Mid America and Caribbean Primate City Dominance - 1 major port per colony

Caribbean
legacy of plantation
1. Historical - transhipment ctr of plant econ 1. modern Caribbean - tourism + importation

2. Colonial - grid pattern, fortress, admin district 2. waterfront tourist scape + arprt (no ind or cbd)

3. Primate City Dominance 3. low skyline, urban sprawl

primate city under great pressure from rur-urb migration

immigration from western countries (retirement) -> urban sprawl

Mid-America
strong Pre-columbian urban tradition
Spanish royal ord – central square, grid, church, city hall -> great impact on modern cities
City center most desirable, high RE value
Mid-amer city larger, poorer, grow faster than Caribbean
Great internal and intranational migration -> migrant bond to homeland

S. America
1. Andean-indigenous influence, rapid growth of informal sector
2. Southern Cone – European influence, lack of growth and stability
3. Brazil: Strong Portuguese influence, unique culture (s) and distinct patterns from its Hispanic counterparts
Urban primacy/agglomerate urban primacy, coastal dominance – colonial legacy
Import substitution – resist globalization, dependence on EU ->failed
Export led – relations with more developed countries, developing country is middle man bet. Investment and consumer
cheap labor/lax tax/lax regulation in exchange for developed markets+capital
-> gain infrastructure+education

Port Cities -> gateway cities – interface bet national+internat systems

Assimilate incoming soc, econ, political traits w/o domination by foreign source
Gateways grow at expense of rest -> uneven regional dev
rur->urb migration -- Stagnation, overcrowded system - poverty

Andean
Strong indigenous influence
Spanish colonialism exploited resources
Interregional dev similar to central America
False urbanization – city can’t accommodate rur-urb migration
qual of life not increasing, city doesn’t grow fast enough -> informal economy grows

Southern Cone Chile, arg, uruguay

Pre-columbian urb tradition weak
Direct European ancestry in much of pop
Early industrialization and capital from EU til 1980’s ->decline

Brazil
Portuguese didn’t have strict Spanish urb model
(1) Historical geography: Typical colonial location – port cities; small due to lack of precious metals in the Portuguese South America the role of
plantation and Salvador’s prominence; inland linear settlements; fortification and residential segregation (Did not following the “Laws of the
Indies” closely)

(2) Modern development: By forging a first-world = third-world (neo-colonial) economic relationship, Southern Cone mercantile cities started to
expand and adopted a European styled urban architectural and planning design (What was the role of racial/ethnic composition in these
countries?)

(3) Government involvement in changing the regional imbalance of economic and urban development (Brasilia

Summary
externally oriented economies, coastal cities are enclaves of modernization not poles of growth
1.The failure of South American economic model -> problems of urban development in S. A. countries, esp Southern Cone
2. Regional variations/futility of model Andean cities the colonial imprints are still highly visible.
3. Metropolitan decentralize and segreg, formation of increasingly autonomous and insulated realms based on socioeconomic status
4. Continued role of primate urban hierarchy and persistence of megacities at the “global semiperiphery”
Europe
Trend-setter, Large, slow-growing cities, Variations in growth and urban patterns, Testing ground for urban theories, planning and coping,
Socialist urban patterns --rur-urb migration minimal (saturation), no need for skyscraper – low skyline, preservation

1. Ancient Greek (organic: grid pattern, acropolis, agora) and Roman (planning: forum, urban hierarchy) traditions
2. The Medieval period: central open square for markets, church, town hall, palaces, etc., (a feudal pattern?) -> becomes too oppressive
3. The Renaissance and Baroque: landmark struct, rem. city wall for boulevards, visual control, rediscovery of classic models, by+for elites
4. The industrial period: New cities and emerging urban hierarchies, mostly in Central Western Europe, econ growth demands urb growth

I. Western Europe:
1. Four Stages
(1) Massive post WWII reconstruction
(2) Industrial redevelopment(hitech)(blue->white coll) and international migration (Form ethnic communities)
(3) Economic recession and urban decay after the early 1970s, public intervention dies, ppp starts
(4) Decentralization and revitalization

2. Core-Periphery Model (pp. 184-6) – Inter-urban hierarchy

(1) Factor-endowment
(2) Symbiotic and unequal relationship between the core and the periphery
(3) Shift of the core to the south and the east (The rise of Germany and Italy)
(4) The enforcement of the core in the global economy

