Towards undivided cities
in Western Europe
.
New ehallenges for urban poliey
Part 7 Comparative analysis
TOW ARDS UNDIVIDED CITIES IN WESTERN
EUROPE
New challenges for urban policy
PART 7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Bib! i ot heeL TU De1t t.
" "11 "" I
C 30196622392
485
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
The city of The Hague
The Netherlands Graduate School of Housing and Urban Research
Delft University of Technology OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Study Centre for
TOW ARDS UNDIVIDED CITIES IN WESTERN
EUROPE
New ehallenges for urban poliey
PART 7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Editors H. Priemus S. Musterd R. van Kempen
With contributions from P. Marcuse (USA) M. Harloe (UK) A. Murie (UK)
S. Musterd and M. de Winter (NL) H. Kruythoff (NL)
The series Towards undivided eities in Western Europe. New challenges for urban policy is published by:
Delft University Press Mekelweg 4
2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands Phone + 31 15 278 32 54 Fax +31 15278 1661
CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Comparative analysis
Comparative analysis / Priemus, H., S. Musterd and R. van Kempen (eds.) - Delft : Delft University Press. - 111. - (Towards undivided eities in Western Europe. New challenges for urban policy / OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, ISSN 1387-4888 : 7)
ISBN 90-407-1545-9 NUGI 655
Trefw. : undivided eities , Western Europe , comparative analysis
Copyright <0 1998 by OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher: Delft University
CONTENTS
1 DIVIDED AND UNDIVIDED CITIES: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ..... 1
H. Priemus, S. Musterd and R. van Kempen (NL) 2 GHETTO'S AND FORTRESSES, NEW AND OLD ... 5
P. Marcuse (USA) 3 HOUSING IN DIVIDED CITIES ...... 21
M. Harloe (UK) 3.1 Introduction ... 21
3.2 Growing segregation in urban housing ... 22
3.3 Segregation: causal factors ... 23
3.4 From social housing as a mass model to social housing as a residential form ... 25
3.5 Market, state, and household ... 27
3.6 Economic arguments supporting housing and urban policy ... 28
4 HOUSING AND SEGREGATION: THE DUTCH APPROACH SEEN FROM ABROAD ... 31 A. Murie (UK) 4.1 Introduction . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. 31 4.2 Historical views ... 31 4.3 Current pressures ... 32 4.4 Urban policy ... 34 4.5 Housing questions ... 35 4.6 Conclusions ... 36
5 SPATlAL SEGREGATION IN EUROPEAN CITIES: PROBLEMS, SYMPTOMS AND POLICIES ...... 37
S. Musterd and M. de Winter (NL) 5.1 Introduction ... 37
5.2 Is segregation a problem? ... 38
5.3 Segregation in European cities ... 39
5.5 Policy: what can be manipulated? ... 44
5.6 Conclusions ... 47
6 SEGREGATION DIAGNOSTICS, ANTI-SEGREGATION REMEDIES; SIX EUROPEAN CASE-STUDIES REVIEWED ... 51
H. Kruythoff (NL) 6.1 Introduction ... 51
6.2 Segregation in the cities: some figures ... 55
6.3 Segregation at the regionallevel: some figures ... 61
6.4 Historical, political and economie context: some explanation of segregation ... 70
6.5 Anti-segregation policies ... 78
6.5.1 Area oriented measures to counteract deprivation ... 78
6.5.2 Other policies to support the disadvantaged ... 82
6.5.3 Housing policies combatting spatial segregation ... 84
1
DIVIDED AND UNDIVIDED eITIES: QUESTIONS
ANDANSWERS
H. Priemus, S. Musterd and R. van Kempen
This is the fmal part in the series 'Towards undivided cities in Western Europe. New challenges for urban policy.' In the earlier parts we described and analysed the socio-spatial developments in six European cities: the Hague, Barcelona, Birmingham, Brussels, Frankfurt, and Lille. The central issue is the looming possibility, if not the reality, of spatial divisions within cities with respect to income and ethnieity, the emergence of concentration areas, and the role of housing policy and other policies to combat segregation.
The municipality of the Hague and the Ministry of Housing in the Netherlands have jointly commissioned this investigation to OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies (Delft University of Technology) and the Amsterdam Study Centre for the Metropolitan Environment (AME), University of Amsterdam. Two issues are at stake: to what extent does segregation occur within a number of European cities; and between a city and its hinterlands? And what policy measures are being taken by central and local government to counter segregation? The aim of this initiative is to see what lessons the Netherlands can learn from the experiences of other countries, not too far away.
The contact persons in each of the six cities were asked to respond to the following re-search questions:
I. What general economic and demographic developments are involved in the rise of segregation and the efforts to combat it? What is the structure of the welfare state, and to what extent has it changed recently?
11. To what extent is segregation experienced as a problem by policy makers at the national, regional, and locallevel? How does the perception of segregation as a problem develop?
lIl. To what extent does segregation in a socio-economie and ethnie sense occur within the city and between the city and its hinterland? How does the phe-nomenon of segregation develop at the local and the regionallevel?
IV. What policy is pursued at the national, regional, and local level to combat seg-regation? To what extent do the policy makers use instruments such as the rein-forcement of the economie structure, education, the promotion of employment, spatial planning and urban revitalization? What effects do these instruments have?
V. What speeific instruments of housing policy are implemented in the fight against segregation? What are the (antieipated) outcomes of that effort? The study is based on information provided by contact persons in each eity, on-site visits by members of the research team, and on personal communication with the contact persons. On 9 October, 1997 an international workshop was held in the "Haagse Lobby" in the Hague, in which the eity papers were discussed and com-pared. Presentations were given by Peter Marcuse, Michael Harloe and Sako Musterd. On 10 October 1997 Alan Murie gave his view on the political approach in the Neth-erlands for a Dutch audience in the Nieuwe Kerk, the Hague. There, a seminar was held for about 350 partieipants, mainly representatives of the national, regional and local administrations ..
These presentations are all published in this book. First, Peter Marcuse focuses on three spatial developments in the American eities: (1) the emergence of a new form of ghetto, characterized by exclusion, abandonment and separation from other parts of the eity; (2) a totalizing suburb as a representation of a so-called exclusionary enclave; and (3) the development of fortified eitadels or "walled communities", those luxury and upper-class residences in separate areas of the eity. These developments of what we could call extreme areas within the eity should be seen in connection with each other. The emergence of rich enclaves at the very least reinforces the emergence of the new excluded ghetto. The views of Marcuse are based on experiences in a rela-tively liberal urban context in which market forces are at the forefront. But what is the relevance of these insights in a European context? The other authors in this booklet focus on that context.
