Discover and share stories

of adventure, connection, and change making.

3 people think this is good

Shrinking Cities : Twin Effect of Globalization and Urbanization

Jepranshu Aganivanshi

With the increasing twin phenomenon of urbanization and globalization, cities will face this issue of shrinking population and economy at more frequent rate. The city authorities have to work in such a way that it provides zeal and liveliness to its inhabitants and not just for the purpose of earning and survival.

For instance, Delhi is being developed at a rapid pace and that too in all directions. There has been a lot of public and private investment in the last few decades in the city....

Continue to urbanfailure.blogspot.in

Inappropriate?

Discuss

  1. {{attachment.file.name}}
  1. {{fields.video_link.url}}

Ready to post! You’ve uploaded the maximum number of images.

Your video is ready to post!

Oops! Nice pic, but it’s just not our (file) type. Please try uploading a .jpg or .png image.

Well, this is embarrassing. Something went wrong when posting your comment. Care to try again?

That image is too large. Maximum size is 6MB.

Please enter a valid URL from YouTube or Vimeo.

Embedding has been disabled for this video.

{{c.errors.other}}

Posting comment...

  • Jepranshu Aganivanshi

    Its a good point raised. The opinion is entirely based on the thing - what you are comparing, rural life with the city life or the cities with the cities. It's a kind of chain reaction - rural people find the worth of there life in the closest city or sometimes a far away as well, but when talking about the urbanization as a process and a prosperous city is compared with a less prosperous one, the population of the less prosperous city may find its worth in an another city which to him may provide some extra opportunities or something else in the same manner rural population moved out at first instance.
    Shrinking cities are thus a matter of the unseen competitions going across the various city developments for making their city a more livable one.
    If you talk about comparisons between an urban center with a rural one, then yes, what you said is definitely right. But if you look through other side of a building then the image will change and so as the 'winners' and the 'losers'.

    Thank you for such an insightful comment.

  • Anita W

    This was a pretty great read! I find a lot of truth in the way he describes how through the rise of globalization and urbanization, we have "winner" and "loser" cities since the majority of the population are living urban lifestyles, our cities are 'competing' against each other. In my opinion though I would say that the disappearance of skills, knowledge, and innovation does not arise from the ability of the population to move from one city to another nor its sub par standard of living values but rather it stems from solely from urbanization where we see the population moving from rural areas into the cities.

    When I was in Peru last November I met many locals who were employed as porters on the trail up to Macchu Picchu. These porters spend about 4 days out of the week carrying as much as 50 pounds up this 26 Mile trek in 4000m elevation and they only get paid about 10 USD per day. The locals are all farmers that take the train into the city and allow the farmland which they still own to go to waste. Farmers say that although agriculture has been a part of their lives for many generations they find it much more viable now to let their land go to waste, wait for a developer to buy it, and work in the cities where there is a constant flow of income rather than waiting for crops to grow which may or may not produce any value.

    Living in cities are more viable economically than living in rural areas. Therefore we see a degradation in AGRICULTURAL science and technology and thereby also losing our sense of cultural and local knowledge.

    Therefore I disagree- I don't think believe the real picture of winner and loser is to be based between cities but rather I would argue that the real winners are the cities and the losers are the rural areas. So although I don't necessarily find the idea of increasing the standard of living in cities is a bad thing, I would argue rather that focusing our improvement energy on our rural cities would be much more beneficial.