Week 10

Massey’s “Global Sense of Place” summarizes many of the agglomeration, growth-pole, and global-city phenomena we’ve discussed in weeks previous.  There is no sense in thinking of a city as an isolated entity.  Global cities are defined by cosmopolitanism and cultural diversity, and they have been for centuries.  Cities along major global trading routes (Venice, Byzantium, Singapore) have always enjoyed global success.  Cosmopolitanism is a signal that the city is ripe for global investment, that there is a diversified investment market and an agglomeration of trading interests. 

In a globalized world, rural areas and “regional” cities stand to be the victims of “global places.”  These are the populations that are likely to be flown over, and who risk losing representation.   They are likely to become “un-global places,” or places the world leaves behind.  Inequity will no longer be described in terms of East or West, South or North, Developed or Developing, but rather by “Globalized” or “Un-Globalized” regions.  Globalized regions would be those that are able to tap into global market potential.  Un-Globalized regions would be those that are reliant on local or national economy.  If you go to depressed skeleton towns in the rust belt you will see examples of the latter.