Michael Harloe, in chapter 3, discusses the changing role of housing and housing policy in divided eities in several European countries. This issue is also addressed in a recent proposal for research into competition and soeial cohesion in London.
In chapter 4 Alan Murie deals with the relationship between housing and segrega-tion in the Netherlands, as it is seen from abroad. He concludes that combatting seg-regation in eities requires interference in more than the housing field alone. Housing actors have to enter into different partnerships. Important issues are: community de-velopment, education, training, and jobs, often in combination with housing.
Sako Musterd and Mariëlle de Winter enter into a comparative approach in chap-ter 5 with, 'Spatial segregation in European eities: problems, symptoms and polieies.' They conclude that ethnic and soeio-economic segregation in European eities is less extensive than in American eities, that spatial concentration of low income households and ethnic minorities is not always to be deplored. In the battle against segregation, polieies concerned with income redistribution and the labour market may be more es-sential than area-based polieies and housing policy.
Finally, in chapter 6 Helen Kruythoff reviews the data on segregation in the six eities studied and the polieies in· those eities aimed to counter spatial segregation. In her contribution she looks at segregation diagnostics and anti-segregation remedies, comparing the six European case-studies.
We may conclude that, in a more market oriented housing system, the tendency towards increasing income, unemployment, and ethnic inequality between urban
quarters can be observed in many European cities. The changing nature of the welfare state creates growing income differences between unemployed and employed house-holds.
Spatial segregation and concentration have always existed and they will continue to do so. Under the influence of the growing importance of market oriented housing systems, both segregation and concentration may be expected to increase with respect to income, as well as with respect to ethnicity, particularly when ethnic categories continue to have low incomes and low prospects on the labour markets (which is still the case, for example, for the former guest workers in Western European countries). But, despite these increases, we must also conclude that the American picture sketched by Marcuse is still far from the situation in Western Europe. Here, too, we have ur-ban areas in which people are not very satisfied, where they suffer disproportionately from unemployment and all forms of exclusion, etc. But these areas are not to be seen as ghettos of exclusion and separation.
We should, moreover, be aware that as long as spatial concentration of low in-come households, unemployed people and ethnic minorities is the result of their own choices, these concentrations may have certain advantages. People can provide mutual support and feel safe amongst each other. Urban governments should be aware of this and not automatically start to combat segregation and the concentration of poor and ethnic minority households when they do not know enough about the problems and prospects of specific neighbourhoods and their inhabitants.
Where households are more or less obliged to live in a high concentration of low income, the unemployed, or ethnic minorities social exclusion may be observed and, as a result of negative cumulative developments, disadvantages may be obvious. In these cases central and urban governments have good reason to combat segregation. The question is: how? The policy mix is very different in different countries and dif-ferent cities. Usually a combination of housing policy, education and labour market policy is adopted. Although it is not yet clear which policy measures are most effec-tive, it is evident that only a comprehensive approach is adequate. This is usually a combination of national policies (fiscal policy, income policy, social policy and labour market policy), urban policies (spatial planning, housing policy and urban economic policy) and area-based policies (redifferentiation of the housing stock, improvement of public space and urban structures and community developments). At the end of this investigation some fundamental questions remain, both for politicians and researchers.
We still do not know enough about the social and economic impact, either in a positive or a negative sense, of segregation and concentration. And there is a lack of knowledge about the opportunities residents themselves have to improve their housing and working situation. Finally, more knowledge about the role of urban governance might shed new light on the role of public and private bodies in improving the neigh-bourhoods.
2
GHETTO'S AND FORTRESSES, NEW AND OLD·
P. Marcuse
Three spatial developments are strikingly characteristic of urban patterns in the United States in the period since about 1970 - the period sometimes designated "post-Fordist," the period of the major new changes described briefly in the opening article of this issue. The over-arching phenomenon is the increasing separation of the parts of the city from each other,. reflecting in space an increasing economic, social, and po-litical separation. Earlier we have spoken of essentially five "quarters" of the city,2 and the likely changes in each; here I focus on changes in the abandoned city at the bottom of the hierarchy, the suburban city at the middle, and the luxury city at the top of that hierarchy.
These three key developments are:
• the transformation of the earl ier racial ghettos into excluded ghettos, class/racial ghettos of the excluded and abandoned, separated from the other parts of the city by social, economic, and often physical barriers;
• a qualitatively new phase of totalizing suburban development, in which "edge cities" are created combining residential, business, social, and cultural areas, removed from older central cities, overlaid on earlier patterns of suburbanization and, representing a dramatic and expanded form of the exclusionary enclave;
• the parallel transformation of luxury and upper-class residences (and increasingly businesses and social and cultural facilities- thus similarly totalizing) into separate ar-eas, appropriately calledfortified citadels, each again separated from the other parts of the city by social, economic, and often physical barriers.
The three developments are intimately connected with each other, and mutually rein -forcing. They stem from significant changes in national and international structures, and the extent of their manifestation is influenced by the balance of political and
eco-• First published under the title 'The Ghetto of Exclusion and the Fortified Enclave: New Patterns in the United States, in: American 8ehavioral Scientist, 41, nr. 3, 1997, pp. 311-326. Copyright 1997 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by Permis sion of Sage Publications, Inc.
2 The formulation was first suggested in Marcuse, Peter. 1989. '" Dual City': a muddy metaphor for a
quartered city." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 13, no. 4, December, pp.697-708.
nomic power among the groupings and classes involved. Neither those changes nor the conflicting forces that influence their outcomes need to be described again here; they are amply documented in the literature.3 But that literature, while rich in descrip-tion and analysis on other levels, has not focused on the concrete mechanisms by which these national and international farces and the conflicts in which they are in-volved produce speeific spatial changes within eities: Indeed, in some ways the globalization literature is misleading when it comes to looking at internal spatial structure. It focuses on the hierarchical line up of eities, and emphasizes the unique role of "world" or "global" cities, implying different patterns in those cities than in eities that do not meet their defining criteria. Yet, in fact, eities throughout the hierar-chy (if that is indeed an appropriate term) display much the same patterns: Detroit manifests the development of the three critical contemporary developments in a way parallel to New York City, and Cleveland parallels Los Angeles. Concrete forms and locations differ fiom eity to eity, but the tendeneies here described can be found in all. That is true, I believe, internationally as well as within the United States; Säo Paulo has patterns similar to those of London, Munich those of Tokyo, Nan'ning those of Beijing. The emphasis on rank order and position in the international system of cities may thus unintentionally have led to the suggestion that cities at the top of the ranking have internal spatial processes inherently different from those elsewhere in the rank order. 1 think such a suggestion is contrary to the evidence. Indeed, some of the clas-sic spatial patterns expected in eities like New York City, including those described in this chapter, may be found in even more extreme form in a eity like Detroit. 5 In this sense, the claims made in this chapter as to the development of new urban structures are broad, and extend well beyond the cities often characterized as global.
