Cities

Cities are unsustainable. They are too dense; think of the thousands of people crammed into a single square kilometre. There are advantages, of course — you have a wider range of direct human interactions in a much smaller space, there are efficiencies to be gained. The disadvantages are legion — nobody is self-sufficient and co-dependency is a necessity.

Independent city-states, by which we mean a state whose physical limits are essentially the city limits, are all republics of some sort. There is insufficient grist for the totalitarian mill, and the necessary dealings with outsiders must be delegated to a corps of expert representatives.

It is theoretically possible for such a state to be a theocracy, but in this era it is unlikely. Vatican City, where the Holy See is colocated, is the one odd example of the theoretical theocratic city-state in practice. It has few of the functions of the true state, and creates only temporary citizens.

It is also possible for such a state to be a plutocracy, designed only for wealth creation. But somebody must then defend that state from predators, and hence such states become protectorates, subordinate affiliates, or mercenary hotels. This is so with Monaco, defended by France and completely unsustainable as a truly independent state.

But there are far fewer independent city-states than there were in the past. The borders have merged and run together; the city-states of the Low Countries are now the twelve provinces of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the city-states of the Italian peninsula are now the democratic Republic of Italy (minus San Marino and Vatican City). The ancient city-states of Greece are now the modern Hellenic Republic.

There is only one truly independent city-state left. It is unique. Years of brain-sapping 'national education', however, have kept most of its population politically unaware and historically naïve. This is changing, thanks to the rise of the Internet.

It is the Internet's abridgement of psychic geography that has done what history did not; the island at the tip of the Kra peninsula now finds itself not only a nexus for world trade, but a nexus of ideas. It must think about whether it will be a passive nexus, doomed to act as nothing but a transit port, or an active nexus, with something significant to contribute.

Perhaps its republican rulers should enrich the citizens' intellectual and cultural life. The wealth of the state is its defence, but the defence of the state is not its wealth. Similarly, education should free its citizens to be mercenaries elsewhere, building an abiding brand-name, just as the Swiss city-states did. The current situation is that half its education is conducted by mercenary educators.

And here, from my precarious little perch as citizen, I realise that I am seeing both too much and too little. Time for more thought and reflection.

Income Inequality

I've noticed a lot of people talking about income inequality these days, mostly revolving around the ideas of debt, fair wages, and how uncivilised such inequality seems. Very few grasp that it's somewhat inevitable in specific contexts.

Actually, it's inevitable in a context that is very specific and also very rarely thought about. All city-states are like that, because a city-state seldom has control over its hinterland except by huge investment in overwhelming military force.

Such investment normally cripples the economy, because you need to reward the soldiers and mercenaries. A rich city-state normally avoids that, one way or another, by disproportionately rewarding wealth generation, networking ability, and the personal power to control and manipulate others. And this is also how the state will define merit implicitly.

That's it in a nutshell. The whole argument is partly historical in nature and very much longer. Major footnote: see here.

Drinking Midnight Wine

This is of course the title of one of Simon R Green's quirky books, thematically related to his slightly creepier novel Shadows Fall. But it's also akin to the sensation one gets when sipping Hungarian wines, accentuated when you look across the cellar and see some Romanian wines which you are sure shouldn't have anything to do with Romanian consular staff, hit-and-run accidents, and mysterious goings-on in civilised side roads.

You wonder about the Magyars. You wonder about why Romanian sounds (and looks) so much like Catalan. You would like to blame miscellaneous Turks and Macedonians and Roman auxiliaries. You sip. And the wine sips you.

There is something about amber sweetness that recalls summers long gone or imaginary in nature. The bracing fruit of the midnight red (well, it's really purple) is something else altogether. You sip. And the wine sips you.

Suddenly, you wonder about that Romanian wine again, and the madness of moments that takes life from the silent streets. You wonder about justice and life and death and venality and incompetence. You sip. And the wine sips you.

Science Centre?

I brought my niece, a very intelligent and somewhat perspicacious child, to the local Science Centre. She had a lot of fun, and although she was disappointed at certain things, showed unusual and precocious maturity in choosing to highlight the positives in her report to her parents and grandparents.

She was very impressed by the Omnimax theatre, although she was sad at not getting a planetarium show; she enjoyed the Wild Ocean film that we got instead. She asked to see stars, but since it was daylight, accepted the fact that the observatory (small and often treated to horrible back-scatter from the high-rise public housing and industrial buildings nearby) would not be showing her anything of the sort. So we had a look at the Astronomy section.

