What is very interesting about the focus on community is that the demise of the federal and state control over the economy as a result of Globalization is the resurgence of the Greek City State model in the US. The lack of tax collection by the states from Internet sales means that products move out of and come into the city more cheaply. Since cities have more income generating capabilities than do rural counties, the process should, in the end, lead to a reduction in power of the South and rural areas.
Bill On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:26:40 -0700 Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > KH wrote: > > it is a status good to have an urban area to call downtown, even > > if your city is only 25 or 30 years old and, for all practical > intents and > > purposes, a suburb. In America, why go patronize someone else's > run-down > > far-away urban core when you can build one in your own back yard? > > > Speaking this way of "Community as the next Status Good?", I > am reminded that under slightly different terminology, > community has been recognized as a status good for a long > time: it's called *NEIGHBOURHOODS*. > > The mere mention of the term and it's obvious. Everyone > knows that the neighbourhood you live in, and who your > neighbours are, is all about status. And in market > economies, "who your neighbors are" is an item of commerce > and priced accordingly. > > There is alot to say about neighbourhoods, status, and > community -- better and worse neighbourhoods -- so the > question of how to integrate such things into a larger > account will require some reflection. > > By the way, > > somebody (?) wrote: > > Community is already being packaged as a status good all over > America. In > > the Midwest, it is achieved through a vehicle called "Smart > Growth". Out > > East, it is called "New Urbanism". Various regional governments > are > > pushing these concepts as a way to solve regional issues through > creating > > more density, and thus less sprawl. Whatever it is called it > involves > > incorporating mixed uses in new developments and building ... > > > it is sold by herding local > > residents into a series of open meetings to talk about problems > and > > perceptions of their part of town and then selling the finer > points of more > > dense development of a certain price point. People mostly go > along with it > > because there is a healthy portion of words like 'vision', > 'community', and > > 'long-term solution' used to describe the development... > > I find this description of regional planning rather too > cynical. What is being described is a result of two things > merging together: (1) the recognition by pols and community > leaders that for a number of pretty obvious reasons "growth" > *must* be managed and not left to an unregulated market in > land, and (2) again, for a number of obvious reasons, > citizens must have a role, a say, in the process and in the > results. > > The regional planning processes that have developed and been > legislated in the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" > (GVRD) over the last 20 years or so are, I understand, > widely admired and working pretty well. (You could think of > such activities as aiming at creating good neighbourhoods, > with "downtowns", rather than acres of bedrooms. And I > suppose it is then a good thing if such "downtowns" vie for > status.) > > Stephen Straker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vancouver, B.C. > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
