City Vs Country: The Urban-Rural Continuum

Picture1

Urbanization is a trend that will continue to occur as an ongoing process. The urban rural continuum is a complex one that has the city at one end and the country on the other. According to discussion in class different settlements can be placed on any point on this continuum; and the factors that dictate where the settlement may fall on this urban/rural continuum do change form a place to another and a settlement to another. In the case of Chicago, and according to Cronon, describe in one page the factors that contributed to its transformation on the urban-rural continuum. These can be: locational, social, economical, infrastructure, transportation, and many more. You may upload photos or diagrams to illustrate your ideas.

In your 2nd page, and based on the Robert Mugerauer chapter, focusing on the city only, elaborate how tourism influence the development of the city and if it actually contributes to further urbanization within the same city.

‪#Env_Plan

12 thoughts on “City Vs Country: The Urban-Rural Continuum

  1. In Cronon’s account of the rise of Chicago there are several factors that he elaborates upon so as to explain the establishment, growth, and modern development of the city. The case of Chicago can be used as an example and case study on the growth of any kind of settlement. The first people to use this space were native Americans who gave it its name, Chigagou, “the wild garlic place,” because they found a food-source there and presumably passed through on their way to seasonal hunting and agricultural grounds, to trade, or to congregate because it was a notable landmark where the river met the lake. Fur traders later established the venue to Westerners when they started trading furs with the native hunters and the village grew because of its prime location near rich natural resources and water transport. Our instincts as to what makes a good place to inhabit come from a multi-part analysis involving our basic needs – food, shelter, safety. We perceive the land’s quality and value based on these things and a “good” place to live will have them.
    We are also a social species, we congregate into groups and settlements because it is easier to access resources and labor efficiencies this way. It’s a story played out across the globe that one group of people moves in and supplants another on the sites of its settlements. This was impressed upon me when I travelled through England was the layers of settlements of different cultures over one particular place. For example, York has been a settlement for pre-Roman tribes, the Brigantes and Parisii, then the Romans, then the Angles, Saxons, Normans, and eventually the Christians. They even place their places of religious worship almost directly over the top of the previous place, ensuring that ground is perpetually enshrined to humanity’s concept of divinity.
    From Chicago’s original placement the city grew as investment poured in and technology changed. What was a good location for water transportation was still very relevant as a central hub for rail and by embracing and encouraging the spread of this new mode of transport, Chicago ensured its continued relevance. Rail transport allowed several things to happen. First it was easier to transport food and resources to consumers which drove down the price of goods, improved standards of living and allowed more people to survive and reproduce. The increase of populations needed more housing and services. The urban core gets denser and then expands and over-runs the rich agricultural lands which made the settlement location so desirable in the first place. Eventually, marginal agricultural lands are all that is left to produce food because farmland is converted into housing, which doesn’t interact with the land so much as occupy it, and more and more land is required to produce the same amount of food. This is also the story of other cities such as Los Angeles. Humans want both to be near the production of their food and near the providence of services that allow them to raise children.
    I think there is a dangerous feedback loop between finding and accessing resources and the exponential need to find and access new resources creates a continuum of wild, rural, and urban environments along a gradient. It’s monumental that our species can now control the production of offspring through birth control, interrupt this loop and come to a stable, sustainable birthrate. Across the globe birth rates are falling where women have access to control their reproduction because women, being the primary nutritional support of children, tend not to choose to have children they cannot feed with the resources at hand.