II. Eastern Europe: Socialist Urbanization

1. Underdeveloped: Historical relic or coincidental preservation”
2. Under-urbanization: Lagging services to workers, gov policy doesn’t let city develop, no infrastructure
3. Decentralization and lack of global linkage since the 1970s
4. Lack of suburbanization
5. Post-Socialist development

The Internal Structure of European Cities

1. Town square: Focal point of the community
2. Major landmarks: Identity of place and cultural heritage
3. Complex street pattern: Historical layers and preservation
4. High density and compact form: Medieval/pre-industrial heritage
5. Vitality of the downtown: Cultural differences in perception and activities
6. Low-lying skyline: Preservation & lack dynamics for the CBD
7. Neighborhood stability: Cultural preference and less mobility v. N. Americans
8. Housing: Again, cultural differences and political economic approach –less expect of size

1. NW European urban model – Layers of historical development, different approaches of planning

brit, Benelux, n fr, n germ. Heavy political hand
Transit property desirable-pole for sector growth
Greenbelt – slow sprawl
Gov built satellite communities –alleviate congestion / tenements-discontent
Concentric zone pattern: An old core, sometimes a new or refurbished commercial district, and the preeminence of transition zones
Sector pattern: Radiating thoroughfares and strong public transit systems (cultural and historical)
Multiple nuclei pattern: planned residential and commercial districts at the periphery as result of greenbelts and historical preservation

2. Mediterranean model –
Sim to EU feudal city (elite in cent, commoners periphery)
Late indust development
Spine, central square (palace,cathedral)
Prototype of Iberian urb patterns (influence on L. A. cities), Decaying core and prominent spines (Sector model)
High density in the established areas and multiple nuclei peripheral, low-income, immigrant communities -2types
1.center -- old, deteriorated housing/abandoned
2.outside city -- public housing, suburban, planned, lack convenience, all immigrant

3. E. European urban model

Political rather than economic concerns drove urban development
under-urbanization = Lack of infrastructure modernization and default historical preservation
industry on outskirts, expensive to link exist city to factory on outskirts, enhances efficiency of works
Tourism and international investment driving development since end of Cold War

Summary
Western Europe: Similar to that of North American cities, total urb area > city pop
Eastern Europe: Persisting under-urbanization, city and total urban area pop ==

RUSSIA
Three distinct periods of urban growth: czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet

1. Later development than western EU (9th century AD)

Site and situation of urban systems: southern plains at the interface of forests and steppes, fortified
Destruction by the Mongol Tartars– New, further north cities for protection (Moscow), and emphasized defense fortified core (“kremlins”) and
radiating streets
The rise of Czarist Russia, and the attempt of reaching out to Europe (Petrograd) while colonizing the east and Central Asia – Military outposts
Indl development in the late 19th century – New manufacturing cities in addition to Moscow (southern Ukraine, Baltic coast) – Autocratic
tradition to be inherited

II. The Soviet Era

1. Eastward push for resource explor and indust dev: New mining and manufacturing cities in the east, while old ones in the west grow
2. Centrally controlled urban planning with little land use divisions – Proximity between residential and economic districts, lack of comm. core
3. Internal structures: outer rings of manufacturing facilities with a revamped old core for political and cultural uses – Monumental buildings

III. Post-Soviet Development (READ – Similar to Eastern European cities)

Summary
2. The burden of the Soviet legacy in urban planning and land use, and the system deficiency in coping with new dynamics for change
3. Boom for (remote) regional centers?
4. Continued special function cities (Resources, research)
5. Overlapping urban landscape: The new and the old, the decay and the rejuvenation – What to do?

Greater Middle East

Birthplace of cities – ag revolution->food surplus->city
Along waterways, sunny+warm
Courtyard – house surrounds yard, protects property
Different Historical and cultural sectors build next to each other, not on top (rome)
((citadel) - old city ) - new city - modern city - urban expansion zone
((kasbah) - medina ) - colonial - post-colonial - future city

Trad Middle Eastern Model

Economic Geography - TRADE (souk, crafts)
Cultural Geography - ISLAM (minaret, mosque, medrassa)
Physical Geography - DRY (wells, courtyard, thick walls, small windows)

(1) Land use pattern: The prominence of marketplace/artisan or craft districts

(2) Landscape: The religious landmarks: mosques, minarets, religious schools
(3) Lack of residential segregation (Why?)
(4) Historical continuity in environmental adaptation
Nested hierarchies of space, based on the primary unit of the inward-looking courtyard house,
Streets were not “laid out” but were composed of leftover space after houses were built. wide streets = waste of space.
Ethnic neighborhoods as a matter of “voluntary concentration” rather than economic segregation

