of

flatness by pointing out to the explosion of business activity in the great international business

centers of the world – New York, London, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Hong Kong – once they got

exposed to the 1980s telecommunications boom:

The explosion in the numbers of firms locating in the downtowns of major cities during

that decade goes against what should have been expected according to models emphasizing territorial dispersal; this is especially true given the high cost of locating in a major downtown area. (p. 2)

Urban models 23

This particular realization, strengthened by the lack of studies on how global processes have

changed the function of urban centers, compels Sassen (1994) to include cities in her analysis of

globalization.

Her findings suggest that the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service,

finance-centered global market has actually heightened the importance of cities as

1) command points in the organization of the world economy; 2) key locations and marketplaces for the leading industries of the current period, which are finance and

specialized services for firms; and 3) major sites of production for these industries, including the production of innovations. (Sassen, 1994, p. 4)

This new strategic predominance is not, however, reserved for all urban locations; it is the

distinctive characteristic of what Sassen (1994) calls the “global cities.”

Despite being the one to coin the term “global cities,” Saskia Sassen is not the first

academic to observe the features that made them the central players of the new globalization

phase. Robert B. Cohen (1981), John Friedman (1982) and Goetz Wolff (1982) were

instrumental in defining the political economy of urban systems by tracing the spatial movement

of multinational corporations and analyzing the effects of those movements on the cities’ internal

structures. In doing so, they uncovered the key characteristics of global cities and why they

became the command centers of the new information economy: 1) the 1980s economic shift

witnessed transnational corporations, service firms and banks become the main players

responsible for the global creation of wealth; 2) these players located their activities in the heart

of the world’s cities (Cohen, 1981; Sassen 1994).

The urban centrality of corporate activity, even though the advance in

telecommunications would facilitate the creation of workspaces in other strategic locations, has

led urban scholars to discern certain connections between global cities that are not shared with

other economic entities. Sassen (1994) explains, “as certain cities have prospered, they have

Urban models 24

come to have more in common with one another than with regional centers in their own nation-

states, many of which have declined in importance” (p. xiv). This particular trend, seen in part as

the result of the “erosion of the role of the government in the national economy” was believed to

signal the birth of a transnational urban system (Sassen, 1994, p. 19; Marcuse, 1999; Cohen,

1981).

Indeed, as service firms, banks and multinational corporations seek to take advantage of

new markets, the business connections they establish between their home and host cities are

more than financial in nature; those connections have a distinctive physical representation as

well. In the study “The neglected builder of global cities,” Anne Haila (1997) recognizes the

spatial dimension of global transactions by saying that “’the same worldly superstars [that

dominate the urban landscape of New York or Tokyo], developers, architects and private-sector

financial institutions [like Skidmore Owings and Merrill, Cesar Pelli or Citibank], design the

landscape in all global cities” (p. 285). A by-product of money following money, the visual

similarity of global cities is indicative of nothing short of an urban development model: the

global city model.

Using the city-building framework of urban scholar Jeb Brugmann (2009), it is easy to

see that the global city model is a product of the city-modeling approach to urban development.

As previously mentioned, the drivers behind city modeling are economic in nature with urban

planners, community and business leaders and developers looking to maximize the value and the

efficiency of the urban environment. Increasing the efficiency of human interaction is a core goal

of the urban planning process and certainly one that all the experts involved in the development

of city-models strongly adhere to. The global city model’s own selling feature is the promise of a

wealthier and more organized tomorrow. Its promise, much like its image, is extremely enticing

Urban models 25

for the image-makers of the world. Whether it delivers on it or not in the highly complex urban

environment is the main question driving this research. And to produce an answer, describing

what the global city model entails would be the place to start.

The global city model, as the name itself suggests, is the physical expression of the

liberalization of markets, telecommunications advances, and increased levels of international

trade that originated in the capitalist West (Sassen, 1994). The main driving force behind it is

money. Its creators are the corporate players of the global economy. Its style is modern. Its

iconic structure is the megaproject, embodied by high-rise buildings, shopping malls and what

Uta Lehrer (2003) calls “the trophy building” (p. 334).

Like with most other urban development models, the architecture of the global city model

is a reflection of its conceptual origins. Historically, the Anglo-Saxon foundation of the

international economic system has translated into a global city architecture dominated by the

most recognizable visual symbol of the Western world: the modern high-rise. Easily

distinguishable from any of its architectural predecessors, with its steel framework and glass

façade, the modern high-rise represents the ideal expression of grandeur, power and secular

capitalism valued by the corporate heroes of the 20th and 21st centuries. Thus, driven by the

economic interests of the multinational companies, the “form follows function” motto of the

post-modern architectural movement became not only the theoretical idea behind the

construction of every high-rise, but it also underlined the desired spatial arrangement of the

modern, capitalist city.

The link between the global city model and the world’s top economic players is

extremely significant to understanding its social, cultural and economic ramifications. In the

current intellectual arena the value of a city’s capital markets is the primary dimension deciding

Urban models 26

its global status. The other elements considered, based on the Global cities index created by the

Foreign Policy magazine in collaboration with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the

firm A.T. Kearney, are the human capital, diversity and political influence concentrated within a

city. All combined, these characteristics are believed to exemplify the ability of an urban center

to use the complexities of its environment to provide “the vast opportunities of global integration

to its people” (Foreign Policy, 2008, p. 1). However, in order to attract the companies,

international organizations, embassies and the diverse population needed to become the global

engines of growth that global cities are considered to be, city managers need to build the

infrastructure necessary for all those actors to operate effectively. And since the high-rise is, and

has been since its inception, the symbol of modernity and economic power, cities all over the

world are rushing to increase their global capital by building, or just adding to, their own

network of skyscrapers.

The conceptual association between the construction of high-rises and the “power,

sophistication, wealth and influence” of globally integrated cities dates back to the early 1900s

(Foreign Policy, 2008, p. 1). At that time, the economic growth of American cities, Chicago and

New York in particular, translated into a competition over who could build the highest tower. So,

as the wealth increased, so did the height of their buildings (Thornton, 2005).

The preference for building high was at first rationalized based on the pressing need to

increase the amount of urban living space. The Industrial Revolution had concentrated the

majority of the manufacturing jobs in the cities, which soon became overcrowded with the large

number of people searching for jobs and improved living standards. Desirous to solve the

sanitation and social equality issues that seemed to plague cities in the late 19th century and the

beginning of the 20th century, architects such as Frederick Law Olmstead, David Burnham and

Urban models 27

Le Corbusier incorporated into their urban projects two main concepts: green space and tall

buildings. Daniel Burnham was among the first architects to design one of the first American

skyscrapers, the Masonic Temple in Chicago. While torn down in 1939, at the time of its

completion the Masonic Temple was over 21 stories high and became the tallest building in

America (Hines, 1979).

The increasing availability of steel made the task of building high-rises significantly

easier. Not having to rely exclusively on concrete for the construction process allowed for the

skyscraper structure to be much slender and lighter. And since its sleek and reflective surface

satisfied the visual and technical requirements of both modernists and capitalists, the skyscraper

became the perfect embodiment of function and form desired by both movements.