    I think tourism also has a strong influence on city development, even from a very early point in a city’s history. Early humans probably looked forward to coming together at the few places of permanent settlement in order to get rare goods (shopping), to participate in community life (gossip and entertainment), and to find mates (bars, nightlife). I don’t think that’s a new phenomenon and I’ve seen how the development of tourism affects urban development. I’m from San Diego which has a very well-developed tourism economy. The San Diego Zoo, Seaworld, The Wild Animal Park, Balboa Park, Comic Con, the beaches and “play bay” have all been developed to draw in visitors who flock there year-round. These visitors see a “rich” environment and decide to move permanently to San Diego. The region has a ready, cheap workforce and high real estate value, both conditions which attract investment and the city develops. Tourism is a way of advertising quality, just like a male peacock’s tail. You’ve got to “fake it until you make it.”
    After the city has “made it” and outgrows its tourist attractions, or other cities attract the global eye away, a city’s tourist attractions become a liability unless the city pours more investment into refreshing them and keeping “the feathers shiny.” Tourism is an expensive and unpredictable feedback loop which can definitely help attract investment in infrastructure and urban quality. How to do it sustainably is the key.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In Nature’s Metropolis Cronon described several factors that contributed to Chicago’s urban development. It’s location and landscape offered some advantages to Chicago’s development and determined the earlier commerce that emerged when it’s native populations and earlier settlers still lived there. However, the meaning given to Chicago’s landscape was more significant to its urbanization. Cronon described the early speculation of how Chicago would inevitably be the “future city” and gateway to the West given its natural resources and accessibility to waterways. These ideas, contributed to the doubling of Chicago’s population in 1833 and the real estate speculation of the mid 1830s. Given the promise that Chicago was #blessed with natural resources, people invested heavily in the urban dream Chicago promised to be.

    Although Chicago’s advantages were flaunted less consideration was given to its limitations. These limitations, eventually led to changes to the physical environment and transportation in order to advance Chicago’s promise as the future city. It seems as though the railroad made the largest contribution to Chicago’s economic growth by increasing its ability to trade as well as its hold on wealth and culture in the region. The railroad connected Chicago to the entire continent, which provided a natural outlet for its markets. It’s proximity and access to eastern markets allowed Chicago to build relationships and maintain a stronghold on the sale of eastern goods. This set the stage for new opportunities, new trades and commerce and subsequently an increase in population. An increase in population puts a strain on a city’s resources and ability to provide for it’s resident’s basic needs. In many cities, this pressure results in the creation of suburbs, which I believe continue to contribute to the City’s development in some ways. Suburbs often provide the human capital that make up a city’s workforce and consumers for the goods and services a City produces without putting the responsibility to provide basic services on cities.

    In “Architectural and Urban Planning: Practical and Theoretical Contributions” Robert Mugerauer discusses the impact of tourism on city planning and design. Mugereuer analyses the interplay between cultural, political and economic forces that have impacted how cities have changed their physical environment to better appeal to tourists. While Mugereuer explains the function of tourism in some city’s development, he offers limited insight into the negative impacts tourism can have.

    For centuries, architecture, natural places, historic sites have drawn millions of visitors from around the world to different cities. The complexities of hosting thousands of tourists have required cities to develop complex systems to manage tourists and ensure their city remain attractive tourists sites, which often includes building additional infrastructure and amenities that cater to tourists. In the United States, for example, tourism became a central consideration in the redevelopment of cities during the urban renewal process of the 60s and 70s. As Mugereuer mentions, cities focused on making downtown areas attractive to businesses, visitors and middle class residents by ensuring adequate construction of hotels, large high-end shopping centers, convention centers and parking lots—which are the typical mix of development in downtown districts today. He also mentions the intention of cities to preserve certain historic industrial buildings by repurposing them. Redevelopment seemed to do little however to preserve the culture and sense of community of those who had been displaced to make way for the new development. Additionally, the intention to redevelop to cater to the middle class seemed to ensure that previous residents did not feel welcome and would essentially be out of sight.

    Today in a globalized world, where thousands of people have the capital to travel for leisure, the function of tourism is even more complex. I agree that tourism can be positive for a city’s economy, and in many cases even the most significant reason for a city’s survival. As Mugereuer mentioned, some companies have been able to grow regionally due to tourism. In Southeast Asia for example, you can buy travel packages for neighboring countries through local companies. It seems that this model would allow earnings from such companies to be concentrated in a specific region, perhaps leading to socioeconomic growth for communities in that region. However, we cannot ignore the pressures that tourism puts on local communities. Additionally, because tourism infrastructure is rarely developed by private actors or through market forces alone, we need to consider where cities should spend their money and their role in making sustainable tourism possible.