In another sense, however, the claims of this paper are more limited than some of the globalization literature would suggest might be appropriate. What is described here is not all the result of global changes, and those changes affect directly only a
l The seminal text was in Aglietta, Michael. 1979. A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The U.S. Ex-perience. Norfolk, Great Britain: Low and Brybone. For a view of the subsequent discussion, see Ash Arnin, ed., 1994. Post-Fordism: A Reader. London: Blaekwell.
4 The literature beginning with an urban focus, mueh of it eoming from geography and urban studies, is
rieher here than the globalization literature; see, for instanee, the treatment of gentrifieation, which both as an economie and a spatial phenomenon as been extensively and well analyzed (for instanee Smith, NeH, and Peter Williams, eds. 1986. Gentrification and the City. London: Allen and Unwin, and the growing attention to fortified enclaves eited below). In asense, this paper is an attempt to bring the two streams of thought, the urban analysis and the discussions of globalization, more closely together. It pieks up one of the two major threads largely initiated by John Friedmann and Goetz Wolff's paper, whieh dealt with internal urban spatial structure; indeed the term citadel was first used, in somewhat the same sense used here, by Friedmann. More attention has been paid to the separation of residential areas within eities than to the distribution of business aetivities within them. That is true of my own prior work also; for my first discus sion of the issue of the separation of areas of different forms of business aetivity to form their own separated areas of eoneentration within the city, see Mar-euse, Peter. 1994. "Not Chaos but Walls: Postmodernism and the Partitioned City." in Sophie Watson and Katherine Gibson, eds. Postmodern Cities and Spaces. Oxford: Blaekwell. For eomments on the other stream, which deals with the hierarehy of eities, see the text above.
5 See, for instanee, Sugrue, Thomas J. 1996. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Prineeton: Princeton University Press.
fraction of what happens in cities. The new patterns all build on older ones, and are as much extensions of older patterns as brand new ones. Ghettoization based on race and class is after all nothing new; externally enforced spatial separation of groups has been one of the most invidious characteristics of urban development throughout history, and its recent extreme forms under the Nazis can scarcely be forgotten. Suburbanization, likewise, is a long-standing trend; some studies date its origins to the streetcar suburbs of the late 19th century, others talk of forms of suburbanization in late medieval
Eng-land. Exclusion always played a role in such suburbs, if often only relying on pricing to establish exclusivity, but in the 20th century, in the United States it was clearly buttressed by a variety of legal institutions and physical markers. And citadels are nothing new; the ancient Near East had impressive ones, and the Dark Ages in Europe saw famous examples; colonial powers erected more subdued but perhaps more op-pressive ones throughout the world. Only the specific characteristics of these devel-opments described below can really be claimed to be new or distinctively post-Fordist. Nor can the claim be sustained that these new globalizing developments characterize the lives of all residents of today's cities, or perhaps even a majority of them. The conception that if a city is "global," all of it is global, is wrong. In fact, many-arguably, most-parts of most cities, including many at the top and many lower down in the hierarchy, are not directly involved with its global characteristics. One can, in-deed, find linkages to global activities in almost every sphere of life: the clothing the most insular suburbanite wears may have been made in China, the price of his or her automobile, and therefore possibly even whether he or she owns one, may be deter-mined by international competitive forces, the company that provided jobs in location A may have been, by decision of some internationally constituted corporation, been relocated to location B. But such linkages are simply a slightly different vers ion of connections to the outside world that have long existed for most people: jobs we re re-located from the north to the south, goods purchased in one state were manufactured in another, and tastes were constituted by foreign as weil as domestic sources. Pro-ducer services directly amount to a small fraction of all employment in any city, in-cluding the most global; their impact on spatial patterns is only one of a great variety of impacts. And all are, of course, molded by the preexisting physical fabric of the city, the built environment. Much more work needs to be done to spell out, in]elation to other forces, just what specifically global impact is. That it is not the only force in every sphere is, of course, obvious.
The changes we are talking about -then, the development of the excluded ghetto, of the exclusionary enclave into totalizing suburbs, and of the fortified citadel-are new phenomena which represent a combination of old and well-known processes with elements that are substantively new.
One of the difficulties in analysis is a matter of terminology: are ghettos analo-gous to enclaves? Can one talk of ghettos of the rich, of elderly ghettos, of ghettos of the poor? AI e middle-class suburbs middle-class ghettos? Is the Black ghetto in the United State comparable to the Jewish ghettos of the middle ages6? Are the high-rise
6 Recall the fOljffiulation of Louis Wirth, which in hindsight raises rnany of these questions at once: "The
areas of concentration of business activity and the residence of business people, the La Defenses and Battery Park Cities, the fortified enclaves of Säo Paulo or Tokyo, Bo-gotá or Manila, analogous to the high-density areas of concentration of lower-income households in social housing, in these and other eities? Are they analogous in class terms, although different in physical terms, to the suburbanization resulting in edge eities? Are immigrant enclaves and luxury high-rises functionally equivalent? Are edge eities simply bigger suburbs? Can one speak of exclusion in these new spatial clusters outside of older cities, when in fact there is substantial diversity in their populations? Is the nature of the boundaries-walled, spatial distance, soeial separa-tion-the defining characteristic of these various forms of spatial development, or is it the fact of an exclusionary or segregated resident population, or the nature of that population, or the activities taking place within them, that defines them?
Simply a few words on how I am using terms in this paper may thus be helpfuI. 7 For purposes of this paper, I use the term areas of concentration as the generic and then define the terms I want to use as follows:
A ghetto is a spatially concentrated area used to separate and to limit a particular involuntarily and usually racially defined population group held to be, and treated as, inferior by the dominant society.