1. Systems: four major metropolitan areas: Istanbul, Tehran, Cairo, and Israel –core of the Middle East as the continental bridge

2. Layers of influence
capitals - The regional centers born out of historical prominence or partition of the Ottoman Turk Empire;
Colonial (port) cities - Historical importance, site and situation advantages in modern development;
Primate city hierarchies
Oil urbanization has resulted in: Western-style zoning & construction, Class segregation, Undermining of traditional tribal solidarity
Western-styled resort and commercial cities
Cities of great cultural symbolism

Subsaharan Africa
Colonial legacy: coastal primacy of port cities, dysfunctional economies, little resemblance to other postcolonial dev. Models
African countries inherit colonial, not tribal boundaries.
Regional variations parallel cultural -historical development
1. European contact and competition
(1) Coastal concentration,
(2) Transshipment centers and lack of urban facilities,
(3) Lack of diffusion of technology to the interior
2. Rapid growth of colonial cities (After Partition) and characteristics
(1) Exploration of the interior resources, infrastructure (Rail) serving colonial interests, and port cities for external trade (Exceptions)
(2) Primary processing, not real industrialization, drove urban growth with sufficient port facilities
(3) Large colonial administrative presence and introduction of European urban characters

3. Problems of urbanization in the post-colonial era (pp. 320-325) “Dysfunctional”

(1) High urbanization rate and influx of rural people without improvement in economy & infrastructure
(2) Increased dominance of primate cities and lack of interior development
(3) Formal, externally linked sector and informal, internally linked sector of economies
(4) Site disadvantages in the changed situation (from colonial to independence)

4. Coping strategies:

(1) Problems symptomatic of the entire region’s colonial legacy – External involvement is needed
(2) Experiment of interior development of cities: The cases of Abuja and Yamoussoukro (Cote d’Ivoire) – Limited
(3) Political/social reforms, and innovative measures at developing national and regional (cooperation) economies

1.Indigenous – (addis ababa) little colonial influence, no sep bet colonial + indigenous
2.coastal primate colonial-(Dakar, dare es salaam) direct access to EU, why W. Africa so populated, good port, lack of urb planning
3. Interior Colonial City (Harare)

South Asia
1. Rich cultural and historical layers in the cities (pp. 334-339)
2. The dominance of primate city hierarchy in other South Asian countries (Why?)
3. India’s complex, rank-size rule urban system
4. Rural-urban migration pattern similar to that of other developing countries
5. Urban social geography reflective of dual societies, especially in India

I. Common urban characteristics

1. Global megacities without integration into the world economy
2. Rapid growth, overcrowding, and under-urbanization
3. Three distinct urban morphological models: Planned, bazaar-based, and colonial –based
4. Strong post-colonial planning efforts at developing new cities (Islamabad, Chandigarh)

1.Bazaar-based (p. 345)

Bazaar (market) at the old core with chowk (cross-road)
Central location of key urban functions and socioeconomic elites with ethnic enclaves
The presence of squatter settlements (Why?) during post-colonial expansion in a concentric zone pattern (Why?)

2. Colonial-based
Waterfront as the colonial core: military (fort) and trade or transshipment
Open-space: defense, planned land use and social segregation
Western-styled CBD: Administrative, mercantile, social and cultural, and high-class residential uses
Native town: Remnant of colonial segregation

3. Planned cities
Designated political and administrative centers (Islamabad)
New industrial centers

India
1. Rank-size rule: Long-term history of urban development, well-balanced agricultural resources, regional diversity, & many outlets
to the open sea
2. Regional contrast between the north (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata) and the south (Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Chennai/Madras)
3. Epitome of dual society: The contrast of robust urban scene of the emerging and the decay, despair of the sprawling shantytowns

Urban Primacy Outside India

1. Small and/or isolated states (Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka)
2. Interior extension of territory, confining physical environment, and limited access to the open sea (Pakistan, Bangladesh)
3. Impact: Strong core and weak periphery, uneven development, dual society, difficulty in coordinating national dev
4. Planning efforts at changing the primate city system: the case of Islamabad (pp. 368-369) – Expensive proposition
Southeast Asia
1.geographic interface: cultures and transit zone of commerce (transition bet. Indian and Chinese influence)
2.waves of influence: pre-EU trade, religions (theravata, islam, xtianity)
2.Pre-colonial cities: The sacred city (inland) and the market city (maritime)
3. Europeans - Dutch (indones) Spanish (phil) British (malay,Burma) French (viet,laos,camb) U. S. (phil)
4 Development of urban primacy based on colonial urban nodes