Le Corbusier, one of the most well-known modern architects, was instrumental in laying

out the ideal format of the capitalist city whose visual and structural centerpiece was the high-

rise. Among the best examples of Le Corbusier’s urban design principles, and a perfect

demonstration of how those principles translated into the predominant layout of the global city

model, is the Ville Contemporaine (Contemporary City) project. Designed in 1922 to house

approximately three million urban inhabitants, the focal point of the Contemporary City was the

sixty-story residential and office high-rises arranged in a cruciform pattern. The buildings,

placed within large, rectangular green areas, were in close proximity to the multi-modal

transportation system made up of highways, public transit lines and airport runways. The

automobile was the central mode of transportation, being intentionally separated from pedestrian

walkways. Smaller housing units surrounded the sixty-story high-rises and created the visual

effect of an urban pyramid. Although Le Corbusier’s idealistic urban model was never

completed, its influence on Western urban development patterns – and what eventually became

Urban models 28

the global city urban development model – was multifaceted: 1) architecturally-expressed socio-

economic divisions with the urban center reserved for the urban elite; 2) vertical urban design

regarded as more sustainable than horizontal spatial arrangements; 3) artistic originality and

iconic stature of buildings could be best achieved by building high (Passanti, 1987; Passanti,

1997).

With capitalism and modernism proving to form the essence of the global city model, the

economic divisions expressed in Le Corbusier’s urban designs became, over time, one of its most

important characteristics (Marcuse, 1999, p. 368). Among the intellectuals observing this trend

was Peter Marcuse. In the article entitled “Space in the globalizing city,” Marcuse (1999)

observed that any city that became integrated in the world economy would eventually display

several distinct socio-economic areas: 1) “the city of controlling decisions” where the most

powerful individuals in the society work and live; 2) “the city of advanced services” where the

information economy offices are located ; 3) “the city of direct production” focused on

manufacturing and producer services; 4) “the city of unskilled work and the informal economy”

where the low end service jobs are performed 5) and “the residual city” housing the life and

labor of the indigent and disenfranchised populations (p. 363).

While these regions can sometimes overlap, as the production of advanced services relies

heavily on the low end labor market (luxury hotels need waiters, doormen, cleaning personnel),

visually these patterns are easily distinguishable for any city dweller. It is hard to mistake the

reflective surfaces of the downtown high-rises with the busting, crowded neighborhoods of the

middle and lower classes. What this suggests is that the global city model, most easily

recognized due to the commercial symbolism of the skyscrapers, is a product and a “producer” of

the “city of controlling decisions” and the “city of advanced services” (Marcuse, 1999).

Urban models 29

That insight was not missed on the foreign elites. The long period of American political

and economic world domination during the 20th century, also referred to as the Pax Americana,

was for outsiders inextricably linked to the performance of its top cities. Images of steel and

glass skyscrapers became immediately associated with wealth. And while few began to wonder

whether it was the wealth that led to the buildings or the buildings that in fact attracted the

wealth, the reality was that countries and cities felt compelled to build high in order to compete

in the new global economy.

New York, London and Paris were the trend-setters of the global city dream. Hubs of

both financial and producer services, they became the go-to-cities for companies looking to

expand into new markets and for the new, educated, global individuals. Tokyo, Hong Kong and

Singapore were soon added to the list of globally integrated cities, demonstrating the ability of

non-Western nations to successfully adapt to the new economic environment and to reap the

benefits associated with it.

The continued pressure exerted by international organizations and the trillion dollars of

daily trading of financial assets created an environment of economic necessity for local and

national governments that had not made the transition to the capitalist system. And to attract the

corporate actors and the creative labor force vital to their economic growth, the urban elites only

had to replicate an already successful development pattern: use the built environment to create

the spectacular, wealth-inspired “fantasies of global city status” (Lehrer, 2003, p. 333).

The Dubai emirate, under the vision of its ruling Al-Maktoum dynasty, embraced the new

global economy with the goal of becoming one of its leading centers. Intent on transitioning from

an oil-based economy to a producer of financial and advanced services, the Dubai elite

deliberately used the aesthetics and amenities of modern architecture towards bringing the image

Urban models 30

of the global city to life. Based on a Western-inspired concept of “if you build it, they will

come,” Dubai became in the first years of the 21st century the breeding ground for the most

innovative and iconic architectural structures of the world, such as the Palm Island, the Burj

Khalifa (initially called Burj Dubai) and the Burj-al Arab Hotel (Robinson, 1989). Seeking

economic development by completely redefining its urban development patterns, Dubai became

the most classical representation of a country intent on copying the global city model.

Dubai’s implementation of the global city model is fueled by the association between the

iconic status of the urban architecture and the new prosperity that its inhabitants, multinational

corporations, tourists and an educated workforce, are expected to create. The copying activity is

a by-product of the availability of oil money. It is not a grass-roots city formation process. It is a

top-down, idealistic, card-board practice of urbanism. It is centered within a framework of global

competition, where power and economic status is symbolized by the highest and most

technologically-innovative building. The goal of all these efforts is the “global city” title,

measured by the number of corporate headquarters, size of international airports, number of

international flights, the presence of big universities, the inflow of foreign tourists. And since

Dubai’s sole mission since the Millennium has been to improve those particular assets, it

exemplifies many of the sustainability issues associated with the global city model: the

increasing gap between the rich and the poor, master-planned urban development practices, the

decreasing concern for cultural values, market instability caused by real estate speculation and

overinvestment, increased environmental pressures, fiscal burdens.

To demonstrate the consequences of the unchecked application of the global city model,

looking at the example provided by Dubai does not suffice. Bringing Chicago into the analysis,

one of the world’s most famous metropolitan areas that regularly tops the list of global cities,

Urban models 31

provides a fresh perspective on the challenges of becoming a global urban center. Hailed by most

scholars for successfully transitioning from a manufacturing-based to a service, tourism-oriented

economy, Chicago became in the words of Jeb Brugmann (2009) a “Great Opportunities City:” a

city that has in place the concentration of money and power needed to implement a holistic

approach to urban planning but that lacks the “strategic capability to face the final phase and to

shape it” (p. 157). Its transformation has everything to do with the global city urban development

model laid out by the global powerhouses (New York, London, Tokyo), which prescribes that

the creation of an economy based on higher education, communications, and business services

needs to be preceded by the building of the amenities needed to attract the “rich and the brainy”

– high-rises, shopping centers, parks, hotels, good restaurants, museums, big entertainment

venues (Brugmann, 2009, p. 147). Throughout the process, however, Chicago has not been able

to steer away from the array of socio-economic problems that scholars have associated with the

global city model, in particular the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Therefore, the inability to hide and remedy its highly contested space makes Chicago a perfect

example of the different pitfalls the global model entails for the urban centers intent on copying

it.

II. B. The city-system model: The slums

The global city model does not create solely magnificent structures and efficient living

environments, as its proponents would like to point out. The “market imperative” that drives its

creation and allows for the continued growth and prosperity of its economic and political elites,

is the same principle that transforms the urban environment into a socio-economically divided,

contested space (Barber, 1995; Sassen, 1994; Perlman, 2005). For the more the “city of control

decisions” puts offices and houses in the most valuable land of a metro area, by bodies of water

Urban models 32

as is the case with Dubai and Chicago, the people who cannot afford the steep prices those

residences entail are pushed towards the urban outskirts. So as cities try to enhance their role as

“global command and control centers” and the growth of corporate infrastructure dominates all

urban design and land use discourse, gentrification6 becomes a dominant phenomenon of the

global city model (Sassen, 1994).

The world’s top global cities, New York, London, Paris, have long illustrated that pattern

of socio-economic displacement of the poor by the prosperous. Chicago itself has gained world

class status by being able to transform previously distressed neighborhoods into upscale, affluent

areas. Its own Lincoln Park, Lakeview and Old Town residential districts, to only name a few,

have been a by-product of that phenomenon (Brugmann, 2009; Longworth, 2008). While the

process of upgrading large areas of urban land has been seen as a natural progression of

economic development forces, urban scholars have primarily associated that trend with the

ability of the political and economic elites to shape the use of the urban land (Brugmann, 2009;

Magnusson, 1996; Lehrer, 2003; Sassen, 1994).