Two subcategories are differentiated within the general definition of ghetto:
A traditional ghetto is a ghetto in which the confinement of residents is desired by the dominant interests of the society because that confinement facilitates astrong measure of control over residents' activities, activities that further dominant eco-nomie interests.
The new ghetto of the exciuded is a ghetto in which race is combined with ciass in a spatially concentrated area where residents' activities are exciuded from the economie life of the surrounding society, which does not profit significantly from its existence; the confinement of their residents to the ghetto is desired by the dominant interests out of fear that their activities, not controlled, may endanger the dominant social peace. 8
black belt, and the Chinese in Chinatown." Wirth, Louis. 1928. The Ghetto. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [reprinted 1956], p. 283.
7 I have developed these definitions in: "The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City?," Urban Affairs Review, 33 (2), 228-264. Boal, F.W. 1978. "Ethnic Residential Segregation," in Herbert, D. T., and Johnston, R. J., eds. Socia! Areas in Cities: Proc-esses, Patterns and Problems, volume 1: Spatial Processes and Form. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 57-95, is an excellent earl ier attempt at definitional clarity in dealing with these questions.
8 The Nazis'treatment of the Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe is such on extreme form of this pattern that it stands by itself; fear rnay have been used in the popular propaganda to incite enrnity to their populations, but it was hardly fear that led to the Holocaust.
An enclave, on the other hand, is conceptually quite different:
An enclave is a spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular population group, self-defined by ethnicity or religion or otherwise, congregate as a means of enhancing their economie, social, political and/or cultural develop-ment.
Three subcategories need to be differentiated with the general definition of enclave: immigrant enclaves' cultural enclaves and exclusionary enclaves. The difference be-tween the immigrant and the cultural enclave is not of important for the purposes of the argument here. The exclusionary enclave, although not new, plays a new role to-day, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It differs from other forms of enclaves (although there are shared characteristics) in that its residents, intermediate and inse-cure in their economie, political and social relationships to the outside community, wish to 'proteet ' themselves from a perceived danger from below.
And I would differentiate a citadel from any of these forms:
A citadel is a spatially concentrated area in which members of a particular popu-lation group, defined by its position of superiority in power, wealth, or status in relation to its neighbors, congregate as a means of protecting or enhancing that position. lhey are exclusionary, through the use of social and/or physical means of fortijication, although in some the restrietions on access may be very subtle in-deed. lhey proteet established positions of superiority and power seen as secure, deserved, and permanent.
Central to these definitions is the relationship between residents and the remainder of society. The residents of ghettos stand in an inferior, generally dominated and ex-ploited (although resisting), relationship to those outside. Thosc in enclaves are in between, if exploited, they nevertheless see themselves on the way up, if exploiting, they nevertheless see themselves as also subject to the power of others. And those in the citadels are at the top of the hierarchy, benefiting disproportionately trom their economie and political relationship with others.
But all of these spatial concentrations inside (and outside) the cities of the present period exhibit two new characteristics: walling, in which they are each more and more cut off trom their surroundings, symbolically or actually by walls, and a totalizing trend, in which each of them more and more internalizes within its boundaries all of the necessities of life, from work to residence to entertainment to culture. The walls that form the boundary of the ghetto may be railroad tracks (an earlier pattern achiev-ing symbolic status), or a highway, or a set of buildachiev-ings, a topographieal feature, a shift in building type, or simply a well-recognized line of social demarcation. I have described the walling-in aspect of the ghetto elsewhere;9 the extent, rather than the
9 See Marcuse, Peter. 1994. "Not Chaos but Walls: Postmodernism and the Partitioned City." in Sophie Watson and Katherine Gibson, eds. Postmodern Cities and Spaces. Oxford: Blackwell, and
Mar-type, of walls are new. In this chapter would rather focus on other aspects of the cur-rent patterns.
What is new, then, I suggest, is a set of linked developments: -the creation of the excluded ghetto;
-the major expansion of the exclusionary enclave into the totalizing suburb, economie and social as weil as aresidential;
-the development of massive fortified and totalizing citadels in or close to central cities;
-the increasing separation of each from the other, and from other parts of the city, through fortification, walling in (for the ghetto) and walling out (for the exclusionary enclaves and the citadels), and increasing totalizing internalization of the environment for all aspects of daily life. . Although most of these patterns have strong historical antecedents and have been rec-ognizable for some time, the combination of the totalizing trend and the exclusionary trend of the suburbs into what are now often called "edge citieslo " gives rise to a phe-nomenon that appears new: the totalizing suburb.
The totalizing suburb is a spatially concentrated development taking place out-side of the central city and inner suburbs in which business activities, employ-ment centers, and commercial and cultural facilities are brought together with residentially exclusionary enclaves in a form that permits diversity without in-cluding either the top or the bottom ofthe social and economie hierarchy. The recognition of the excluded ghetto is by now widespread. 11 Two separate streams
of analysis have contributed to the discussion, differing in their starting points and emphases, but not necessarily inconsistent with each other. One places the central em -phasis on race, the other on economie change and class. The former has been devel-oped, logieally enough, in the United States; the latter, although also receiving major attention here, has greater linkages to European experience. The key text dealing with the racial ghetto is Massey and Denton's American Apartheid, l2 although significant
literature developing some of the issues has also appeared.13 William Julius Wilson has
cuse, Peter. 1997. "Walls of Fear and Walls of Support." In Ellin, Nan, ed. Architecture of Fear.
Princeton University Press, pp. 101-114.
l<YJbe phrase was popularized by Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New
Y ork: Doubleday.
l1For a recent discussion, see Marcuse, Peter. 1996. "Space and Race in the Post-Fordist City: The
Outcast Ghetto and Advanced Homelessness in the Bnited States Today." in Enzo Mingione, ed.
Ur-ban Poverty and the UndercJass, Oxford: Blackwell.
12Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the
Making of the UndercJass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
13Among the best recent studies are: Goldsmith, William, and Edward Blakeley. 1992. Separate
been the most productive of the commentators stressing the role of economic change and its relationship to ciass; his use of the term "the underciass" has probably been the most provocative contribution to the sociological literature in the last twenty years. 14 Wilson's substitution of the term "ghetto poor" for "underciass"15 suggests the linkage between race and ciass and its spatial component.
