Marlon Bailey
Department of Urban Studies, School of Labor and Urban Studies
CITIES CAN CHANGE THE PLANET : ESSAY 13
Professor: Kafui Attoh
May 18, 2021
Hillary Angelo’s and David Wacsmuth’s article “ Why does everyone think cities can save the planet” Paints a dismal picture of urban cities being environmentally unfriendly, the displacer of families, cultures, and a major contributor to global warming. By their assumption and the allusion of the title alludes to the fact that cities are the savior of the planet, although the development and expansion of cities creates numerous problems , one example being global warming which seems to contradict that the perception of cities as the savior of the planet.
The main three disqualifiers in relations to this assumption are. First base on the idea that cities are the savior of the planet and this assumption is correct, we cannot assume that cities are a sustainability solution as well as a sustainability problem for the survival of the planet. But the idea of cities being the Holy Grail starting in the 1970s and became [MR1] more prevalent throughout the 1990s,which were supposed to be carried out using a three-step process. Step one, being sprawling, which in other words the expansion of urbanization as we know it.
The second-step informal settlements initiated in 1978,involves the cutting down of forestry such as the Brazilian Rain Forest, extinction of food source that relied on by the animals and the human residents that occupies this forestry. Forcing them seeking alternate food sources questionable for human consumption, creating the perfect climate for species jumping diseases, such as Covid 19 and result in another global pandemic. This create the perfect springboard for our third step climate change that was created as the result of the actions of step-one and step two. Hillary Angelo and David Wacsmuth in thinking that cities can save the planet, with all the problems that creating cities creates for the plant is questionable and lacks the evidence in their article to validate that, their assumption is more leaning to the latter, which is the destruction of the planet? Angelo, and Wachsmuth (2020) “In short, everyone now thinks cities can save the planet”(Pg.2202)
Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid in their article “ Toward a new epistemology of the urban” argues that urban restructuring ,since the 1980s have been the global development model globally due to territorial inequality and the major switch to urbanization. In the reshaping of the perceptual territorial frameworks at every aspect of the urbanization process. Because urbanization is becoming the episteme of urban cities development and expansion.
Epistemology by Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid in their article “ Toward a new epistemology of the urban” refers to the savior complex of developers in believing that, withstanding the problems caused by urbanization and the apparent lack of accepting that we have a limited amount of knowledge on how to work with nature harmoniously, without worsening the effects of climate change. Can be seen in the way we still continue to carryout deforestation, densification of land use, by requiring more massive highways, canals, railways, airports, and container ports etc. As the result of land grab or informal settlements to facilitate the expansion of global agrobusinesses into the jungles and rain forests across the globe’s and also into the alpine regions and polar zones with the belief that cities can save the planet. If taken literally, then why is it that urban expansion of cities is the main threat to our planet’s sustainability and the major contributor to our planet’s climate change.
In closing and comparing the articles of Hillary Angelo’s and David Wacsmuth’s, Neil Brenner and Christian Schmid .The commonality that link both of these readings. Is the prioritization of economic growth over real maintainable and sustainable benefits to human-beings and our planet best interest at an irrepressible cost. In the pursuit of maintaining our basic resources, such as food ,housing ,healthcare etc. Angelo, H and Wachsmuth (2020) “ sustainable city increasingly takes a leading role in urban planning and policy discourse “ ( Pg.2202 ).
The only problem I have with this analysis, would be how can the savior of our planet also be the destroyer of our planets. This seems to me as being conflicting ideas that is based on the premise that urban cities and the influx of wealthy investors and the industries built around and inside of them is the only way that our planet remains sustainable, thus overlooking the facts that this model of thinking that base our plant’s sustainability on urbanization at any cost is narrow minded and dangerous. I think putting the future of the planet on only cities, without looking into other alternatives is only jeopardizing the sustainability of our planet.
Work Cited
Brenner, N and Schmidt, C “Towards a new epistemology of the urban” CITY. 19(2-3): 151-182.
Angelo, H and Wachsmuth (2020) “Why does everyone think cities can save the planet” Urban Studies. 57 (11) 2201-2221