One of those scholars is Jeb Brugmann. For him, the hurry to conform to the

requirements of the information economy has created an urban design environment dominated

“by expedient deal makers and shifting external pressures” (Brugmann, 2009, p. 157). Under

these circumstances master-planned projects and ad-hoc developments have taken precedence

over any other from of urban development models and, even worse, over the enforcement of a

cohesive and equitable urban design. The poor and the underprivileged, whose dreams of land

ownership are dependent on the promises and mercy of the policy-makers, have witnessed their

goal of integration and social mobility rapidly dissipating in the capitalist society:

6 The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines gentrification as the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the

influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.

Urban models 33

Whole cities and whole regions […] are being re-formed to make them comfortable spaces for the public life of the prosperous. Beside, beneath, and often co-present with

these spaces are other, more constricted spaces that provide for the less prosperous. Homeless people live in every crack and cranny, having been swept from the places of

privilege with ruthless efficiency. (Magnusson, 1996, p. 258) Their homes become the unclaimed (left-over) spaces of the modern cities. Their socio-economic

organizing principle becomes necessity. Their land use model becomes the maximization of

space and density, or what Brugmann (2009) calls, the city-system.

Among the most well known habitats housing the urban poor is the slum. Also referred to

as a shanty town, the slum has always been regarded as the soar-spot of an urban environment,

the place of residence of the disenfranchised and unwanted members of the society and the main

source of criminal behavior (Perlman, 2005; Davis, 2006; Brugmann, 2009).

A bird’s eye view of the slums (as seen below) visually expresses the reason for the long

term stigma associated with their existence: unstable and improvised constructions piled one on

top of the other, narrow roadways, limited to nonexistent vegetation to absorb the pollution

fumes emitted by the never-ending activity, public and common “bathrooms,” and too many

people for life to ever feel relaxing (Jacobson, 2007). To the individual used to the modern

amenities, the lack of water, electricity and proper sanitation associated with the slums make

them the worst possible environment to live in.

In fact, because slums have been considered “breeding grounds” for illicit behavior,

governments have usually opted to brutally erase them off the map instead of finding ways to

integrate them into the local economy. The first known case of slum eradication occurred during

the 19th century redesign of Paris. The grand strategist behind that act was the Baron Georges

Haussmann. Haussmann’s annexation and removal of the poor districts was part of his vision of

transforming the French capital into a visually and structurally-unified urban center (Sutcliffe,

1993, p. 84; Carmona, 2002). Thus, for the City of Lights to be born, the unregulated interaction

Urban models 34

between the urban poor had to be either masked or completely removed from the visible metro

area.

Source: BBC

To government officials, city managers, real-estate developers, businessmen and middle-

to-high-income residents that aspire to have their cities reach the global status, the removal of the

slums from the metro area and their replacement with modern architectural structures can have

nothing but positive consequences. The general approval of the upper social-economic strata

represents a mandate for policy-makers like India’s state chief minister, Vilasrao Deshmukh and

Western-educated architects like Mukesh Mehta, to change the patterns of development of their

troubled cities. And since Mumbai has the largest concentration of poor people in its centrally-

located Dharavi slum, the narrative of India’s urban revolution begins in Mumbai.

Dharavi, like most other slums, traces its roots to the efforts of rural migrants to find

work by settling closer to the urban market environment. Not being able to afford the steep rental

prices of the legal city, the migrants claimed the remaining land to build their residences and

industrial activities. With land prices remaining cheap in the absence of the dwellers’ legal rights

Urban models 35

over it and space being extremely limited, Dharavi witnessed the creation of a unique type of

urban structure: the residential- industrial building. As Jeb Brugmann (2009) suggests, the mixed-

use nature of the slum’s improvised living and working quarters became, over time, the key to its

“density-related competitive advantage[s]”: low transportation costs, “extremely high utilization

rate of property,” and close proximity of suppliers and retailers (p. 98). Eventually, those benefits

allowed Dharavi to increase to an estimated density of “187,000 to 300,000 people per square

kilometer,” all of whom came to Mumbai’s largest slum with hopes of accumulating wealth and

moving up the social ladder (Brugmann, 2009, p. 98).

The “Slum-Free Dharavi” master plan envisioned by the Long Island mansion builder

Mukesh Mehta does not, in the words of his creator, seek to threaten the positive economic

features of the slum. What is attempted in fact is to replace the “subhuman conditions” of the

slum dwellers for the “economic upliftment and empowerment” that would result from bringing

Dharavi up to global city standards (Brugmann, 2009, p. 133).

Transforming Dharavi into a world class suburb, where every slum family would receive

a 225-square feet, two-bedroom apartment in a high-rise, feels anathema to those who believe the

slum’s economic environment s is already world class (Jacobson, 2007, p. 3). Like most global

economies, it is home to “retail shops, warehousing, goods transport, lawyers, accountants,

expediters, hotel and entertainment businesses, health clinics, religious institutions, and local

political organizations” (Brugmann, 2009, p. 95). As a place where nothing goes to waste,

Dharavi has a thriving export-oriented industry and an estimated annual GDP of $1.5 billion

(Brugmann, 2009; Jacobson, 2007; Konerman, 2010). It is an environment unfettered by

regulation, untaxed, and with little or no governmental assistance. It is, by all accounts, a little bit

more than an urban blemish; it is a thriving economic ecosystem.

Urban models 36

Although aware of Dharavi’s amazing diversity and economic autonomy, the forces of

change driven by India’s political and economic elites continue to push onward. Their decision

to completely transform the slum according to accepted global city standards instead of

integrating it in the already well-functioning economic climate demonstrate the struggle taking

place in every urban environment between the international business, top-down city-building

approach and the bottom-up, city-user perspective.

This struggle over the reconstruction of Dharavi is nothing new for elite and global city

theorists who interpret all events by looking at the dynamics of power at play. The former group

sees the policy making environment as the playground of the rich and powerful, to which the

millions of destitute and disenfranchised slum dwellers have no access (Barber, 1995; Mills,

1971). The latter understands the transformation of the urban environment in terms of the

economic elite’s desire to reap the benefits of integration into the world economy. Both of these

perspectives are proven to be true. According to Brugmann (2009), the favorable location of the

slum has given rise to a “perverse market for profitability within the [Indian] government

[expressed through] the corrupt bidding for tenure and development rights, building contracts

and ownership from the powerful bureaucracy” (p. 136). Mumbai’s powerful builder

associations contribute to the pressure to turnover the slum. And, as predicted by the elite

theorists, the resistance of the dwellers to the transformation about to take place does not seem to

matter much. The sixty percent consent that would be required for a project of this scale was

eliminated when state chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh declared Mehta’s plan a government-

sponsored project (Jacobson, 2007, p.3; Konerman, 2010).

Dharavi is not the only example that can shed light on the struggle between the slum

dwellers and the global economic mindset. Brazil, through its Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo

Urban models 37

favelas, “Brazilian term for squatter settlements, shantytowns, or irregular settlements,” has also

displayed the large conflict between the marginalized poor and the social elite (Perlman, 2005, p.

1). According to Janice Perlman (2005), much of that marginalization has resulted from the

stigma associated with the improvised and unsanitary living conditions the poor have created for

themselves. However, continuing to portray Rio de Janeiro’s approximately 1.65 million favela

inhabitants as the “blight of society” skews the policy-making environment in favor of the

middle and upper classes and further perpetuates the socio-economic disparity that leads to the

creation of the slums (Perlman, 2005, p.3).