The exciuded ghetto of today is not simply an extreme form of the traditional ghetto, but a new form in which permanent exciusion from participation in the main-stream economy, whether formalor informal, has become its defining characteristic. 16 The historical changes in the traditional ghetto that have produced the exciuded ghetto inciude a range of contemporary economic forces-from post-Fordist changes in the organization of production to globalization to business activities to development of new informational technologies-and the political and social consequences of these forces interacting with entrenched patterns of racial discrimination and spatial segre-gation. The exciuded ghetto is today both the home and the place of work of those whom Wilson caUs the "ghetto POOf." lts characteristics have been often described. 17
It is inseparably linked, in the United States, to racist patterns. One may thus speak of hypersegregation not as identical with exciusion, but as very largely overlapping it, and the figures show little or no reduction in its extent despite more than four decades of formal governmental commitrnent to its abolition. 18
But one may speak, at the same time, of "hyperpauperization": of the "new urban poor," of the exciusion of an increasingly large segment of society from participation in the work force, in either the formalor the legitimate informal sector of the econ-omy. Unemployment figures do not capture the problem, for they generaUy rely on statistics derived from counts of persons attached to the workforce. Within the debate over welfare reform there has always been an undercurrent of acknowledgment of the fact that many, indeed perhaps most, welfare recipients are not on welfare because they do not want to work, or do not have skills necessary to secure work, but because there is no work paying a living wage available for them. In previous periods, unem-ployment was seen as cyciical and, if there was high unemunem-ployment, there was also the expectation that things would get better, that the business cycie was to blame, and
Robert D., Eugene Grigsby III, and Charles Lee, eds. 1994. Residential Apartheid: The American Legaey. Los Angeles: Enter for Afro-American Studies, University of California at Los Angeles.
14Appropriately enough, the other contender for that honor is probably John Friedmann and Goetz Wolffs "world cities" or Saskia Sassen's "global cities."
15Wilson, William Julius. 1991. "Studying inner-city Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research." American Sociological Review, Vol 56, February, p. 6.
161 have begun to explore the shifting nature and views of the United States ghetto in "The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City?" Urban Affairs Review, forthcoming, and in "The Petrification of the American Ghetto", in the Netherlands Journalof Hous-ing and the Built Environment, forthcoming.
17Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: the Inner City, the Underclass, and Pub-lie PoPub-liey, Chicago. The University of Chicago Press, remains the most important work.
18For a sensitive discussion of the multiple dimensions of hypersegregation and exactly what should be measured and how, see, apart from Massey and Denton, Jencks, Christopher. 1991. "Is the American Underclass Growing?', Jencks, Christopher, and P. E. Petersen. 1991. The Urban Underclass.
that the problem was, if severe, temporary. That does not hold true today. It is at the boom portion of a cycle (if the cyclical pattern indeed continues) that we find the ghetto poor who feel that (and from all available information probably correctly) they are permanently excluded from the labor force, hence the desperation and the heed-lessness that underlie so much of the drug use and crime in the poorer sections of our cities today.
The increasing discussion, within African-American and civil rights circles of whether racism is a permanent feature of United States society is not unrelated to this pattern of hyperpauperization. For if the loss of jobs and the redistribution of jobs, nationally and internationally, affect primarily African-Americans;, and if this situa-tion is permanent, then the posisitua-tion of many African-Americans mayalso be perma-nent. Put together these two tendencies-hyperpauperization and continued racial dis-crimination--and the spatial result is the ghetto of the excluded.
The trend to totalize the environment of the ghetto is unmistakable. It is an am-bivalent one. On one hand, residents of the ghetto have astrong desire for jobs, shop-ping, entertainment, and recreation that are readily accessible to them, thus conven-iently located in or near the ghetto. On the other hand, many outside the ghettos, spurred by racism coup led with the perceived threats of crime and unpleasantness, also are happy to see ghetto residents stay within the ghettos. Public policy is at best also ambivalent, at worst fully supportive of, such a totalization of life in the ghetto. The current policy of the empowerment zone legislation, for instance, as much of a formal urban policy as the United States now has, supports employers within the ghetto in hiring residents living in the ghetto, and the focus is on developing the ghetto, not creating opportunities outside as weil as inside it. Thus public policy, in such legislation is increasing the separation, the walling in, of the ghetto. 19
This almost total separation from the life of the rest of the traditional space of the city, economic and social as weIl as physical, is also a characteristic, in quite different form, of the new totalizing suburb (as weIl as of today's citadel). The totalizing ex-clusionary suburb is the other side of the coin of the excluded ghetto. If concern with crime is consistently given by a majority of urban residents as one, if not the main, concern they have with their neighborhood; if racism, conscious or not, is a compo
-nent of that concern; and if social factors in general are a primary determinant of resi
-dential location, then the attempt to build a system of private defenses against crime is a plausible response. Sometimes that defense can be created simply by distance; exclu-sionary suburbs outside the central cities (and far removed from the traditional ghet-tos) have long been a characteristic of the United States landscape. But both the extent
and, even more, the nature of these suburbs have changed in recent years.
19For one critique of that policy, see "The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the Post-Fordist U.S. City." Urban Affairs Review. For a more complex view, differentiating between economie isolation, political autonomy, and community, but tentative in its conclusions, see Gold-smith, WilIiam. 1979. "The Ghetto as a Resource for Black America." Journal of the American Insti-tute of Planners, Vol 40, no. 1, reprinted in Jay M. Stein, ed. 1995. Classic Readings in Urban Plan-ning., New York: McGraw HilI. His subsequent article, Goldsmith, WilIiam. 1982, "Enterprise Zones: If They Work, We're in Trouble." International Journalof Urban and Regional Research, vol. 3 takes a much stronger position against simple policies such as the empowerment zone program of to-day.