    It will be interesting to watch the development of what some have termed “favela tourism” in Brazil, where tourists are not only able to take private tours of some of Rio de Janeiro’s most notorious informal settlements but are flocking to these settlements for cheaper lodging. This was only made possible after the state sponsored program to “pacify” Rio’s favelas in preparation for the Olympic games. The program was successful enough to make tourists feel confident to take jeep tours through Rio’s favelas, which some criticize to emulate safari tours. This new trend has sparked debate about who is benefiting, as non-residents own most of the tour companies. Some have also called out the voyeurism of tourists who come to observe the life of “poor” people. Some residents however, welcome the tours and have set up souvenir shops, or began to charge a fee for accessing rooftops that offer a city view of Rio. Independent of how this new trend impacts new forms of commerce, it will be interesting to see what stress this causes on the already subpar infrastructure of favelas, which has been neglected by Rio’s government for decades. Will the economic potential of favela tourism prompt the city government to improve the inadequate infrastructure favela residents have had to deal with for so long? Additionally, if pacification means its safe enough to visit, will both international and national visitors eventually consider it safe enough to live, putting gentrification pressure on these communities?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Chicago started out as a small settlement that was formed by fur-traders, and then used as an army fort. Placed between western prairies and oak-hickory forests in the east, the city grew from its geographical location next to the Great Lakes and Mississippi. The beneficial geographic location was also emphasized because of social groups that surrounded the area. The French-Canadians to the north, the Potawatomi Native Americans that called the area their home, as well as influence from the British and new Americans to the east all influenced how the city developed.
    All over America the cultural differences between how Europeans and Native Americans viewed land plays a major basis in how the America we know today was developed. Native Americans viewed land and its resources as a communal resource that was to be used but respected. The concept of land ownership and “my property versus yours” did not exist. Europeans and new Americans viewed land as something to be owned, conquered and utilized, until depleted. I think it is really important for us to remember that this country was founded on the destruction and massacre of Native Americans and their way of life. A cultural difference that is still being played out today as I noted in the previous response regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline through Native American’s sacred land.
    Transportation was also a huge factor in how the city developed. The building of the canal opened the waterways to increased trade and brought in new residents and Americans began to push west. Once rail was established and Chicago became a hub for both trade and industry. The expanse of rail tied hand in hand with increase in factories and industrial production in the city. Rail and steamship also allowed for the wealthy to escape the now chaotic and polluted city into the rural areas.
    Cronon notes that “Cities and towns were the empty vessels within which farmers, workers, merchants, and manufacturers did their business, whether in grain elevators, packing plants or retail stores” (p. 309). This idea of the city as an “empty vessel” that is filled with activities of creation and commerce displays the underlying feel of how cities were viewed, not as a place to live or thrive, but of a space that was created and rearranged for the sole purpose of economy. This view of city centers perpetuated the need for the rural outskirts to be used for agriculture and preserved as a place of leisure and escape from the city.
    Throughout its life cycle Chicago has ebbed and flowed along the city-country continuum. Modern day downtown Chicago now boasts a lively art scene, a wide range of museums and a thriving city center. Even though the importance of Chicago as a trade city has declined, it has managed to stay relevant in the urban world by adapting to the recent needs of urbanites and newer generations who request different values and experiences from places they call home.