When looking at the government sponsored-projects devised to improve the living

standards of the urban slum residents, one can’t help but notice their misguided rationale and

often elitist nature. To begin with, labeling the slums as “subhuman” neighborhoods” completely

denies the grass-roots socio-economic progress taking place there: 1) nearly every household in

Dharavi and the Rio de Janeiro favelas now has access to water and electricity as well as modern

amenities such as television sets; 2) not all the homes are structurally improvised and made out

of stucco; many are made out of “brick and mortar and two stories high or more”; 3) there are

well-established internal markets for both real-estate and entertainment services, which replicate

the “legal” environment but at a fraction of the cost (Perlman, 2005; Jacobson, 2007; Brugmann,

2009).

By most accounts though, the architects and developers redesigning the future of the

slums believe that their Western-inspired city models will only enhance the living standards of

the current residents without harming their well-established ways of production and social

interaction. That is very unlikely. Given Mukesh Mehta’s focus on the creation of a thriving

consumerist society by moving Dharavi residents into apartment towers surrounded by plazas

Urban models 38

and shopping malls, it is hard to imagine how people making enough to barely survive in the big

city would be able to afford the inflated prices of modern markets (Brugmann, 2009). Moreover,

removing polluting manufacturing industries away from the residential areas would strike at the

most important comparative advantages Dharavi has to offer: constant land use and proximity to

resources.

Mehta’s inability to map out the overall effects of his plans has led to a serious debate

regarding the future sustainability of Mumbai. Those opposing the Dharavi redevelopment

project cite the ineffectiveness of similar decisions in places like Rio de Janeiro. According to

Janice Perlman’s (2005) study for the World Bank, the eradication of the favelas in the 1970s

and their replacement with high rises only worsened the livelihood of the poor (p. 6). Mike Davis

(2006) strengthens that view by pointing out to comparable policies in China and Thailand where

the governments’ decision to build houses for the poor too far away from their jobs further

exacerbated those countries’ social inequalities.

By the 1990s and early 2000s Brazilian authorities acknowledged the counter-

productiveness of their early policies and replaced them with socially- inclusive ones. Thus,

instead of resorting to relocating and evicting the slum residents, the Rio de Janeiro government

opted to grant residents legal land titles in the hope of transforming the favelas into “more stable,

lawful, sanitary, mixed-use neighborhoods” (Brugmann, 2009, p. 138). Perlman’s (2005)

decision to return to the favelas decades after her initial study was published allowed her to

witness first-hand the positive impact those later policies had on the overall status of the poor.

Among the most powerful conclusions she came away with was that “contrary to prevailing

wisdom, living in a favela [was] no longer synonymous with living in poverty” (Perlman, 2005,

p. 7). And if the Indian authorities and Mukesh Mehta relinquished their desire to copy the global

Urban models 39

city model step by step, they would also see that Dharavi, much like Rio’s favelas, was a little bit

more than a collection of poor and destitute individuals.

British scholar Thomas Malthus looked upon the messiness of the industrial urban

environment and predicted that the continued growth of the world population would rapidly

become unsustainable. As technology advanced, however, his prediction did not come true.

Currently, 3.5 million people live in the world’s cities. According to the United Nations

Development Program that number is expected to double by the year 2050 (Brugmann, 2009).

Most of that growth will occur in developing nations, where birth rates are significantly higher

than in the developed countries. With the poor expected to contribute the largest percent of

people to the urban environment, slums are projected to increase at a higher rate then the rest of

the city population (Davis, 2006). Scholars interpret those numbers to mean that the current

destruction of independently economic ecosystems like Dharavi in search of the global city

model will have significant consequences on the overall sustainability of the global economic

environment. Jacobson (2007) worded that insight best: “Indeed, on a planet where half of

humanity will soon live in cities, the forces at work in Dharavi serve as a window not only on the

future of India's burgeoning cities, but on urban space everywhere” (p.1). That is a conclusion

many Dharavi residents and supporters would like their government, and the world at large, to

see.

III. Economic sustainability of the two models: The lessons of the Great Recession

The Great Recession (2007-2010) has brought into sharp focus questions regarding the

sustainability of the current international economic system. Based on the capitalist principles of

free markets, flexible currencies and privatization, and driven by transnational corporations and

Urban models 40

banks, the newest financial crisis showed that the unchecked “invisible hand”7 moving economic

activity could lead to a complete meltdown.

While there are different schools of thoughts dominating the policy-making environment

of capitalist nations, among the most widely used theoretical framework belongs to British

economist John Maynard Keynes. Known for coining the phrase “In the long run we’re all dead”

Keynes suggested that economic downturns are caused by shifts in aggregate demand – “whether

from changes in spending by businesses on new capital, spending by consumers, government

spending, or spending on exports by foreigners” (Croushore, 2007, p. 297). Therefore, in order to

prevent, or recover from, the overall decline in business activity Keynesian economists stressed

the importance of governments’ use of short-term expansionary monetary policies, which relied

on the increase of monetary supply to lower interest rates and encourage new borrowing and

spending. If left unchanged for long periods of time, however, expansionary policies would

distort markets much in the same way any inflexible policy would.

The recent collapse of the American financial system, which has severely impacted the

stability of the international economy, is believed to have resulted from overinvestment,

speculation and expansionary monetary policies. Low interest rates and easy loan terms led to

unprecedented investments in the real estate market, especially by sub-prime consumers.

Financial institutions, encouraged by large inflows of foreign funds, held most of their assets

attached to sub-prime mortgages (Devine, 2010). Once interest rates increased and borrowers

found it increasingly harder to pay off their loans, the value of the securities tied to the real estate

market plummeted and financial giants like Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman

Brothers, AIG, Citigroup were either nationalized or received substantial government bailout

7 Term coined by Adam Smith in his ground-breaking book The wealth of nations to refer to the self-regulating

nature of economic markets.

Urban models 41

packages. The financial fall of Wall Street’s corporate heroes unveiled to the American citizens

and the entire world the structural fragility of the capitalist system.

As the apex of the real estate market the skyscraper (or the high-rise) is “the great

architectural contribution of modern capitalistic society and […] one of the yardsticks for

twentieth-century superheroes” (Thornton, 2005, p. 51). For some scholars, the connection

between the construction booms that give birth to the high rises and the economic downfalls that

occur after their erection is directly connected to the behavior of the corporate actors. In 1999, to

better explore the link between business cycles and skyscraper construction, Andrew Lawrence

created the skyscraper index (Thornton. 2005, p.51)

While assuming that financial speculative practices and overinvestment were among the

main indicators for the index, Andrew Lawrence did not explore these issues to great depth.

Mark Thornton (2005), however, starting from where Lawrence left off, was able to correlate the

completion of a record-breaking skyscraper to the immediately-following periods of economic

turmoil through the application of the so-called “Cantillon effects.” Named after economist

Richard Cantillon, the Cantillon effects describe how expansionary monetary policies,

specifically increasing the money supply and lowering the interest rate below the levels the

market forces would have naturally established, “raises the prices of long term capital goods”

(Thornton, 2006, p. 59). Cheaper borrowing rates incentivize investors to allocate resources short

term even for projects that have a longer life span, such as skyscrapers. Thornton (2005)

explains those patterns of behavior.

First, a period of “easy money” leads to a rapid expansion of the economy and a boom in the stock market. In particular, the relatively easy availability of credit fuels a substantial

increase in capital expenditures. Capital expenditures flow in the direction of new technologies which in turn creates new industries and transforms some existing industries

in terms of their structure and technology. This is when the world’s tallest buildings are begun. (p. 58)

Urban models 42

The eventual self-adjustment of the market, whether caused by a rise in prices to the increased

demands for goods or the central bank’s inflation-prevention measures, can cause panic in the

financial markets. Under these conditions, owners of capital goods may be facing significant

losses and could even default on their loans.