Exclusionary suburbs have indeed long been a characteristic of United States cities; much of the urban debate, not just in the academic literature but much more heatedly in the courts and the political arena, centered on attempts to counter the racial exclu-sivity that accompanied, and largely contributed to, the post war suburban expansion. But it was characteristic of these suburbs that they were primarily residential. Com-mereial facilities, indeed, were provided to meet local shopping needs, on a larger and larger scale as developments grew. The spread of shopping malis reflects that process; they serve primarily residential needs, and until recently focused on the middle of the market, not its specialized or extreme sectors. In a few cases, attempts were con-seiously made, usually under progressive stimulus, to integrate the provision of jobs with the provision of housing; Reston (Virginia) and Columbia (Maryland) are the outstanding examples in the United States. The British New Towns, the French Grand Villes are in the same tradition (indeed, established that tradition). But their essence was quite different from that of what are commonly called the edge eities of today. They were designed to attract those who were crowding into the eities, urban dweliers for whom there was no room in the existing urban centers. They were intended to be inclusive, not exclusive; indeed subsidized housing lay at the heart of their housing provision, certainly in Britain and France and, in terms of the intent of their founders, in the U nited States. 20
Whether the new edge eities should be described as suburbs is a matter of defini-tion, but there is a conceptual issue involved. If suburb is defined as primarily resi-dential, and dependent economicaliy for the employment of its residents in the central eity, then these are not suburbs. But if the concern is for the motivation leading to their creation, to their choice as a place to be by their residents, to their social char-acter and their position in the hierarchies of space, then they are indeed suburbs. I as-sume here what has been called the "push hypothesis " 21 about the creation of suburbs
at least in the post-war United States: that the growing concentration of Blacks in central cities and the related fears of crime and the spin-offs of poverty, have acceler-ated movement to the suburbs many-fold.22 Lizabeth Cohen puts it bluntly:23 " ... suburbanization must be seen as a new form of racial segregation in the face of a huge wave of African-American migration from the South to the North during the
1950's. "
20See Sclar and Schurnan.
21The phrase, I believe, originated with Guterbock, Thomas M. 1976. "The Push Hypothesis: Minority Presence, Crime, and Urban Deconcentration," in Barry Schwartz, ed. The Chaning Face of the Sub-urbs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. See also Swanstrom, Todd. 1996. "Ideas Mater: Reflec-tions on the New Regionalism." Cityscape, vol. 2, no. 2, May, pp. 5-21, to whom I owe the refer-ence, and Kenneth Jackson. 1991. "Review of Edge Cities." New York Times, September 22. 22The point is generally acknowledged today. David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, cites as
one ofhis 24 "Lessons from Urban America:" "Racial prejudice has shaped growth patterns," and he describes the White suburbs of American cities as deriving from that pattern. Cities without Suburbs, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 28.
23Cohen, Lizabeth. 1996. "From Town Center to Shopping Center: The Reconfiguration of Community Marketplaces in Postwar America." In The American Historical Review, vol 101, no., 4, October, p.
She is speaking of the suburbs of the post war period, with their new accompaniment,
the malls and shopping centers: When developers and store owners set out to make the
shopping center a more perfect downtown, they aimed to exclude from this public space unwanted urban groups such as vagrants, prostitutes, raeial minorities and poor
people.
This is the direct lineage of the "edge eities," and therefore I have chosen here to call them "totalizing suburbs," to indicate both this link to the etiology of the suburbs
of the past and the new character which brings employment, culture, recreation, di
-versified shopping, entertainment that are akin to that of the central eity to them also.
It is a total environment that is being created, not a partial one. As Neil Pierce, at
least as perceptive a journalist as Joel Garreau, has pointed out, the movement of
fac-tories and offices out of the central eities has much to do with the same "pushes"24 that
created the residential suburbs in the fITst place. Ultimate economic dependence on the
central eity may indeed still exist (just as ultimately the economy of each city is also significantly dependent on the national economy, and it in turn on the international
economy). But in terms of daily life and daily activities, these are indeed total urban
environments.
But these total urban environment are only for those who are there. They do not include the entire spectrum of urban dweIlers. At the top, they do not include those with controlling positions in trade, industry, or finance; their centers remain in the
central business district of the major eities. They are producing their own totalized
environments, in the new eitadels described below. Neither do the edge eities include
the very poor, the unemployed, the ghetto poor. It is striking how little the question of
race appears in discussions of edge cities in the popular press, or indeed in Joel
Gar-reau's original book introdueing the phrase into the public discourse. Attention is
in-deed placed on having a range of housing available, so that not only the symbol ma
-nipulators and branch office managers and budding entrepreneurs can live there, but
also school teachers, policemen, store clerks, typists. But that does not mean the
un-educated, the welfare recipients, the long-term unemployed, the substance abusers-and poor Blacks. There is nothing fundamentally against rniddle-class Blacks, indeed,
in. most edge eities, although they suffer from discrimination there as elsewhere. And
Hispanics who are needed for more menial work, gardening or domestic work, may be admitted too, although reverse commuting is as often the pattern. 25
Totalizing
is also an appropriate term for what is happening in the eitadels of power inthe central eities, and occasionally outside of them, in the United States and else
-where. The reference here is to the developments such as Battery Park City in New York City, La Defense in Paris, Docklands in London, the three new central business districts of Säo Paulo, Shinjuku in Tokyo, the Renaissance Center in Detroit, the
un-24Pierce, Neal, et al. 1993. Citistates: How Urban America Can Prosper in a Competitive World, Washington, O.C.: Seven Locks Press.
251n a recent experience of mine, a Long Island community within commuting range of New York City was charged with discriminating against Blacks, only a tiny number of whom lived there. The re-sponse was to point to the much larger number of Hispanic residents as demonstrating that the com
derground city center of Montreal, and countless others. But it is not only newly-built
centers that exhibit the characteristics of citadels. When planning and development
lead to the convers ion of office space to residential space in the financial district of Manhattan, the re sult is a further separation of those working there, now living there
also, from the rest of the city. The full range of facilities is provided here: concerts
are given in the Crystal Palace at the center of Battery Park City, shopping is provided there, restaurants are open to all hours; intensive gentrification in surrounding sites and comprehensively planned new development come together to create an island of
prosperity and peace. These are citadels indeed in their strongest classical form:
pi aces where there residents can live isolated and protected from the outside world for
months at a time, in which all their needs are provided internally in the spaces in which they are concentrated. The luxury part of the quartered city has indeed become
a luxury city entire to itself. It continues to need the services of a range of low-skilled
workers, of course, for its daily chores, but they come in as need and stay out when not; they certainly do not live within its confines. And as much as possible, their services are replaced by technologically sophisticated devices, card-operated entry
gates, automated transportation, specialized cleaning machinery, and frozen food.
