Introduction: In Urban Studies two schools of academic thought answer the “urban question”: the ecological and urban political economy schools. I will argue that the political economy perspective better allows us to fully grasp the “urban question” where society and space mutually encompass each other and allow us to better explain and address urban inequality. First, I will develop a working definition of “the urban question”. Second, I will write on the ecological school’s view of the “urban” question and how their vista explains but inadequately addresses urban inequalities. Third, I will review the political economy (social-spatial dialect) landscape of the “urban question” and how their panorama explains and gives better analyses of urban inequality.
Strategic planning is concerned with the formulation and evaluation of urban development policies and the mechanisms put in place in for implementing those policies, whilst strategic planning in urban development is generally referred to as a process that allows the articulation of the initiatives of public and private stakeholders which seek synergies for the development of a city (Steinberg, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of strategic planning for government administration and discuss the importance of strategic planning in cities. Strategic plans are typically long term plans that consider different scenarios in order to test assumption, set specific goals, investigate strengths and examine weaknesses. Derived those functions, it will be argued that cities need strategic planning because it is a helpful tool for building consensus on future urban model, an effective mechanism to administer land development as well as an important instrument to promote progressive forms of governance. The concept of strategic planning is treated differently by urban planners and a researcher in history is because it was not originally intended to be used in urban development.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. ii Dene Scoggins. www.txwesleyan.edu/scoggins/world/17thCenturyScience/menu.html iii Porter, Roy. The Enlightenment. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1990. iv Dene Scoggins. www.txwesleyan.edu/scoggins/world/17thCenturyScience/menu.html v Santillana, Giorgiode.
Since the 1960’s, the purview of contemporary urban sociology has shifted to engage a macro-lens that examines how larger social, economic and political factors shape the urban landscape more broadly. Counter to urban ecological theory, these scholars show how the spatial logics of cities and urban inequality are shaped and produced by local/state, national and global political and economic actors (Castells, 1978; Dreier et al. 2004; Gieryn, 2000; Harvey, 2012; Jargowsky, 1997; Logan and Molotch, 1987; Sampson, 2012; Sassen, 2006; Swanstrom et al., Wilson, 1996). Engaging this lens, we then see how the socio-spatial construction of urban spaces directly constructs unequal urban spaces that afford greater opportunities and benefits to some, while diminishing the opportunities of others. In this way, the macro-lens reveals the multiple levels of agency in th... ... middle of paper ... ...CA: Pine Forge Press.
Aesthetic control in the city serves a number of purposes. For one, the zero-sum logic of interurban competition incentivizes the purification of urban space and the presentation of ‘cleanliness’ for the purposes of city marketing. As transfer payments decline as a source of revenue for municipal governments, cities are desperately attempting to enhance their international reputation for the purpose of attracting tourism and capital investment. The cleansing of visible poverty from urban space is accomplished through police harassment and displacement of visible poverty and other ‘undesirable’ uses of space(Kennelly 9). The city’s adaptation to market logics also influences the way urban space is produced and presented internally, to its own population.
In any study of urban sociology one is bound to encounter few scholars that have contributed as greatly to our current understanding of the structure and evolution of society as have Ferdinand Tönnies and Robert Park. Both born in the late nineteenth century and living well into the first part of the 20th century, affording each an opportunity to experience radical industrial growth, political and economic upheaval, and the first great international war. Despite these similarities, each theorist offered unique perspectives on the sociological changes they saw around them. In this paper, I will attempt to explore these theories’ similarities and differences as well as apply each to the issue of social stratification and inequality in contemporary society. Ferdinand Tönnies is best known for his publication Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, originally published in 1887 and was considered his greatest work (Samples, 1987).
(2013) ‘Reconceptualising the relationship between the creative economy and the city: Learning from the financial crisis’, cities, 33, 86-95. Sage Companion To The City, Sage, London Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press. SenStadt Senatsverwaltung fu ̈r Stadtentwicklung (Ed.). (2007).
(2012)http://www.hpcuk.org/publications/standards/index.asp?id=569 , accessed 26.11.2013. Layder ,D (2006) Understanding Social Theory Marsh, I. (2006) Sociology : making sense of society, 3rd ed., London ; New York: Pearson Education. Mill, S. (2005) Auguste Comte and Positivism ,Elibron Classics Mills, C. W. (1959) The sociological imagination, New York , London: Oxford University Press. Sztopka, P. (1996) Robert K. Merton, On social structure and science, University of Chicago Press.
Shaw and McKay developed a theory based off the settlement pattern research that Ernest Burgess conducted. According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) Ernest Burgess stated ... ... middle of paper ... ...any other city that was built off of the auto industry and to see if the “zones of transition” shift to areas in which new employment opportunities arise after the major employer was lost. Works Cited Cullen, T.F., Agnew, R. Criminological Theory: Past to Present. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Intro, Chapters III, 7, 8) Feldmeyer, B. Seminar in Criminology.