While this paper is not interested in proving the accuracy of the skyscraper index, it can

attest, through several examples, to the positive correlation observed between the timeline of

skyscraper construction and the flux in business cycles. The current economic collapse of Dubai,

who announced its inability to pay off over $100 billion in foreign loans immediately after the

completion of the world’s highest building, the Burj Khalifa, is a perfect example of the pattern

of financial booms and busts that dominate investment markets.

The poster-child for luxury and capital investment, Dubai took advantage of the world-

wide credit expansion to build the perfect global city image: imposing, innovative structures –

like the Burj Khalifa and the Palm Jumeira – meant to attract the corporate actors and their

educated workforce. It got what it wanted. Lured by the image of a fast-growing economy,

foreigners invaded Dubai and began to consume its Western-inspired goods – luxury hotels,

malls, high-rise apartments. By the time the crisis hit, an estimated ninety percent of Dubai’s

population was foreign (Worth, 2009). Having build an economy overly reliant on tourism,

banking and real-estate, Dubai was unable to survive the 2008 credit market turmoil unharmed.

With more than $100 billion owned by state-owned development firms, Dubai declared its

inability to pay back its creditors. As an immediate consequence, the companies that had initially

attracted the foreign workforce started engaging in massive lay-offs. And while it is uncertain

how many people actually lost their jobs due to the Dubai government’s refusal to disclose any

data that might harm its reputation, foreign correspondents’ descriptions of Dubai looking like a

Urban models 43

“ghost town” or the thousands of cars abandoned at the Dubai airport by people who couldn’t

pay off their debt tell a powerful story (Worth, 2009; Davidson, 2008). Indeed, even what was

initially the ultimate symbol of Dubai’s independence from its sister emirates’ oil-based

economies, the Burj Dubai became the Burj Khalifa as a sign of appreciation to the Abu Dhabi

ruler who rescued the city-state from bankruptcy (Davidson, 2008).

Dubai, enticed by the wealth and power of global cities, embarked in the first years of the

21st century upon the journey of transforming itself into one. Like many other cities competing in

the global economy Dubai made the correlation between the look of the global city –

predominantly expressed by tall, imposing buildings – and its economic benefits (inflow of

foreign capital, tourism, and the “creative class” needed to run the city). With the skyscraper

having become the “critical nexus of the administration of modern global capitalism and

commerce where decisions are made and transmitted throughout the capitalist system,” the

Dubai ruling dynasty could not apply the global city model without building its largest symbol

(Thornton, 2005). Thus, at a projected cost of $20 billion, fully decorated by Giorgio Armani and

hosting a mix of apartments, malls and hotels, the Burj Khalifa was designed to demonstrate

Dubai’s commitment to become one of the world’s leading cities (Davidson, 2008).

Global investors initially glorified Dubai for turning its urban environment into the

perfect “oasis” for the lavish lifestyle of corporate employees. However, once credit markets

tightened and Dubai announced its inability to pay-off its creditors, analysts began blaming

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum for using Dubai’s resources on megalomaniacal

projects.

Dubai’s fall exposed one of the main structural inefficiencies associated with the

implementation of the global city model, which is the desire to build an urban environment

Urban models 44

meant to support the industries of the newest era of globalization – services, banking and real-

estate. The main problem with a city’s overreliance on these new growth sectors has to do with

the “speculative activity” that has resulted from the “transformation of various types of financial

assets and debts into marketable instruments” (Sassen, 1994, p. 6). Sassen (1994) explains what

that process entails:

The 1980s saw the invention of numerous ways to securitize debts. An agent can bundle a large number of mortgages and sell the bundle many times, even though the number of

houses involved stays the same. This option is basically not available in manufacturing. The good is made and sold; once it enters the realm of circulation, it enters another set of

industries, or sector of the economy, and the profits from subsequent sales accrue to those sectors. (p. 18)

Although technological progress is continually responsible for the polarization of economic

sectors along profit-making capabilities, Sassen (1994) points out that the securitization process

dominating the current information economy can cause “massive distortions in the operations of

various markets, from housing to labor” (p.6). The events leading up to the Great Recession

(highlighted at the beginning of this section) and the recent release of information that points to

Goldman Sachs’ invention of an index “which has no purpose, which is absolutely conceptual

and highly theoretical and which nobody knows how to price” illustrates the high level of

speculative activity existing in today’s capital markets (The Associated Press, 2010).

Another lesson to be learned from Dubai’s financial meltdown is that designing an urban

center for visitors and the foreign workforce, instead of trying to enhance the local economic

advantages is not as soundproof of a policy as originally believed. In a global economic climate

where each city has built its image with the specific purpose of attracting as much foreign

income as possible, Dubai has also sought to diversify its economy by strengthening its tourism

economic sector. However, unlike its competitors, Dubai has tried to sidestep the profit pitfalls

that characterize seasonal industries by designing projects that specifically cater to the upper

Urban models 45

global strata. With indoor skiing slopes, water parks, island properties and high-rise apartments,

Dubai became by 2009 the second most visited Arabic country outside of Egypt (Walid, 2009).

However, the economic downturn did not spare Dubai’s booming tourism industry. With

increased unemployment levels in most developed nations, corporate bankruptcies and overall

decreased leisure budgets, Dubai hotels witnessed an activity slowdown of 16.7% in the first

quarter of 2009 (Walid, 2009). As of May 2010, the Financial Times reported that Dubai

investment business registered a loss of $562 million in 2009 (Kerr, 2010).

Dubai, as demonstrated above, is a clear representation of one of the two discernible

patterns threatening the sustainability of the global city, namely the very vulnerable nature of an

economy overly-reliant on banking, real-estate, and tourism. The second pattern is its identity as

a “landscape of power” (Sassen, 1994). Chicago, while hailed for its amazing transformation

from a manufacturing to a service-based economy, displays the second characteristic very well.

Chicago’s worldwide reputation dates farther back than the global city literature. As one

of America’s largest Midwestern cities, Chicago became famous during the industrial era and, by

the start of the twentieth century, was able to claim the title of one of the world’s ten largest

cities (Brugmann, 2009, p. 251). While its residents believed in the ability of the city to outlast

any major financial shocks, the global economic shift from heavy manufacturing to service-

based production caught Chicago off guard and brought it to its knees. With industrial jobs

disappearing one by one, the city lost its former vitality and glitz and became by the mid-1970s

one of the many Midwestern centers to be considered part of the Rust Belt (Longworth, 2008, p.

144).

Today Chicago regularly tops the list of global cities. Boasting a thriving business

district, many tourist attractions, prestigious universities, good restaurants, museums and an

Urban models 46

energetic nightlife, the city has managed to put its manufacturing slump behind and impress even

those who did not believe in its revival (Longworth, 2008, p.144). In order to build the high-

value industries worthy of a global city status, Chicago’s mayor Richard M. Daley spent most of

the city’ s finances on creating the amenities that would draw in “the rich and the brainy” – like

the “gigantic undertaking of theaters, fountains, promenades, gardens [and] sculptures” known as

the Millennium Park (Longworth, 2008, p.146). Certainly, the efforts of the “Daley political

machine” worked: overall Chicagoans are doing well, living in nice houses, in safe

neighborhoods, performing high-value jobs (Longworth, 2008, p.150). However, as journalist

Richard Longworth (2008) illustrates, not everybody’s living standards have increased as a result

of the city’s economic evolution:

[…] many Chicagoans live worse than ever in the old ghettos or, worse, are being shoved by gentrification out of the ghettos into destitute inner-ring suburbs: the old housing

projects, lying in the path of the Loop’s expansion, are knocked down and their inhabitants scattered to the civic winds. (p. 150)

These people are the have-nots of Chicago and every other global city, the ones who perform the

low-end jobs created by the global corporate culture and the ones who lack the education and

skills needed to become significant members of the information economy.