Sigurd Grava describes Battery Park City in understated terms:
The major issue, in the opinion of most urban analysts, is the current exclusivity or isolation of the development. This is the case in a physical as weil as social sense. Battery Park City today is an enclave [sic], a refined space that is not
eas-ily accessible nor particularly inviting to outsiders. The West Street chasm [its
only land border] is enough to deter all but the most purposeful passersby ... For
those who do make it across, there are only a few attractions ... The outsiders can sit in the Winter Garden for a while or stare at the incredibly luxurious yachts,
but the recreational possibilities are soon exhausted .... The restaurants and bars
tend to be at the plush end of the scale. The residential areas are perceived as
ex-pensive dormitories or fancy shelters for downtown bankers ... This is not nec
-essarily a problem for those who wish to work and live in an exclusive, isolated,
and protected environment. .. 26
A good bit of attention has been focused recently on the conceptualization of "fortified
enclaves" or "walled communities. "27 The phenomenon is directly related to the
sepa-ration described above; walls and fortifications are indeed, at least symbolically, the
boundaries of the exclusionary enclaves, the totalizing suburbs, the new citadels. But
the issue is not simply one of physical separation. All areas of concentration have
26"Battery Park City in the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century," Battery Park City: Between Edge and Fabric, Columbia University School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, 1991, p. 11.
27See, among others, Judd, Dennis R. 1995. "The New Walled Cities." In H. Liggett and D.e. Perry, eds, Spatial Practices: Critical Explorations in SociallSpatial Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Blakely, Edward 1., and May Gail Snyder. 1995. Fortress America: Gated and Walled Com-munities in the United States. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Caldiera, Teresa P.R. 1996. "Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation ... Public Culture, vol 8, no. 2,
boundaries, walls around them, that mayor may not be physical walls.28 For those without physical barriers separating them, social patterns and even legal restrictions may be in place that define those areas of concentration as sharply as if there were physical walls: under apartheid in South Africa, no walls separated African from White from Indian from Colored areas, but everyone knew where the boundaries were, and any non-White found in the wrong place at the wrong time was subject to immediate arrest. On the West Side of Manhattan 12Sth Street is recognized as the
be-ginning of West Hariem going north and 96th
Street as the beg inning of Spanish Har-lem on the East Side, but these are streets with normal traffic lights, not walls. Free-ways marked the boundaries of the curfew areas around South Central Los Angeles in 1989; they constituted barriers, it penetrabie ones, to those going elsewhere. On the other hand, try to get into a high-rise luxury apartment building in New York City or London or Paris, with a doorman and likely a private security guard in the lobby, without living there or having demonstrabie business there, and you will not succeed, despite the absence of a physical wall.
Although boundaries or walls may be similar in their function of keeping outsid-ers out, they are not all similar in the relationship between insidoutsid-ers and outsidoutsid-ers. When a public housing project in Los Angeles votes to have a fer:.ce erected around it restricting entry to keep drug dealers out, or when a neighborhood in the East Village of New York City puts a banner across astreet, such as "SPECULA TORS KEEP OUT: THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY", its formal act is akin to that of the residents of a luxury high-rise asking identification of visitors, but its reasons for doing so are quite different, its relationship to the rest of society is one of poweriessness rather than of power. Thus a fortified ghetto is a rare occurrence; it occurs when a poor community, in part emulating what is observed elsewhere, attempts to protect itself from incursions either by higher income gentrifiers, or lower class criminal ele-ments.29
So fortification is not a matter just of physical boundaries or walls, nor are all walls or fortifications alike. The need to differentiate creates the most difficulties, not in dif-ferentiating between ghettos and citadels, that is, at the extremes; here the differences are clear. The difference in the barriers established around an exclusionary enclave and those around a citadel are harder to distinguish, in part simply because the border line between the two is hardly a clear-cut one. Citadels are where control functions are exercised; but control is exercised hierarchically, and the top of the ladder may be variously defined. Perhaps "key" decisions are made on Wall Street or in the Interna-tional Financial Center, but top managers just below that step live in New Jersey and may commute in or may live in what is functionally a totalizing suburb on the west shore of the Hudson River across from Manhattan. Battery Park City has elegant and 28
1 have discussed the nature of such walls in a number of papers, most recently: Marcuse, P., 1997, Walls of fear and walls of support. In N. Ellin (ed.), Architecture of fear (pp. 101-114). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29 A1though it will not be further discussed here, the 1iterature on public housing has many examp1es; see Leavitt and G01dstein's work on public housing projects in Los Ange1es, and (in a perverse manner discussed be10w) Oscar Newman's work on pub1ic housing in New York City.
high-priced housing, but in Tribeca right next door equally luxurious and expensive development is taking place. Right outside some of the priciest of the new citadels in Sao Paulo, the process of gentrification is taking place, as it is across the railway sta-tion from Shinjuku; residents of Renaissance Center in Detroit have direct access to Greectown for lunch or dinner. The areas being gentrified are used in part by those living in the citadels (e.g. for restaurants or entertainment); they themselves may take on the attributes of exclusionary enclaves as prices rise. The exact boundary between the two will be fluctuating.
Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between Battery Park City and gen-trified areas such as Tribeca and exclusive suburbs such as Scarsdale and fortified suburbs or edge cities such as White Plains, between not only Renaissance Center and Greektown but also between Renaissance Center and the exciusive suburbs ringing Detroit and the private walled developments increasingly present in and near them. The difference does not lie in either of the two growing phenomena: the fortification or walling in or walling out, or the totalizing nature of their environments; these are characteristics both of the totalizing suburb and of the citadel (and in different fashion, of the exclusionary ghetto). The difference lies in the economic and political and so-cial relationship to power and wealth.
How is this manifest? Not so much at the edges as at the centers of areas of spa-tial concentration. It is not the essence of the citadel that it excludes higher-level man-agers or professionals, if they chose to enter and pay the heavy prices demanded. Few of those at the peak of economic and politica I power will, however, choose to live in exciusionary suburbs, even totalized ones; they will either remain in citadels in the center of the city itself, or will have the ability to create their own individual separate citadel with acreage and architectural designs to give them the protection and separa-tion provided more collectively by the citadel. Thus, the totalizing suburb will have few or none of the very rich; the citadels of wealth, however, may include some not at the pinnacle.
It mayalso be that the balance between productionJO and consumptionJI is different in
the citadel than in the totalizing suburb. The classic suburb had astrong preponder-ance of residences; the effort of planners and municipal officials was to induce busi-nesses to locate there. The traditional separation of uses underlying United States zoning patterns fed into this pattern. In the citadels, the opposite is more likely to be the case: business comes first, residences are added later. This is certainly the pattern
in Battery Park City, and was the pattern in La Defense. Whether it is a general char-acteristic of the citadels of the world requires more careful empirical study.