    Based on Robert Mugerauer’s chapter on tourism within the scope of Architecture and Urban Planning, tourism has both beneficial and detrimental effects on city planning. There is a fine balance that needs to be maintained when cities are building and planning for tourism. Cities must accommodate current residents, attract new residents and visitors. If cities are only planned for tourism, the residents, and usually the population that will be working in these tourist areas, are left behind and are often pushed out of their neighborhood. This is somewhat different than gentrification because it is not new residents coming into the city, but temporary visitors; however the effects mimic gentrification. With the wild success of AirBnB, which allows people to rent out a room or their entire house to visitors, people who live in the area are seeing the benefit of being able to make a lot of money quickly and easily. This trend has started to affect housing pricing and has forced cities to rethink restrictions and regulations on this “free-market” crowdsourced way to house visitors within a city. http://www.governing.com/columns/public-money/gov-airbnb-affordable-housing.html
    Historically, building new infrastructure for tourism has meant creating what Mugerauer calls “tourist enclaves”, areas where tourists are purposefully separated from the sometimes unpleasant urban activities of daily life in a city. In the 1980’s and 1990’s the push to build large megamalls on the outskirts of cities that were designed to be a fully inclusive experience had interesting effects on both cities and the suburbs. These megamalls were meant to include shopping, leisure activities, people-watching and dining; activities that were previously carried out in city centers. Even though in the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a push to revitalize city centers, the draw of the suburbs and the inherent misdesign of the cities that still creates and enforces racial and class segregation, has led to the success of this megamalls. In 2017 strip malls, mega malls and expansive activities centers are still being built, while city centers are still struggling to prosper.
    Tourism benefits cities by creating jobs, bringing in money and increasing capital. From a social and cultural aspect, tourism also helps to build a city identity that can be beneficial for tourists and city residents. The “marketing of cities” has definitely become commercialized but I would argue that branding cities and celebrating the important cultural and historical features of a city also strengthens community. When residents feel proud of the city they live in, it can foster beneficial relationships and safer communities. I also support international tourism because of the cultural exchanges and understandings that occur. Tourism of course has a dark side, where people, culture and ecologies are exploited for pure profit, but tourism is not going to cease and we need to embrace more holistic methods for tourism.
    Tourism can contribute to the further urbanization of a city. Hotels, restaurants and other infrastructure that is built to attract tourists is going to increase the congestion of the cityscape. However, these financial and infrastructural investments can very much benefit the residents. Specifically building and maintaining well designed public transportation will benefit and attract tourists but also allows residents of the city to navigate in their everyday lives. It would be valuable for city planners and governments to ensure new projects that are being considered for increasing tourism also offer benefits for residents; maintaining this balance would create mutually beneficial success for both parties.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Without cities, there is no distinction between urban and rural. There is no urban-rural continuum because there is no urban. Chicago, before it became a city was a rural place used by indigenous peoples, and then by fur traders. Chicago had no streets, the land was not divided in to parcels, there were no permanent structures. As development increased, Chicago began to move further towards the urban end of the continuum.

    Water access westward to the interior was a major reason why Chicago grew in to a major city, and illustrates another relationship that classifies the city as urban. Urban areas draw resources and extend influence over the surrounding rural areas. Agricultural products produced outside of Chicago was transported to the city where it was consumed by the inhabitants, shipped elsewhere, or processed further. In the same fashion, other resources needed by people living in the city: wood, water, minerals, flowed in to Chicago. The demand for resources influenced people to produce these goods in huge quantities. This relationship differed greatly from Chicago’s beginnings as a small outpost.

    Urban versus rural areas contain more people, who do not have rural (agriculture, resource extraction, etc.) type occupations. In an interesting relationship, the existence of an urban center, actually can support rural existence. Living in a rural environment “the frontier” it was difficult for producers to transport goods to sell. However, as Chicago grew larger and its economy more diversified, institutions like banks and insurance companies were able to protect the goods that people produced. Without this protection, the act of growing food, and transporting it was risky. Crops could fail, or be damaged or stolen in shipment. Furthermore as technology advanced, systems like railroads were built that made the transportation of goods quicker, safer, and more efficient. The development of progressively complex systems is highly dependent on the existence of an urban area where all the necessary components are in close interaction, and further helps to describe Chicago’s location on the urban to rural continuum.

    Tourism can be a driver that transforms spaces within cities. Historically, many American cities grew because of industrialization. Cities allowed for the close conglomeration of goods, capital, and labor to conduct large manufacturing operations. Manufacturing also was meant that transportation of materials and finished goods was necessary and during the age of industrialization large areas of cities were devoted to rail and water transportation activity. Even before industrialization, cities near water were hubs for fishing, and also contributed to the waterfront industrial activity of cities. However, through pollution and overfishing, stronger environmental protection, and the shift towards manufacturing in places of cheaper labor, American cities have seen dramatic decline in industrial activity.