Global city scholar Saskia Sassen (1994) has argued repeatedly that it is impossible to

discuss the socio-economic sustainability of the global city model without addressing the

“narrative of eviction” that this model creates at the urban level (p. 6). The power differential

between the individuals who are actively involved in the decision-making processes of the global

city and those who are not is primarily a product of the operational framework set-up to meet the

needs of corporate actors, as Sassen (1994) explains:

The information economy […] favors information outputs over the workers producing those outputs, from specialists to secretaries; and favors the new transnational corporate

culture over the multiplicity of cultural environments, including reterritorialized immigrant cultures within which many of the ‘other’ jobs of the global information

Urban models 47

economy take place. In brief, the dominant narrative concerns itself with the upper circuits of capital, not the lower ones. (p.7)

Charles Wright Mills (1971), writing thirty years earlier, observed the same landscape of power

highlighted by Sassen (1994) and feared that the continuous push of political and economic elites

to divide the urban environment in a way that only suited their needs, with little concern for the

fate of those it displaced, would eventually create an environment ridden by social inequalities

and unrest. Benjamin Barber (1995) more than agreed with Mills. His book, entitled Jihad vs

McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world traced the transnational

influence of corporations and witnessed that their repeated application of profit-oriented policies

led to the creation of powerful economic rifts that endangered the very stability of the democratic

system the markets relied upon.

The policies seeking the removal of the slums, instead of their integration, demonstrate

where the economic struggle is taking place in the global city. In Mumbai, the land of the

Dharavi slum is believed to be prime real-estate for both developers and the growing middle

class. Former Long Island mansion developer Mukesh Mehta, upon his return to Mumbai, started

sharing the frustrations of the local government and business elites who believed the slums “were

choking the life out of the city, robbing it of its rightful place in the 21st century” (Jacobson,

2007, p 3). That “rightful place”, following the patterns of economic integration set in motion by

the corporate actors, was to become a model consumer society (Jacobson, 2007, p 3).

As global city and elite theorists had predicted, the policy-making environment of a

metropolis committed to the global city model would predominantly reflect the interests of the

business class. And Mumbai is no exception to that observation: the Dharavi dwellers have no

legal rights over the land they inhabit, the government’s sponsorship of the redevelopment plan

means that a majority’s approval is not required for it to be enforced, and the project is be

Urban models 48

implemented by local developers who, in exchange, will be granted the right to build for-profit

housing on the unoccupied, slum-free land (Brugmann, 2009; Jacobson, 2007).

Like most other master-planned projects, the redevelopment of Dharavi is justified in

terms of density alleviation and economic growth. Mehta expects the area’s redesign to lead to

the expansion of India’s middle class (Jacobson, 2007, p. 2). Having met Mukesh Mehta, Jeb

Brugmann (2009) does not dispute his good intentions, but he does point out Mehta’s inability to

predict the full extent of his project’s consequences. And transforming Dharavi’s economically

self-sufficient system into a dependent, shopping-based urban environment will have a

significant impact on the Indian urban landscape. Some of the problems that come to mind are:

1) how are people who can barely afford slum-type luxury supposed to function in the capitalist,

middle-class economic environment?; 2) with manufacturing sites removed to different areas of

the city, where will the poorly educated slum residents find employment?; 3) given the United

Nations’ population statistics, which predict a doubling of the urban population by the year 2050,

will Mumbai’s redesign increase its ability to accommodate the huge influx of people, most of

them coming from poor backgrounds?; 4) while Dharavi currently boasts a very positive balance

of trade, due to its constant resource recycling practices, how will living in high-rises affect the

slum dwellers’ production patterns?; 5) and ultimately, will disrupting an environment that has

well-established cultural, financial, social and healthcare systems eventually force the

government to supply some of those services (and can the government afford to take on that

responsibility)? (Brugmann, 2009; United Nations, 2010)

As the Dharavi case illustrates, the inability of top-down urban designers to fully

understand the multifaceted effects of their projects can lead to the appearance of inefficient and

increasingly polarized urban environments. The global city model in particular, with its “focus

Urban models 49

on volumes of production, sales turnover, and the pressing need to rapidly expand the

burgeoning landscape” rather than on the development of an equitable urban culture, can threaten

the precarious socio-economic balance that cities need to thrive (Brugmann, 2009, p.131).

IV. Socio-cultural sustainability: The effects of the megaproject

For any resident of the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago, alleyways are a

convenient and indispensable urban asset that seems to accommodate the unpredictable nature of

human beings: pedestrians use them as shortcuts, especially during the cold winter months, they

provide a way for cars to move around when streets are closed or traffic is congested and can be

reliable u-turn and stationing spots, minimizing the need for double parking. They represent

everything urban design should be about: simplicity, catering to the end-users, and livability.

The sustainability of cities cannot, therefore, be confined to their economic dimension. Because

they are the places where human connections happen, where communities are formed and ideas

are born, the urban space needs to be evaluated in terms of its ability to encourage those key

functions.

Architecture is the instrument through which cities display the socio-cultural constructs

upon which they are founded. Conversely, the architectural choices differentiating one urban

center from another decide the type of human interaction the urban designers had in mind. The

shift from an industrial-based production process to an information economy brought about

significant changes in the architectural look of cities. Embracing the dictates of modern design

and the technological advances of the construction industry, Western urban elites passionately

adopted the glitzy and rich look of the megaproject, in particular the skyscrapers.

The fascination of the human mind with megaprojects dates as far back as antiquity.

Whether such structures still remain standing, like the Pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge and the

Urban models 50

statues of Easter Island, or have their existence confirmed only in writing, like the Tower of

Babel, they all represent a blueprint of their times and values. The fascination they inspire has

not faded. Indeed, advances in engineering and construction materials have given way to a

myriad of megaprojects that, in an increasingly global world, are meant to promote the image

and reputation of their host town.

Throughout history, every civilization has celebrated its military, political or economic

dominance through the building of grand, iconic architectural monuments. The Colosseum, the

Dome of Florence, the Tower of London, the Versailles Palace, and the Schonbrun Palace are

only some of the edifices that bear such iconic stature. Products of indisputably different cultures

and times, all of them differ in appearance and feel. Today’s iconic structures, however, are not

quite so distinctive. Built out of steel and glass they are the pure representation of global

economic development forces and therefore less of a symbol of the individual cultural

environments they are part of. Benjamin Barber (1995) tracks down the global identity of these

structures, which he labels with the term “McWorld,” to the glitzy, media-and commercially-

driven American cities: “McWorld is a product of popular culture driven by expansionist

commerce. Its template is American, its form and style. Its goods are as much images as

material, an aesthetic as well as a product line. It is about culture as commodity, apparel as

ideology” (p.7). When considering the largest mega-structures today (portrayed below), and the

Burj Khalifa, it is impossible to refute Bradley’s point.

Urban models 51

Source: Emporis 2010

Burj Khalifa, currently the tallest building in the world, was designed by the famous

architect group Skidmore Owings and Merrill in 2004. Home of a mall with 1,200 retail outlets,

the Burj is credited with having created 10,000 jobs in downtown Dubai and bringing in almost

three million visitors a month. Because of those amazing results it is said that the construction of

Burj Khalifa has immediately placed Dubai on the global cities map. However, like most other

tall buildings made out of steel and glass, the only thing “its smooth surfaces suggest [is] the

sleek impersonality of money power” (Friedmann & Wolff, 1982, p.64).

Since in today’s competitive global economy, the “image of being global” is as important

as “being global,” most other megaprojects have been commissioned and designed with that

specific goal in mind (Charney, p. 196). Taipei 101 (in Taiwan), designed by C.Y. Lee &

Partners, and the Petronas Twin Towers (in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia) designed by Argentine-

American architect Cesar Pelli, were definitely a reflection of those countries’ desire for global

economic prestige. And given that international prestige often translates in increased investor

confidence, tourism and increased flows of foreign income, cities in the developed world are in a

hurry to copy the McWorld look.

