FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2014, 56/2, pp. 14-28

TRANSFORMÁCIA POSTINDUSTRIÁLNEHO MESTA V PROCESE GLOBALIZÁCIE: niekoľko poznámok

TRANSFORMATION OF THE POST-INDUSTRIAL CITY IN THE GLOBALIZATION ERA: Several Remarks

Slavomír BUCHER A*

Received: April 30, 2014 | Revised: August 30, 2014 | Accepted: September 15, 2014

A* University of Prešov, 17. novembra 1, 08001 Prešov, Slovakia
slavomir.bucher@unipo.sk (corresponding author)


PDF
FULL TEXT ►


Abstract
The primary objective of the following paper is to outline the most important characteristics related to the post-industrial era of global urbanization. The paper analyses, from a critical point of view, the relevant literature mostly connected with sociology and urban geography background. The current processes in the cities’ spatial structure are defined both by factors related to the transformation of the social system and by globalization. The outstanding feature of these transformation processes is their various developments in different parts of the city. Post-industrial transformation processes are carried upon the concentration of transactional activities. The following processes characterize the post-industrial city: deindustrialization, economic polarization of the population, and gentrification. Additionally, opposing viewpoints of the most prominent researchers regarding the position and role of the modern city in the production of (socio-)economic progress will be presented. Deindustrialization is a process of societal and commercial transformation produced by the elimination of industrial capacity or activity in a country or region, especially heavy industry or manufacturing industry. The conclusion is that the place, i.e., the city, remains a relevant source of (socio-)economic progress and that possible domination of the metropolitan region over the (central) city will not necessarily result in the complete disappearance of the city as known from the industrial age. The results of the study suggest particular path dependencies and combined effects of endogenous and exogenous factors.

Key words
Post-industrial city, deindustrialization, gentrification, globalization, transformation

SUMMARY

TRANSFORMATION OF THE POST-INDUSTRIAL CITY IN THE GLOBALIZATION ERA: Several Remarks

The main aim of this paper is to systematically examine important characteristics of the city in the post-industrial age, with a particular focus on the economic characteristics of the modern city. The post-industrial city is at a moment in which industries of former economic dominance have physically shifted in global position. Radical economic planning choices and, as a consequence, physical planning decisions are critical for the longevity, prosperity, and leading edge of cities all around the world. Critical analysis of literature in the field of sociology and urban geography revealed the following processes as the most important characteristics of the post-industrial city, which are further discussed in the paper: deindustrialization, tertiarization, economic polarization of the population, increase in home manufactures, gentrification, and flexibilization of labor. One of the key reference points for international scholarship in both Anglo-American urban studies and gentrification studies is the post-industrial city. The post-industrial city is rooted in an era following industrialization, and the economy of the post-industrial city is based on the provision of services rather than on the manufacture of goods. Increasing social inequalities in transitive societies are reflected in the changing spatial structure of the cities. Gentrification has become a more integral part of the debate in most of the academic literature dealing with the changing urban environment. Another topic dedicated to urban planning and management, suburbanization, and urban sprawl is recently often discussed because post-industrial cities deal with planning and management imperfections, and there is a need to appropriately regulate the related affairs and growing suburbanization. The conclusion is that the place, i.e., the city, still remains an important source of (socio-)economic progress, and that possible domination of the metropolitan region over the (central) city will not result in the complete disappearance of the city as we know it from the industrial age.