    The decline of industrial activity has left many American cities largely dysfunctional i.e. Rust Belt cities of the Midwest, or struggling to reinvent their economy. Cities with more diverse economies have fared better such as New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. However even in cities with more diverse economies, the decline of industry has left large swaths of the city abandoned and “underutilized.” In wake of the decline of industry, many cities have focused on drawing in wealth from wealthier places through tourism. The great amenity of cities is that they are often old, full of history, architecture, and nostalgia.

    San Francisco has been hugely successful in transforming its historic berths where ships and fishing boats once docked in to Fisherman’s Wharf, a nostalgic “theme park” where thousands of tourists visit every day. Here the sea, dramatic views of the city and the bay are combined with old buildings, and stories of an age of sail and quest for gold. An area that lost its purpose with the decline of industry is now a hub of tourism. The success of Fisherman’s Wharf can be contrasted with the still underutilized industrial waterfront south of the Bay Bridge in the Bayview and Hunter’s Point areas of San Francisco.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Chicago’s location at the meeting place of Chicago River and Lake Michigan, according to Cronan had no automatic geographic significance on its development. Rather, it was because it was the emerging commercial and industrial land of the American Northeast. Its position on the map seemed like the logical location for the flow of trade and investments from New York.

    Chicago went through a series of timed developments, transitioning it from the rural farmland to an urban space. Before being the hotspot for development in the USA (after NewYork) and one of the most populous city, Chicago was mostly a land for farming wild garlic. The inflow of workers from parts of Europe further supported by the large-scale use of the railways converted the countryside/ rural area to a place that could support urban life. The railroads connected it with the rest of the country, culturally as well as economically, thereby becoming the catalyst for the development of the city.