Megaprojects, while enhancing a city’s brand and therefore its economic potential, do

Urban models 52

pose serious issues for developers, policymakers and even the city’s design as a whole. The

construction on the Chicago Spire has been postponed due to financial difficulties faced by Irish

developer Garrett Kelleher. The Burj Khalifa developer, with all the brand promotion

surrounding the building, has recently announced its inability to pay its loans. More important

than the financial troubles of the developers, however, are the way these megaprojects change

the socio-economic layout of the urban environment. Developing this contested space argument,

Friedmann and Worff (1982) suggest that

In its internal spatial structure, the world city may be divided into the “citadel” and the “ghetto”. Its geography is typically one of inequality and class domination. The citadel serves the specific needs of the transnational elites and their immediate retinues who rule

the city’s economic life, the ghetto is adapted to the circumstances of the permanent underclass. (p.64)

This particular socio-economic dichotomy resulted from the promotion of one type of

architecture over others can be a double edged sword for policymakers: on the one hand,

subsidizing the construction of mega-projects might initially seem like a good idea when trying

to promote the image of a global city to attract foreign investment; on the other hand, embracing

the creation of a sterile urban environment that does not represent their constituencies’ social and

cultural values could result in decreased urban vitality, or even worse, in social unrest brought

about by claims of governmental discrimination (Brugmann, 2009).

The building of Putrajaya in Kuala Lampur, and the plans to completely erase Mumbai’s

Dharavi slum off the map and replace it with high-rise buildings are two examples of Asian

leaders (Malaysian prime minister Mahatir Mohamad and India’s state chief minister, Vilasrao

Deshmukh) rushing to copy the Western “world class” look without truly understanding what

drives economic development. These leaders’ inability to manage growth in a way that reflects

their countries’ cultural values is reflected in the final product. In the case of Putrajaya, as

Brugmann (2009) states, “there is nothing truly Malaysian in it. For all it’s novelty, it disengages

Urban models 53

the Malaysian citizens from the basic purpose of any city: as a place to advance strategies of

their own making” (p. 115). Thus, in the rush to copy the Western urban look so as to receive the

economic rewards associated with it, Malaysian authorities have opted for development without

national identity. As far as the state-authorized destruction of Dharavi is concerned, fueled by the

belief that the slum only embodies the uncivilized, unsanitary and overcrowded aspects of the

Indian society, policymakers will make the mistake of destroying a truly productive,

independent, organically built economic ecosystem (Brugmann, 2009). And given the predicted

increase in urban population in the next twenty-five years, the Mumbai state government’s

decision to organize urban life according to an idealistic set of ideas instead of letting people

congregate in the most mutually advantageous way might prove to be the wrong socio-economic

bet:

As Mumbai’s economy is (re)opened to transnational capital investment through liberalization policies, its homegrown cosmopolitanism, which allowed diverse groups to

live together in relative harmony, is increasingly replaced by a repressive, exclusionary and parochial politics of ethnicity, religion and ‘race.’ (Brenner & Keil, p.249)

This is elite theorist Charles Mills’s worst fear come true: that the new corporate minority will

promote its interests at the expense of the majority, which will end up being economically and

spatially marginalized from the decision-making environment. This in turn would create deep

socio-economic rifts that could only be resolved through conflict (Eldridge, 1983; Barber, 1995).

Brugmann (2009) himself states in several instances that the decision of national and city

elites to “‘benchmark’ themselves to elusive global standards, champion foreign city models, and

abandon legacies rather than adapt them to today’s challenges” leads to the creation of an urban

culture that is not about bringing people together in the most mutually-beneficial way or

enhancing an area’s comparative advantages (p. 138). And while the slums are not the best

places to live in from a sanitary, modern amenities perspective, they do represent a more organic

Urban models 54

form of city-building, where progress happens and everything gets built by the people, for the

people.

V. Conclusion: The intersection between the global city and the slum

The economies of scale at work in the urban environment continue to bring products,

people and ideas together because “once settled in cities, even the most marginalized

populations, under the most totalitarian regimes, can leverage urban density, scale, association,

and extension to build their own economies, wealth, power, and political alliances” (Norquist,

1998; Brugmann, 2009, p. 55). The birth of the information economy has only increased the

importance of cities as points of command for the financial and communication networks,

creating in term what is known today as global cities (Sassen, 1994).

As many scholars have attested to, the global city is a highly complex and socially

differentiated space. The rich have efficiently claimed their territory and pushed the poor to the

margins. Lured by the wealth, glamour and power of the global city image, cities all over the

world have started changing their urban landscape in order to attract the main players of the

information economy: corporations and the educated labor force needed to run them.

The global city model, which attempts to shape the urban environment so as to reproduce

for corporations and banks the same business conditions they enjoy in the developed countries,

can increase the socio-economic polarization of the cities where it is implemented. Because of

that, the global city model coexists with the city-system model – bottom-up approach to city

building that focuses on enhancing the unique advantage of urban centers – and cannot be

analyzed in its absence.

The skyscraper or the high-rise, “as the critical nexus of the administration of the modern

economy,” is the main contribution of the global city model to the urban scenery of cities

Urban models 55

worldwide (Thornton, 2005, p.1). While their construction is justified in terms of space

maximization in places where property prices continue to soar and population density is

extremely high, skyscrapers are built by the rich for the rich. A look at the cities that have the

highest number of high-rises per capita might hint that the space maximization incentive behind

the construction of skyscrapers is not the main one explaining their existence.

Source: Emporis 2010

Indeed, as “economic, technological and ecological forces […] press nations into one

homogenous theme park, one McWorld tied together by communications, information,

entertainment, and commerce” skyscrapers become the perfect places to house all those activities

(Barber, 1992, p.2).

Most High-rises per Population

# City Population Buildings Avg People per Building

1 Benidorm 67,627 386 175

2 Balneário Camboriú 94,344 252 374

3 Gurgaon 173,542 330 525

4 North Sydney 56,547 107 528

5 Miami Beach 84,633 148 571

6 Santos 418,288 601 695

7 Macao 453,733 560 810

8 Honolulu 374,676 436 859

9 Hong Kong 6,943,600 7,682 903

10 Vitória 314,042 336 934

11 Arlington 217,483 229 949

12 Vancouver 613,094 628 976

13 Singapore 4,351,400 4,359 998

14 Campinas 1,039,297 931 1,116

15 Londrina 497,833 428 1,163

16 Bilbao 354,145 302 1,172

17 Santa Cruz de Tenerife 221,567 172 1,288

18 Cádiz 130,561 100 1,305

19 Alacant 322,673 242 1,333

20 Fort Lauderdale 183,126 135 1,356

21 Toronto 2,503,281 1,803 1,388

22 Recife 1,533,580 1,101 1,392

23 Gijón 274,472 194 1,414

24 Miami 413,201 291 1,419

25 Netanya 169,400 119 1,423

Urban models 56

As Barber (1995) so accurately points out, the type of architecture symbolic of the

patterns of power can only express the culture of money. Global city architecture, while built for

residential as well as commercial purposes, does not try to cater to the middle and lower strata of

society. A good example is provided by the Trump International Hotel and Tower. As the newest

addition to Chicago’s skyline, the tower has apartments available for purchase. However, at the

price of $952,000 for a one-bedroom apartment, the resident market Donald Trump is trying to

cater to, even in an affluent city like Chicago, has to boast at least an upper-middle class income

(Trump International Hotel and Tower, 2010).