REFERENCES

  1. BELL, D. (1999). *The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting*. New York: Basic Books.
  2. BRENNER, N. (1998). “Global Cities, Global States: Global City Formation and State Territorial Restructuring in Contemporary Europe”. *Review of International Political Economy*, 5(1), 1–37.
  3. CASTELLS, M. (1989). *The Informational City. Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban Regional Process*. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  4. COHEN, D. (2009). *Three Lectures on Post-Industrial Society*. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  5. FLORIDA, R. (2003). “Cities and the Creative Class”. *City and Community*, 2(1), 3–19.
  6. FLORIDA, R. (2005). *Cities and the Creative Class*. New York: Routledge.
  7. FLORIDA, R. (2007). *The Flight of the Creative Class*. New York: HarperCollins.
  8. FLORIDA, R. (2012). *The Rise of the Creative Class – Revisited*. New York: Basic Books.
  9. GOTTDIENER, M., HUTCHISON, R. (2011). *The New Urban Sociology*. 4th edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  10. GRAHAM, S., MARVIN, S. (2000). “Urban Planning and the Technological Future of Cities”. In: Wheeler, J.O., Aoyama, Y., Warf, B. (eds.), *Cities in the Telecommunications Age – The Fracturing of Geographies*, 71–96. London: Routledge.
  11. HALÁS, M., ROUBÍNEK, P., KLADIVO, P. (2012). “Urbánní a suburbánní prostor Olomouce: teoretické přístupy, vymezení, typologie”. *Geografický časopis*, 64(4), 289–310.
  12. HAMNETT, C. (2003). “Gentrification, Postindustrialism, and Industrial and Occupational Restructuring in Global Cities”. In: Bridge, G., Watson, S. (eds.), *A Companion to the City*, 331–341. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  13. IŠTOK, R., ANGELOVIČ, M. (2012). “Vybrané teoreticko-metodologické aspekty výskumu kvality života s prihliadnutím na prihraničné regióny”. *Folia Geographica*, 54(20), 80–96.
  14. KELLY, K. (1998). *The Rules for the New Economy*. New York: Viking.
  15. LANDRY, C. (2000). *The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators*. London: Earthscan.
  16. MARKUSEN, A. (2006). “Urban Development and the Politics of a Creative Class: Evidence From a Study of Artists”. *Environmental and Planning A*, 38(10), 1921–1940.
  17. MATLOVIČ, R., SEDLÁKOVÁ, A. (2004). “Suburbanizácia – transformačný proces priestorovej organizácie postkomunistických miest (empirický príklad Prešova)”. *Acta Facultatis Studiorum Humanitatis et Naturae Universitatis Prešoviensis, Prírodné vedy, Folia Geographica*, 7(XLII), 75–103.
  18. MATLOVIČ, R., LUKÁČOVÁ, A. (2007). “The impact of suburbanisation in the hinterland of Prešov (Slovakia)”. *Moravian Geographical Reports*, 15(2), 22–30.
  19. MATLOVIČ, R., IRA, V., KOREC, P., ONDOŠ, S. (2009). “Urban structures and their transformation (the contribution of Slovak geography)”. *Geographia Slovaca*, 26, 71–99.
  20. MATLOVIČOVÁ, K., MATLOVIČ, R., NÉMETHYOVÁ, B. (2009). “City branding of Bratislava: History and the Present”. *International Journal of Euro-Mediterranean Studies*, 2(2), 215–234.
  21. MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2010a). “Place branding as a useful tool of place competitiveness”. *Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis – Geographica*, 41(1), 5–14.
  22. MATLOVIČOVÁ, K., MATLOVIČ, R. (2010b). “Percepcia sieťovania miest ako nástroja zvýšenia ich konkurencieschopnosti (empirický príklad Košíc a Prešova)”. In: Fňukal, M., Frajer, J., Hercik, J. (eds.), *Sborník příspěvků z konference, 50 let geografie na Přírodovědecké fakultě Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci*, 429–442.
  23. MATLOVIČOVÁ, K., KOLESÁROVÁ, J. (2012). “Place branding – význam a možnosti využitia v rozvoji územia”. *Folia Geographica*, 54(19), 160–170.
  24. MICHAELI, E., MATLOVIČ, R., IŠTOK, R., KLAMÁR, R., HOFIERKA, J., MINTÁLOVÁ, T., MITRÍKOVÁ, J. (2010). *Regionálny rozvoj pre geografov*. Prešov: Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, 717 p.
  25. MICHALKO, M. (2012). “Priestor ako hlavný koncept výskumu geografie. Smerom ku kritickému konceptu priestoru”. *Folia Geographica*, 54(19), 196–209.
  26. MICHALKO, M. (2013). “Kritická regionálna politika. Hľadanie pozície geografa”. *Folia Geographica*, 55(21), 67–83.
  27. PORTER, E. (2000). “Locations, Clusters, and Company Strategy”. In: *The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography*.
  28. PRATT, A.C. (2008). “Creative Cities: The Cultural Industries and the Creative Class”. *Geografiska Annaler: Series B – Human Geography*, 90(2), 107–117.
  29. ROBINS, K., WEBSTER, F. (1999). *Times of Technoculture*. London: Routledge, 89–110.
  30. ROCHOVSKÁ, A., MILÁČKOVÁ, M. (2012). “Uzavreté komunity – nová forma rezidenčných priestorov v post-socialistickom meste”. *Geographia Cassoviensis*, 6(2), 165–175.
  31. ROCHOVSKÁ, A., MILÁČKOVÁ, M., NÁMEŠNÝ, L. (2013a). “Bratislava – mesto narastajúcich sociálnych nerovností”. In: Buček, J., Korec, P. (eds.), *Moderná humánna geografia mesta Bratislava: priestorové štruktúry, siete a procesy*. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, Prírodovedecká fakulta, Katedra humánnej geografie a demografie, 89–118.
  32. ROCHOVSKÁ, A., MAJO, J. (2013b). “Domáce je domáce, alebo už sa to pestovanie v dnešnej dobe neoplatí? (Domáce hospodárenie – stále dôležitá súčasť životných stratégií domácností slovenského postsocialistického vidieka)”. *Slovenský národopis*, 61(1), 7–30.
  33. RUSNÁK, J., KOREC, P. (2013). “Alternatívne koncepcie postsocialistickej transformácie”. *Ekonomický časopis*, 61(4), 396–418.
  34. SASSEN, S. (2001). *The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo*. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  35. SASSEN, S. (2006). *Cities in a World Economy*. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
  36. SASSEN, S. (2009). “Cities Today: A New Frontier for Major Developments”. *The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science*, 626(1), 53–71.
  37. SLAVÍK, V., KLOBUČNÍK, M., KOHÚTOVÁ, K. (2011). “Vývoj rezidenčnej suburbanizácie v regióne Bratislava v rokoch 1990 – 2009”. *Forum Statisticum Slovacum*, 7(6), 169–175.
  38. SÝKORA, L. (2001). “Klasifikace změn v prostorové struktuře postkomunistických měst”. *Acta Facultatis Studiorum Humanitatis et Naturae Universitatis Prešoviensis, Folia Geographica*, 4, 194–205.
  39. SÝKORA, L. (2009). “New Socio-Spatial Formations: Places of Residential Segregation and Separation in Czechia”. *Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie*, 100(4), 417–435.
  40. ŠVEDA, M. (2011). “Bytová výstavba v zázemí Bratislavy v kontexte suburbanizácie”. *Urbanizmus a územní rozvoj*, 14(3), 13–22.
  41. ŠVEDA, M., KRIŽAN, F. (2011). “Zhodnotenie prejavov komerčnej suburbanizácie prostredníctvom zmien v registri podnikateľských subjektov SR na príklade zázemia Bratislavy”. *Geographia Cassoviensis*, 5(2), 125–131.
  42. WEBSTER, F. (2004). *The Information Society Reader*. London, New York: Routledge, 62–80.