Friday, January 30, 2015

Living in the "Space" Age; An Undesirable Notion?

The world in which we live today is absolutely becoming defined by it large predominance in cities and urban living. The majority of the world’s population lives in cities. These urban environments have become the pinnacle, and possibly face, of life in modern days. While there are many determinants of what exactly makes up a city, one thing that is certainly pivotal in any city’s identification is its socio-spacial perspective from city to city. I found this thought of space to particularly interesting as it seems to cover many if not all bases in the attempt to give a deep understanding of city life in terms of its reasoning for constructed as it is, its concrete and abstract uses for the people living in the city, and how space may affect the ways in which different individuals live life.
                The first way to consider space within a city as being important is to ponder it from urban origins. Cities were formed in ways that were central to their cultures at the time, and are actually ever changing in the perception of their space. Older civilizations from centuries ago developed cities as ways to glorify gods, structures, or current royalty. Cities were structured to where they would funnel all infrastructures in towards their capitals and the more prominent portions of the city. Today the makeup of a city is significantly different, and could be changing ever more rapidly. Looking at Chicago for instance, its structure has always been more for the sake of industry, a key facet of our world today. With industry being such a powerhouse driving the city, the focal points of cities in terms of their space have always been geared towards what is industrial, and furthermore capitalist, to think even more relatively to today. Chicago, considering the entirety of history all together, has not been around long but has, in its short lifespan already managed to shift what within its space are landmarks of importance or high significance within the city, shaping the interactions all around those central points.
                Along with this the idea of space is the separation between use of physical space for sake of necessity as well as use of physical space for sake of culture. Another way that this was examined was through the lens of separation between urbanization and urbanism. Urbanization can be a lot of different things. It was the initial flock of people towards cities when industry first emerged. It was a turning point for the change in economics from a feudal system into a capitalist society. And for the sake of examination of urbanization now that urban living has become such a large part of the way the world functions entirely, urbanization can now be viewed as all previous things in conjunction with convenience of living. Office buildings are built frivolously to increase productivity and output of goods and services, restaurants and parks are made for the use of people, and roads and otherwise are made to get to it all. Urbanism is a simpler concept, but a far less defined one; that concept being culture and the ways that people go about life in the city, what it means to live in the city, and ultimately how the environment and the individual conduct a dialogue, which I find to be an utterly fascinating aspect of the city.

As space and the layout of urban communities progress or change, so have the actual communities and socioeconomic groups themselves. This accounts for a different kind of space that is established after a city is physically and culturally constructed. The kind of space that I am talking about is mobility; the hope to achieve more by people living in urban environments.  However, with urban areas being brought out by a rise in industry and the capitalist economic system, this idea of space in terms of mobility may be dwindling generations into urban constructions. According to teachings from Marx, people were initially viewed by industrial entrepreneurs as simply means to their ends of acquiring wealth through the workers’ labor (the proletariat). At first, this idea of capitalizing on the labor of people was what kept cities filled with workers, but growing evermore quickly, the industries themselves, and the growth of urbanization. From the dawning of industrialization across the world, businesses who had originally been exploiting their workers for cheap labor, are now doing still doing so but for less expense or they are picking up their labor stationing in cities and outsourcing work to cheaper means of production. With this occurrence, people in urban living are experiencing a divide between those with more upward mobility and those with a complete restriction of such actualization. My reaction to this, both in viewing Requiem for Detroit and reading the class text, I see the space that people are given to do more as becoming lesser and lesser, and all the while, physical alterations to cities are done almost in an attempt to quarantine the less desirable or less affluent, a complete 180 degree shift from what I see as being the reason for city formation in the first place; for people to gather in a centralized location in order to conduct business where anyone could potentially make a name or life for themselves. Such an idea is falling by the way side and space is being lost. 

No comments:

Post a Comment