    Robert Mugerauer’s chapter about tourism is a very interesting read about tourism and its influence on cities and their urbanism. It looks at the various factors that tourists and hosts likely take into account when considering a place as a tourist destination. Tourism, for a country like Cambodia with a low economy and a corrupted government mostly works for the benefits of the local population, through which they can empower the locals and their social structure work for its benefits. However, the limitations or threats that tourism initiates on a city and how tourism could be sustained in the future with a resource limitation are not discussed.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Cronon uses the Chicago in the 19th century to explore the interconnection between city and country. He focuses on how Chicago developed as a gateway city and as a conduit for the flow of goods and people. He talks about several factors (i.e., location, infrastructure, etc.) that contributed to its transformation on the urban-rural continuum. The natural feature that first defined Chicago’s location was the river. The Chicago River functions as their water supply, harbor, transportation, and canal. Cities built near water bodies have many advantages. A river gives the inhabitants a source of water for drinking and agriculture. Cities near water allow for water transportation and trading routes. Water bodies provide food and other resources, which help the population of cities to grow and expand faster. For example, the capital Seoul in South Korea is in the Han River basin, which is the heart of South Korea. As the demands of market necessity increased, Chicago became connections in the city itself. Central to Chicago’s growth was the expansion of the railroad’s infrastructure which routed them through Chicago. Railroads connected people spatially without seasonal or time restriction. The river and road were less accessible as transportation in winter months. Railroads fasten urbanization in Chicago by functioning as a link between eastern and western railroads, which made western products and eastern markets easier.
    Cronon defines nature in two ways: “first nature” is original, prehuman nature and “second nature” is the artificial nature people construct over first nature. He argues that the first nature and second nature are merged which is known as the rural-urban continuum. The rural-urban continuum is the merging of country and town where there is no clear boundary between two physically or socially. For example, Greece experienced rapid socio-economic growth which brought radical changes in Greek landscapes. Traditional urban and rural areas transformed into thousands of legal or illegal building construction. Public transportations have a significant impact on natural environment creating an endless rural-urban continuum. Most of the time, the growth of cities are a consequence of natural geographical advantages. Cronon shows how second nature was more important than first nature in establishing Chicago’s economic growth. I agree that second nature is more important than first nature for economic growth in Chicago and any other cities. However, I think first nature is interconnected to second nature. If the first nature gets depleted by overuse, this will impact the second nature. Cronon’s final message was that the city and the country are inextricably linked. Therefore, our role is to take better care of both systematically and to balance out the first nature and second nature both in city and country.
    Architecture, planning, and tourism have been major influences in shaping urban and rural areas. Tourism is deeply intertwined with economical, political, and social needs. Robert talks about how tourism affects the development of the city. Major urban centers attract tourists to their historical landmarks, cultural treasures, landscaped parks, and a variety of simulating nightlife. In the 1960s and 1970s, urban renewal was ongoing not for tourist-oriented, but for residents and businesses. As cities became popular with festivals and sporting events, former residents who are poor and minority population are displaced from the cities. Due to travelers who demand hotels, restaurants, and other retail activity, the urban renewal centered on construction and promotion of convention centers. City also added pedestrian malls, festival marketplaces as part of shopping as a recreational experience which attracted international and regional tourists. Physical elements draw visitors to cities for economic and political benefits. For example, the buildings in the city had an exceptional architectural design, cultural-entertainment, business, sports and amusement facilities, hotels, etc. These were some of the physical elements that attracted tourists to the city. Urban tourism in the 1980s and 1990s continued but influenced by the political and economic situation. In Chicago, for instance, involving residents in urban neighborhood tours were key strengths of cultural promoters and marketers.
    I acknowledge that tourism is one of the main factors that led to city development. Whether the tourism contributes to further urbanization within the same city depends on time and location. One of the references that Robert used was arguing that cities have to provide a continuously improving level of facilities, amenities, and services which encourage further urbanization within the same town. However, if we shift the point of view towards historical landmarks and the natural environment altogether, then the tourism will not contribute further urbanization within the same city. Rather it will shift towards conserving the current condition which may slow down further urbanization.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. In Nature’s Metropolis, Cronon used Chicago as the example to illustrate the relationship of urban and rural areas that, far from being separated or opposed, actually depended on each other as a continuum. He stated several factors that contributed to the rise of this city in the nature of mid-east America. These factors can also be applied to many other cities when studying the construction and formation of them. First, it is Chicago’s location that determined different groups of people surrounded it. Sitting between the southern shoreline of Lake Michigan and Mississippi, “one could paddle halfway across the continent” (Cronon). From my personal perspective, location and natural resources are the most important factors at the beginning phase of a city’s establishment because they will bring people together.
    Fur-trading post which was built in Chicago in 1770s then became a large fur trading center. Chicago itself became a habitat for different races of people, such as British, French and Indian. They managed to gain their living on the network of fur trading and living stock. Chicago provided them a market to exchange living materials while on the other hand, without farmers and hunters producing goods for consumption, Chicago had no reason to exist. Cronon here further enhanced his opinion of combining city and country as a whole continuum. As Chicago became a trading center for both rural areas “the frontier” and city, transportation of commodities in long distance was possible. Farmer’s production could be improved because they had more accesses to sell their goods. Chicago was also benefited from this process which helped establishing banks, loans, docks and mills. This part was explicitly economic.
    The railway transportation was another important factor that helped not only Chicago, but also other cities such as Wisconsin in transferring goods. Railway extended the distance of transportation so that people could reach an build habitat at the places they could not step their foot on before. Railway opened the gateways from eastern America to the western part and made the exploration of western America became possible. The hinterland of Chicago was far enlarged. The integrated network of transportation provided Chicago more accesses and connections with other places to gather commodities, offer goods as a trading center and become a transportation center.
    Tourism has been one of the major forces that influence the shaping of urban and rural areas for a long time. Tourism happened because of the rich historic heritage of cities and more convenient transportation. Monumental buildings and clearly-ordered urban planning attracted people to decide cities as their final destination. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, cities experience hard times due to the waned industrialization. The urban renewal which happened after that caused displacing of poor people in the city center and the renewed prosperity of urban center.
    In most cities the process that mentioned above may happen again and again. However, in some international metropolis cities just expand with little restriction. I will provide an example of Beijing, the most big city in China to demonstrate how cities was influenced by tourism and the change brought by tourism to these cities.
    After that Beijing successfully applied for 2008 Olympics in 2001, a six-year plan of city construction including stadium, subway, road and afforestation was implemented. First, several large new stadiums were built to hold over 600,00 people. The most famous one of them is Bird’s Nest which combines high technologies in its construction and is multifunctional for many different sports. Bird’s Nest continues to be a well-functioned stadium not only for international or domestic games but also for mega events such as concerts and anniversaries. Second, Beijing government determined to change the major way of energy use to build a healthy green environment. Back to 2001, the most common fuel people used to generate heat was coal which is cheap but pollutes the environment badly because of its chemical component often contains PM2.5 and other element such as lead which can cause serious danger to people’s health. The usage of coal as energy resource in Beijing was successfully reduced to 20% while at the mean time gas, oil, solar energy and wind energy were prompted. This change brought people more clean air and reduced the chance of respiratory diseases. Third, the transportation system was refined. Beijing built hundreds of new roads which can support more cars compared with older ones. 4-6 lines of subways were built to serve more tourists and the capital airport was also enlarged for international tourists.
    Although tourism brought Beijing many changes in urban planning, it also brought some negative impacts on other places. Beijing government urged hundreds of factories to move out of city to Hebei province which is north-west to Beijing. This policy relieved Beijing from severe air and pollution so that when foreigners came, they would find the environment not so bad. However, what must be mentioned is that Hebei province since then suffered from the pollution brought by these hundreds of factories. Furthermore, Beijing also transplanted many trees from rural areas to make urban landscape filled with more green color and beautiful. A newspaper once claimed that all the trees of a village were moved to Beijing, and the village looked like deserted. There is no source for me to know whether those places who lost their trees replanted trees. The cases mentioned above shows the power of tourism to change a city when it is connected tightly with a centralized government. Tourism still plays an important role nowadays.