JOIf indeed production is the correct word to use for the economic activity of the citadel. In the sense of
affecting economic decisions, yes; in the sense of producing use values, only at best very indirectly. But that is partly a philosophical issue, and not for exploration here.
31This is treating residence as consumption, as weil as the purchase and use of traditional consumer goods. Housing is indeed an investment as weil as a consumer good, and whether display is consump-tion may be quesconsump-tioned; but the defmiconsump-tion of consumption also needs more careful exploration than can be given it here.
I suspect, in the end, that citadels will have, in one form or another, almost all of the physical characteristics that Teresa Caldiera describes for them in Silo Paulo:
private property for collective use ... physically isolated, either by walls or empty spaces or other design devices ... turned inwards ... controlled by armed guards and security systems which enforce rules of inclusion and exclusion .... Independent of the surroundings ... socially homogeneous... conferring high status... isolation means separation fiom those considered to be socially inferior ... the enclaves [sic] are not subordinate either to public streets or to surrounding buildings and insti-tutions ..
.n
The developments described above: the growth of the excluded ghetto, the exclusion-ary enclave and totalizing suburb, the citadel, the walling and the totalizing tenden-cies, are integrally related to each other. To start with the totalizing suburb: for the first time, it is not an overwhelmingly residentially led process, but also (and more) represents a move of white-collar and professional jobs out of the central city--and not just jobs in manufacturing and retailing. This I take to be the analytic heart of the de-scriptive term "edge cities. " Garreau lists five necessary criteria for what a commu-nity to fit the term:
1. five million square feet of office space, 2. six hundred thousand square feet of retailing, 3. more jobs than bedrooms,
4. perception as one place, and 5. recent origin. 33
But #2, #4, and #5 are all true of most large suburbs. The others, #1 and #3 largely duplicate each other and are the crucial factors: these are suburbs of work as weIl as residence. All of life can be contained within them; they are a total environment.
And work moves out, not for physical reasons (as factories did, which needed more horizontal space for assembly lines, etc.) but for social reasons: the better "quality of life" of those involved in the work, as weIl as the lower land prices and costs of doing business there, a good bit of which is a response to the threat of crime and lower-class behavior in the central cities. This is, in turn, a fuilction of the growth of the new ghettos and is a differentiated form of the fortified enclave, one in which the fortification comes fiom distance rather than walls, and relies on social and fie-quently legal (as in exclusionary zoning) barriers to the entry rather than gates or se-curity forces.
Racial and economic discrimination, which in the central cities have resulted in the growth of both ghettos and fortified enclaves, have also historically explained much of the attractiveness of racially restricted suburbs for Whites; that pattern is not new. But as ghettoization and its consequences increase, and as that pattern seems
nop. Cit., pp. 308, 311, 314. Caldiera recounts a visit of Garreau to Säo Paulo helping to market three new private developments there, legitimating them by reference to the growth of "edge cities" in the United States. I suspect that in such endeavors, class differentiation in the various forrns of enclaves and citadels is slurred over.
33The key portion of Garreau's defmition of edge eities is given at pp. 6-7. Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge
more and more intractable and permanent, that attractiveness also increases. So the growth of the new ghetto creates a further increase in the creation of fortified en-claves, and both in turn accentuate the push out of the centra I city. At the same time, service firms seeking the advantages to be found in the protected enclaves in which white-collar work is increasingly being done find re al estate costs in those limited en -claves exorbitant. While their work may be closely linked to that of the major firms and services still located within the enclaves of the central city, new communication technologies permit them to be located within commuting distance of the major centers yet on the cheaper land found in the surrounding edge cities. Thus the pull of lower business costs and the push of increased segregation within the city combine to
pro-duce both new scales and new forms of suburbanization.
The growth of the citadels, although chronologically it perhaps becomes apparent after the development of the excluded ghetto and the exclusionary suburb (after all, it contributes to what the citadel is there for if its existence is not apparent), is close to
the motor of the entire process. For the concentration of wealth and power in the
cita-dels comes not simply for a growth in overall weaIth, but from changes in its distribu-tion. And certainly the concentration of power in the citadels comes at the expense of
the power of other segments of society. The underlying processes have much to do
with globalization and post-Fordist methods of production, which have accentuated to
extremes the polarization of society. On one hand, they are major factors in producing
the new urban poverty, who se spatial reflection is the excluded ghetto. 34 On the other
hand, they have reinforced an international global elite, socially a jet set, economi
-cally the leaders of the muIti national corporations, politi-cally the decision-makers of the Group of Seven (or eight or nine). John Friedmann and Goetz Wolff, in their original discus sion of the citadel, emphasized its role as the touching-down place for this global elite. Indeed it is not only the global elite who are involved; real estate speculators, for instance, national financiers, or top-flight entertainers, may be as much nationally as internationally based. But they are all mobile, and insulated, in
every way, including spatially, from the rest of society. The spatial separation that
then characterizes the lives of other groups may weIl be considered to start at the top.
The spatial patterns with which this paper has been concerned are clearest, and have been most studied, in the United States. Whether they are an international pat-tern, universally true, apparent in the Third World as weIl as the First (and now the Second), remains unclear. Excellent comparative studies have begun to grapple with
the question;35 the answers are not yet clear. Two things seem certain. One is that
there are tendencies in the direction here described in al most every major city in the world. The other is that racism plays a unique36 role in lirnning the pattern in the United States. The relationship of immigration and the spatial concentration of immi-grants to these tendencies is now a matter of major concern both in Europe and in the 34 See Mingione, Enzo, ed. 1996. Urban Poverty and the Underclass, Oxford: Blackwell.
35 See for instance, O'Loughlin, John and Jürgen Friedrichs. 1996. Social Polarization in Post-Industrial Metropolises, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co .. Loie Wacquant's work is among the most insightful I have seen. The study Ronaid van Kempen and I are undertaking, soon to appear in book form with Blackwell Publishers in London, will hopefully make a contribution also.
United States.37 Certainly much more research remains to be done before the entire
picture is dear.
37 See for instance the studies cited in Wacquant, Loic. 1993. "Urban outcasts: stigma and division." International Journal of Urban and Regional, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 366-383, at footnote 3, and Ronald van Kempen and Gideon Bolt's work on Turks in the Nether1ands, Urban segregation and neighborhood choice in American Behaviour Scientists, 41 (3), 367-388.
