PolitiCook.net

On Urban Sprawl and Sustainability: Ms AAF’s Diary

The following diary has been written by Ms AAF, who is currently going through her post-grad psychology master and has little time to squander on the tubes, as I do (though she patrols this site and DKos) and having read her latest essay, which fits nicely with today’s world food crisis, I have persuaded her to let me post it here, unabridged and linkless. Be gentle.

The developed nations of the North, and especially the USA, as the biggest economy in the world, directly and through the institutions under their control, have dominated the world economy in the 20th century. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, the poor neighbors/cousins of the USA. Latin American cities in the 20th century developed along the lines of the North American model of a high-priced downtown business district and sprawling suburbs. Due to this sprawled layout, North American cities themselves are largely car-dependent, although here the affordability of modern technology leads to the pollution being less intensely felt by the cities’ inhabitants.

Mexico City itself increased its geographical size roughly 5 times between 1950 and 1985 most of it in self-built housing, and is equally car-dependent. But here, as indeed elsewhere in Latin America’s cities, the pollution created by outdated vehicle engines hangs over the city with dire consequences for its inhabitants. Mexico City is notorious for its high rate of respiratory illnesses due to its awful air quality. Its economy is tightly locked in with its northern neighbor, so much so, that the whole of the Mexican economy seems to have been pulled northwards to the border region with the USA, where most of the manufacture of goods takes place. As a result, the southern part of Mexico, which is more agricultural, is becoming increasingly impoverished, and is a ready source for the migration of people towards cities like Mexico City.

Consumption patterns in the developed North (read US) demand a ready stream of cheaply priced goods, and because low wage levels in developing nations like Mexico enable corporation’s profit margins to remain at an optimum, these large corporations invest in these nations. Also, because environmental protection legislation is generally less stringent, or rather less stringently enforced - in developing nations like Mexico, large investors pocket the saved expenses as an added bonus.

Because these corporations are large, multi- or transnational, the host countries don’t actually reap the benefits from these economic transactions, not much anyway, which are realized elsewhere - usually in the “first world”. However, the host country, like Mexico, retains the environmental degradation incurred in the mass production of goods, but still has little tax revenue from its low-paid workers or indeed the international corporations to improve its infrastructure through investment in education, health or environment protection legislation. In fact, international lenders like the IMF, run along neo-liberal ideologies, actively discourage third world loan recipients from making vital socially relevant expenditures on the above named infrastructures which then prevents cities from making improvements in its sustainability, and reductions of its ecological footprint. The enmeshments of cities in global economic networks render them unsustainable in one of two ways. On the one hand, developed nations through the power politics of their financial institutions, drive the excessive consumption patterns of Northern cities. To satisfy their demand for consumer goods, investments taken in developing nations by large corporations can actually impoverish the host nations, thereby worsening their sustainability. On the other hand, the external cost of the unsustainable development in many Southern cities, is borne immediately by the most disconnected inhabitants of cities, in the shape of soil, water and air pollution, and in their quest to reach Northern consumption patterns, the same mistakes are being made all over again.

Recently the dualist rift between urban space and rural space has increased, mainly because of the ready availability of cheap products that are imported into the city. Yet, this was not always so. Traditionally, cities have always been used for some forms of agriculture. As recent as the 1950’s, many working class inner city families in Europe grew some of their own produce on allotments within the city. This form of urban agriculture is reflective of a less consumerist attitude, which helped to contain the ecological footprint of the city, and contributed to its greater sustainability. The development of high-rise high density housing projects however prevented this from continuing, and made urban agriculture beyond the reach of many. As cities grow more and more unsustainable, there seems to be a re-orientation in the developing nations towards it - indeed, in Asian cities urban agriculture has been included in urban development plans since the 1950’s. Elsewhere, community run projects like El Puente in New York City or in Salford, have taken possession of disused lots in their neighborhoods and – in a form of distributive justice - turned them into community gardens. This welcome practice fosters a greater awareness within city dwellers, and facilitates the connection between their consumption and environmental issues, and are a step towards achieving greater sustainability.