    Like

  8. In the urban-rural model of Chicago of Cronon, The process of Chicago urban rural development model can be divided into the following stages: first, this region has more natural resources because of its proximity to water sources. Native American aggregated here. Second, rivers provide convenient water transportation for transporting goods. Some factories and businesses began to cluster in cities. Urban expanded gradually. After that, urban industry and Commerce promoted the development of other industries, and the city expanded further.
    Base on the Chicago Urban-Rural Model, we could find that whether an area could develop into a big city relies on its resources for human being’s living. As a human being, we prefer to live in space that can provide us more advantages. Some places having those advantages would attract the people comes here. That is the core rule of urbanization. I have asked some farmer migrants in cities who work more than 10 hours in factories in cities why they come here to live an unfair life. They told me that they come here for better educational facilities for their next generation. Even though the living condition they live in cities is worse than rural areas. The facilities they care about make them congregate into cities.
    From this model we could also understand that the development of a society can change the resources we rely on, and then alter the pattern of urbanization. The technology development of first industrial revolution triggered the manufacturing, which accelerates the aggregation of factories in Chicago, because Chicago locates at the position where the river can help citizen transport the cargos to many places we want. The arising of rail technology also changed the way of transporting industrial products. The urbanization pattern in Chicago was transferred from river orientation into railway orientation. This changeable is kind of similar to the emerging of high-speed railway in China. The high-speed railway is fast enough for business meeting. So many cities where locate the big high-speed railway station prefer to build a lot of business center to attract the corporate headquarters.
    I think the tourism has the benefits and disadvantages for human beings. On one hand, tourist boost communications and commercial development. On the other hand, tourist changes the social ecosystem of the native community. So we need to find a good way to balance the benefits and disadvantage of tourist. The problems of tourism that Amir talked with us on class derive from inappropriate pattern of tourism instead of tourism itself. For example, there are some villages in China relies on tourism has the same problems. But the native communities control the development of the tourism instead of government or commercial companies. So the local people hold the right to choose the tourism pattern and know the mechanism of tourism development. They can change the tourism pattern when there are some troubles. In Amir’s story, the reason why the person who earns more money and lives a worse life is that he doesn’t have the same knowledge scope to know what actually happen in his life.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s