Resistance to colonialism not as strong as in S. Asia, not big defense function in urb landscape
-pop not as big, civ not as old/strong
Chi and ind plantation workers – alien commercial zone
Market gardening – encroached by growth
New industrial estate – outskirt, can’t wait for infrastructure to rest of city, foreign invest, goods for foreign markets

Extended Metro Regions – spill into rural, three types

The NIC form: Singapore -- International expansion
Low-density EMRs: Kuala Lumpur – Successful satellite city development
Desokota (“village-towns”): factory outside city but connec to port; strong integration into the global economy w/o pop move to
central cities
High-density EMRs: Jakarta, Manila, and Bangkok – Chaotic spill-over

Post-colonial growth
• Five patterns: NIC, RIC, Inland, Cold War, Socialist
NIC – Singapore, malaka strait
RIC - emerging, econ, pol, urb dev follow NIC export led model, bumpy ride
Inland – not benefit of coastal/trade, no investment, no development
Cold War -layer of development, little planned dev b/c of wartime
Socialist – layer - N.Vietname
• Convergence since end of Cold War to RIC model

• Rapid urban growth, especially since the end of the Cold War
• Disparities and problems typical of emerging cities
Uniformity of SE Asian cities: Pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial layers

East Asia
1. Colonial cities: Hong Kong as a case study (presentation)
2. Treaty ports of China: Mixture of the colonial city and the indigenous city (Shanghai)
3. indigenous cities – leapfrogging into industrial/post-industrial cities (Beijing: presentation)
4. The Asian Exception (?): Japanese cities had little Western colonial influence (Tokyo: Presentation)

Four distinct models of urban development in recent history (first half of 20th century): China’s traditional and colonial cities, Japan’s industrial cities, and cities in
other East Asian countries
Three distinct present (second half of 20th century) patterns: Developed and NIC pattern, the Chinese pattern and the insular pattern (Mongolia and North Korea)

Japan – follow west model since 1853. But little west+colonial influence, continue post wwII->post industrial
Overcrowded but managed – decentralization, improved public infrastructure, social/cultural aspect (peace+order)
Chinese trad cities + Indigenous Trad cities (Lhasa, ulaan Bataar)
Korea + Taiwan – between indig + colonial
1950’s -S korea, Taiwan, hk – NIC capital, industry development

China 4 stages
Indigenous – inland, big cities, developed
Colonial – coastal, foreign money and interest from west, lack of planning
Socialist – restrictive, urban decay, under-urbanization, regimental apartments, monuments (pyongyang)
Post Socialist – emerging, boom, falst urbanization (rush exceeds econ), informal economy absorbs, unending urban renewal

Traditional cities
Beijing – inland, grid, symmetrical, walls, functional land use areas
Inland – ulaan bataar – nomadic economy, limited urban dev
Lhasa – religious centered urban system, limited development

Oceania
2 realms – AUS + NZ (eu immigrants+influence) – similar to us/can
islands (indigenous, tourism (Caribbean)), few, small cities, never industrialized, subsistence economy, arprt/prt developed, low skyline

Australia
EU’s populated SE of island
NSW – Sydney (biggest), Victoria – Melbourne (not penal)
similar to quebec (montreal) and Ontario (Toronto) , perth(west) = Vancouver BC
Intermediate urban hierarchy – no primate, no rank size, strong regional centers
Sunbelt – gold coast northeast coast (queensland, Brisbane)
Canberra – compromise bet. Syd and Melbourne, emphasis on pub space

Questions
Russia
3 Periods, push eastward, special function cities, overlapping urban landscape
Russian cities rebuilt post-mongol invasion focused on defense (Kremlins). During the czarist period, Russia attempts to reach out to Europe
(Petrograd) while colonizing the east and Central Asia, building military outposts. In the late 1800’s Russia industrializes, with new
manufacturing cities appearing in southern Ukraine and the Baltic Coast. In the Soviet Era, push eastward. Centrally controlled planning, close
proximity of residence and work, lack of commercial core. Manufacturing facilities on outskirts of cities, monuments. Urban development based
on politics, not economy. Post-Soviet under-urbanization, cities taxed with newcomers without infrastructure to serve them. Huge inequalities
from those who profited off of privatization.