First real disappointment. Shoddy exhibits, disabled functions, uninspiring and almost star-less. Not what you would call astronomy at all; more like a consequence of economy, it seemed. I felt sad for her, and for the Science Centre as it once had been.

The rest of the place wasn't that bad. We hit the Kinetic Garden next, with lots of things that young and agile people could have fun with. She had fun, I had fun. What was disappointing was that some of the exhibits were rather badly maintained, encrusted with lime and dirt and sometimes out of alignment. She took it in her stride. I am sometimes very happy for the innocence of youth, but her experience could have been better.

The local Science Centre sees a lot of throughput. For a population (including tourists) of perhaps 10 million (or more), it loses outright to New York and London though. I wonder why exhibits are so much better maintained in other cities which have the same claim to be world-class. I question the validity of 'world class' as an appropriate term to describe a city with 3 universities of which the best seems to be ranked about 30th in the world, and whose Science Centre and museums and other institutions of cultural knowledge transmission must be ranked about 200th or so.

But you know what? My niece enjoyed herself, and so I did too. We had fun. We could have had more fun without the tackiness and the missing pieces, but we had enough fun for one day. I just wish that we had a proper Science Santa...

London Bookshops (Redux)

The original post mentioning the Highbury incident is this one. However it wasn't the only odd incident I've had in London. You always get the sense that you are watched by those who would rather not be seen.

I'm sure this will be controversial to some, but I have never felt endangered in New York City, but I have often felt that London is dangerous. I think London is so much older that it can't help but be dangerous. It is a Great Old One among cities.

I know people from the tiny city-state of Singapore who are flabbergasted to find out that London, with its 1577 square kilometres of area, dwarfs the 707 square kilometres of the city-state by a factor of 2:1. Singaporeans think that London is 'just a city', not realising that the mega-cities of the world are huger in population than many nations. They also have far longer histories; Roman London was founded in AD 43, Singapore in AD 1819. Some will tell you that Singapore was actually founded far earlier, as the town of Temasek, in AD 1299. Well, by that token, London as a town must have existed from pre-Roman times, perhaps as far back as 1000 BC.

It is with that sense of history that one trawls through London bookshops, catching glimpses of the orthography (and steganography) of the ancients: Aleister Crowley rubbing fingers with Dylan Thomas, Lord Byron with Lord Tennyson... the list goes on. Just carefully lifting the covers of the old leather-bound enchiridia and other tomes is enough to reveal the layers of the hidden past which modern London just barely forms a surface film upon.

Singapore hasn't got that. New York is getting there; in some ways, it has already entered that era. Paris is probably a good candidate too. Beijing is an odd place. A lot more of the past has been destroyed there, and a selective sample retained.

President Obama & Global Connectivity

While visiting the Washington Post, I realised that the map I was looking at looked a lot like another map I'd seen in my research. So I went back to it and had a good look.

Do you know which cities are ALPHA, BETA and GAMMA-class Globally-Interconnected Cities? Is your city one of them? And what is the link between being a Global City and supporting Barack Obama for President of the USA?

First of all, you can look at the list of GaWC Global Cities here: [MAP] [TEXT]

=====

(UPDATE): A brief note of explanation here, as requested. A Global City is one which for economic, cultural, social or other reasons takes a disproportionate role in the affairs of the world. Currently, the four top (Level 12) ALPHA-class world cities are London, New York, Paris and Tokyo (in alphabetical order). These are followed by six other ALPHA-rated cities at Level 10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hongkong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore. The GaWC ranking I've used here is based on the levels at which the city provides advanced services (e.g. law, medicine, media, finance) to the rest of the world. There are other rankings; Foreign Policy journal's October 2008 issue has one based on 24 metrics, but the top ten are roughly the same. (/UPDATE)

=====

Next, you can look at a graphic representation from the Washington Post of which counties went for whom and by how much here: [LINK to WaPo Interactive Map]

Here's some numerical data.

In alphabetical order, the three ALPHA world cities on the US map are Chicago (O +1,001,099), Los Angeles (O +662,350) and New York (O +411,186).

The one BETA world city on the US map is San Francisco (O +168,101).

The GAMMA cities on that map are, in alphabetical order, Atlanta (O +182,030), Boston (O +139,072), Dallas (O +114,991), Houston (O +18,468, which is rather low in comparison to the rest), Miami (O +243,567), Minneapolis (O +190,657), and Washington DC (O +218,195).

I then went to the text list, which gives DELTA cities: Baltimore, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Richmond, Seattle. Denver was added recently and isn't on the 2004 list.