Choosing global integration and prestige over the development of a unique type of city-

building model that embraces an area’s advantages has created several, distinct global urban

patterns: 1) socio-economic rifts became accentuated by gentrification practices; 2) vibrant

migrant communities have been, or are in the process of being evacuated from valuable urban

land that can be used to promote tourism and foreign direct investment; 3) the new urban

architecture caters to the upper classes of society and produces an economy dependent on capital

markets and foreign income; 4) buildings are no longer representative of local tastes and values,

but reflect instead the global corporate culture.

Perhaps the most significant effect of a global urban culture created by and for the elites

is that it systematically limits the ability of lower classes to reap the fruits of urban

agglomeration. The perpetuation of this socio-economic imbalance through the construction of

high-rises and shopping malls invites different scholars to predict an impending class conflict

and the demise of the democratic system (Mills, 1971, Barber, 1995; Perlman, 2005). And even

though further research is needed to shed more light on this issue, it is certain that failing to

create urban development policies as a practical response to the issues confronting the metro

Urban models 57

areas of the world – decreased public safety, equity, the enhancement of cultural values, and the

promotion of diversity – can lead to an increasingly frail global politico-economic system.

Urban models 58

References

1. Anonymous. (2006). Life in a slum. BBC Online. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ shared/spl/hi/ world/06/dharavi_slum/html/dharavi_slum_intro.stm

2. Anonymous (2008, Oct. 15). The 2008 global cities index. Foreign Policy Journal Online. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/10/15/the_2008_global _cities_index

3. Barber, B. R. (1995) Jihad vs McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

4. Barber, B. R. (1992). Jihad vs McWorld. The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/3882/

5. Boschken, H. L. (2007, Aug. 30). Global cities: What are they and why should they matter to

urban politics?" American Political Science Association. Retrieved from http://www.all academic.com/meta /p211194_index.html

6. Brenner, N & Keil, R. “Introduction to part five.” The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge.

7. Brugmann, J. (2009). Welcome to the urban revolution: How cities are changing the world.

New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press. 8. Carmona, M. (2002). Haussmann: His life and times and the making of modern Paris.

Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee. 9. Chu, H. (2008, Sep. 8). Where every inch counts. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from

http://articles. latimes.com/2008/sep/08/world/fg-dharavi8

10. Cohen, R. B. (1981). The new international division of labor, multinational corporations and urban hierarchy. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil. London:

Routledge. 11. Croushore, D. (2007). Money and banking: A policy-oriented approach. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

12. Davis, P. (2006). Planet of the slums. New York, NY: New Left Books. 13. Davidson, C. M. (2008). Dubai: The vulnerability of success. London: Hurst & Co.

14. Devine, J. G. (April 2010). The great financial crisis: Causes and consequences. Science & Society, 74 (2): 259-262.

15. Doucet, C. (2007). Urban meltdown: Cities, climate change and politics as usual. Gabriola

Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. 16. Eldridge, J. (1983). Key sociologists: C. Wright Mills. London: Tavistock Publications.

17. Farzad, R. (2010, April 01). Goldman Sachs: Don’t blame us. Business Week Online. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_15/b4173030234603.htm

18. Feiock, R. C., Moon, M. J. & Park, H. J. (2007). Is the World Flat or ‘Spiky’? Rethinking the

Governance Implications of Globalization for Economic Development. Public Administrative Review, 68: 24-35.

19. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York, NY: Routledge. 20. Friedman, J., & Wolff, G. (1982). World city formation: An agenda for research and action.

The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge.

21. Friedman, T. R. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the Twenty-First century. 22. Grant, R., & Nijman, J. Globalization and the corporate geography in the less developed

world. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge.

Urban models 59

23. Goetz, E. & Kayser, T. (February 1993). Competition and cooperation in economic development: A study of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Economic Development

Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 1, 63-78 24. Haila, A. (1997). The neglected builder of global cities. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil

Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge. 25. Hamilton, D. (2002). Regimes and regional governance: The case of Chicago. Journal of

Urban Affairs, vol. 24, no. 4, 403-423.

26. Hines, T. S. (1979). Burnham of Chicago: Architect and planner. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

27. Hunter, F. (1953). Community power structure: A study of decision makers. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

28. Jacobson, M. (2007). Mumbai’s shadow city: Some call the Dharavi slum an embarrassing

eyesore in the middle of India’s financial capital. Its residents call it home. National Geographic Online. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/dharavi-

mumbai-slum/jacobson-text 29. Johnson, E. W. (2001). Chicago Metropolis 2020: The Chicago plan for the twenty-first

century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

30. Kantor, P. (2007, Mar. 29). Globalization and the American Model of Urban Development: Making the Market. Métropoles, Retrieved from http://metropoles.revues.org/

document68.html. 31. Kerr, S. (2010, May 3). Dubai investment business hit by $562m loss. Financial Times.

Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0b63386-5649-11df-b835-00144feab49a.html

32. Kindon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

33. Konerman, L. (Director). (2010). Dharavi, slum for sale [Documentary]. Switzerland: Tradewind Pictures.

34. Lehrer, U. (2003). Willing the global city: Berlin’s cultural strategies of inter-urban

competition after 1989. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge.

35. Longworth, R. C. (2008). Caught in the middle: America’s heartland in the age of globalism. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

36. Magnusson, W. (1996). The global city as world order. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil

Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge 37. Marcuse, P. (1999). Space in the globalizing city. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil

Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge. 38. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com

/dictionary/SLUM

39. Mills, C. W. (1971). The power elite. London: Oxford University Press. 40. Norquist, J. O. (1998). The wealth of cities: Revitalizing the centers of American life.

Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. 41. Passanti, F. (1987). The skyscrapers of the Ville Contemporaine. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/ pss/3171035

42. Perlman, J. E. (2005, Mar. 24). The myth of marginality revisited: The case of favelas in Rio de Janeiro, 1969-2003. World Bank Group. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org/urban/

symposium 2005/papers/perlman.pdf

Urban models 60

43. Rawsthorn, A. (2010, Jan. 31). Debating Sustainability. New York Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/arts/01iht-design1.html?pagewanted

=2&sq=curitiba& st=cse&scp=1 44. Robinson, P. A. (Director). (1989). Field of Dreams. [Movie]. United States: Gordon

Company. 45. Rodriquez, N. & Feagin, J. R. (1986). Urban specialization in the world system: An

investigation of historical cases. The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil.

London: Routledge 46. Sassen, S. (1994). Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

47. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

48. Siddiqi, M. (2010). The BRICs not the First World, spearheaded global recovery. African

Business, 363:50-52. 49. Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making globalization work. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

50. Smith, M. P. (2001). The global cities discourse: A return to the master narrative? The Global Cities Reader. Eds. Neil Brenner and Roger Keil. London: Routledge.

51. Sutcliffe, A. (1993). Paris: An architectural history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

52. The Associated Press. (2010, Apr. 16). SEC says Goldman Sachs Defrauded Investors. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.

php?storyId=126046693&ps=rs 53. Thornton, M. (Spring 2005). Skyscrapers and business cycles. The Quarterly Journal of

Austrian Economics, 8 (1): 51-74.

54. Thornton, M. (2006). Cantillon on the cause of the business cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 9 (3): 45-60.

55. Trump International Hotel and Tower. (2010). Retrieved from www.trumpchicago.com 56. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. http://data.un.org/ 57. Walid, T. (2009, May 18). Dubai tourism sees hotel guest nights fall 16% in Q109. Arabian

Business. Retrieved from http://www.arabianbusiness.com/556039-dubai-tourism-sees-hotel-guest-nights- fall-16-in-q109-

58. Worth, R. F (2009, Feb 11). Laid-off foreigners flee as Dubai spirals down. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/middleeast/12dubai.html