Post-neo-(post)modern (re)view

I read the Nature in the City chapter first, and found it way too abstract and verbose to even possibly relate the cities—you know, those things with BUILDINGS. And STREETS. And PEOPLE. And not a single citizen caring whether their “local state” is neo-Fordist or post-Weberian. But, I was pleasantly surprised to find that some of the more abstract notions actually translated to the lovely concrete examples given in Green Urbanism. Below are some particularly pithy ideas I pulled from Nature in the City as I was reading, and the instances where I thought these ideas reappeared in Green Urbanism:

“In this new state architecture, the local state occupies a space where the globalization process is regulated” through various policies. (32)

Regarding some of the “global policies affecting local place” discussions in the Beatley book, I was particularly inspired by some of the transcontinental policies and networks being established, where many members of the EU were working toward a common objective. I thought that really distilled the notion that it can’t just be one town, or city, or suburb, or region, or state, or country acting alone toward sustainability. Of course it is important to take initiative, be creative, and consider issues of nature, ecology, and sustainability at the micro level, but the biosphere doesn’t heed political boundaries, so working cooperatively—and thinking cooperatively—is imperative. I mean, we have an interstate transportation system, right? So what’s to stop the US from expanding the Appalachian Trail all the way to the Rockies (besides naming conventions)? Or, for that matter, a Pan-American Trail?

Furthermore—and perhaps this is reducing much of the discussion of “globalization”—one city’s (or state’s, or country’s) choices have implications on others. Ecologically this is a commonly accepted idea; we’ve all heard about emissions from smokestacks in Michigan causing acid rain in Maine (or wherever); but, in the larger sense of sustainability, particularly economic sustainability, the logic still follows: The decisions and policies of one place, whether economic, social, or ecological, effect other places both next door and across the globe.

”The city…creates ‘fragmented identities, instantaneous connections, and constant movement.’” (33)

To me, this notion of the city as both an agent of fragmentation and connection is captured fairly well in the concept of the green wedge/finger/belt versus the implementation of pocket parks, courtyards, and green roofs. Although the greenbelt in general can be seen as an element of connectivity in the city, the smaller, disconnected instances of nature can be just as instrumental in creating an overall ecological profile, and can create unstructured uses of space that facilitate connection, movement, and identification.


“[C]ities have become an important place where the ecological crisis can be both observed in its most pronounced form and addressed in an efficient way.” (37)

Particularly in regard to local ordinances regarding water contamination (Stockholm and Berlin), habitat degradation (The Hague, Utrecht) and the like, cities in a way conspire to create ecological imbalance, but intervention by local political structures can remediate problems speedily through policy and ordinance. Unlike rural areas where governance structures may not exist, or where few people live, urban environmental policy can effectively harness the dynamism and density of city life to promote change.

My main question, though, in these readings, is the extent to which policy changes or their applications can be coordinated on the regional or superregional scale, and if so, ought they come from the local level and coalesce into something larger, or begin as large-scale plans that, by virtue of semiautonomous execution by towns and cities, become tailored to the specific place?