Every single one of those cities went for Senator (now President-Elect) Obama in a big way. But there are two possible objections to this simple analysis. Firstly, the big cities have always been projected as pro-Obama; secondly, this looks like cherry-picking with no basis in fact.

These objections are easily dealt with: look at the maps; there are largeish cities which went for McCain (e.g. Salt Lake City by 90,000) and some that went red in previous elections. But none of the most globally-interconnected cities are in red; all of them went blue this year. Barack Obama won in almost every demographic category; the largest category of people who voted against him were old white Protestant males in rural areas.

There does indeed seem to be a link that shows President Obama's support is large in cities that are well-connected to the rest of the world. And that bodes well for the future of the US in the global milieu.

Name Value

Today I was at a classic New York deli; you know, the sort with sandwiches about the size of a large brick, with pickles and cheese and maybe anything else you want in it? It was a good feeling. At the end of it, I saw that the 'New York, New York' logo had been trademarked. It made me think about something else.

Think about the great cities of the world. Ten are on the 'alpha' list; of which four are rated as higher alpha – London, New York, Paris, Tokyo. Why is the branding of these cities so dominant?

It's because they are old, mythic, full of ancient cultural resonances. They have a BRAND, not just a brand. Their names evoke longings, feelings, images, ideas, concepts, legendary dramas. A New York cheesecake, a London cab, a Parisian evening, a Tokyo shopping spree, these can be imagined even if you never go there. The value in their names is something that has seeped into the foundations of the modern world. It has economic value; it has cultural value.

The remaining six cities – Chicago, Frankfurt, Hongkong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore – they have drastically less resonance for many people. Hongkong perhaps looks exotic; Singapore perhaps gives wildly diverse impressions; Milan is cars, leather, glass; Los Angeles and Chicago remind people of crime and politics; Frankfurt is... oh no, not hot dogs! They are less iconic, less mythic, less legendary.

It is sad; Hongkong, Milan and Singapore have had history as city-states – now, only the last remains so. The first has to reinvent itself a little; the second has failed; the third is in the throes of mad re-invention to the extent of casinoes and waterside resorts and Formula One (like Monaco, all these things). And with the re-invention, it remains to be seen how much value is created, retained, distorted or lost.

But I will still read the New York Times and the Times of London. I will still have dreams of Paris and Tokyo. And I earnestly await the rise of the 'beta' world cities into a brave new world.

Erdgeist

English, altogether Germanic in its bones and sinews, took on infusions of its father-tongue in further installments. With the psychopomps and psychogogues of the Viennese age, for example, the Anglo-Saxon bastard child adopted (co-opted?) words like schadenfreude and angst, along with secondhand Latin imports like anima and superego. Words like zeitgeist and the rarer zeitnot and zugzwang (and zusammen, for the organische chemists) duly joined the throng. But the not-so-surprising fact is that much of the German remains understandable, and some of it is pretty universal.

Take for example the erdgeist of Paracelsus (he who once said, "All substances are poisons.") Like all the other geists, the erdgeist is a spirit (cf. poltergeist). Whereas the zeitgeist is the prevalent spirit of the time in which it manifests, the erdgeist is the dominant spirit of the place which it represents.

All that went through my mind as I was listening to this song. It's an old song by Jefferson Starship, and it's about Los Angeles in the early 1970s. The lyrics are inspired, the music pounds a hole in your head, and you are left wondering (unless you do a bit of research) why Marconi plays the mamba.

And there are many other examples of the kind of music which summons more of the erdgeist than the zeitgeist. One of my particular favourites is Billy Joel's New York State of Mind, a moving tribute to a man's hometown (and what a hometown it is!) And there was this very old song, which unaccountably brought a tear to my eyes. Liverpool fans will recognize the group – after all, they came up with You'll Never Walk Alone.

That's when I realised: here where I am, there is no real erdgeist. We are culturally adrift, in an empty space. And the moment we sense an evolving erdgeist, we make it silly and commercial, trendy, nifty, flashy – all the things that kill the ephemeral realities of the hidden world.

Parity

I've always thought of myself as a New York City kind of person. A latent Manhattanite, if you like. And I know I can live in London and I don't mind retiring to Melbourne or Edinburgh or Cambridge. But then she-of-the-eyes did this memetic thing and I had to do it too for fun and the results are...

What City Should You Live In?
	You should live in Paris. The City of Lights will appeal to your appreciation of beauty and romance. You are a lover and a poet by nature, and Paris's sensitive charms will be a perfect match for yours.
Find Your Character @ BrainFall.com

I guess this means primus intra Paris. Yes, well that was a bad pun, I know. But it reflects (badly) my state of mind.