Introduction



Cities are economic and social systems in space. They are a product of deep-seated and persistent processes which enable and encourage people to amass in large numbers in small areas. Surplus products, generated outside the city, provide the basic means of support, but viability and prosperity also depend on the existence of social arrangements and institutions through which cities are regulated and managed. So powerful and pervasive are the forces of urban formation and growth that they presently concentrate over three billion of the world’s population in towns and cities.


The urban world is distinctive in socio-economic as well as in spatial terms. Despite the infinite and intricate variations of tradition and culture that exist within and between nations, cities appear to have, and to be acquiring, more in common than they have differences. Urban places have many similarities of physical appearance, economic structure and social organisation and are beset by the same problems of employment, housing, health, transport and environmental quality.


The elements in many urban skylines are the same, as commercial and residential areas are increasingly dominated by high-rise developments constructed in international styles. Streetscapes across the world are adjusting in the same way to accommodate the needs of the ubiquitous car, so cities are fast losing their individual layouts and architectural identities. Within buildings, workers do the same sorts of jobs, often on the same makes of computer or machine, and manufacture goods and services to the requirements of world markets dominated by a small number of global producers. 


What can be seen in a city is attributed to what images portrayed by the cities.  In this manner, the main goal of this paper is to provide an analysis on how the impact of social, economic and political differences of two cities constitute to the urban form shown by the city.  The cities that will be given emphasised in this paper are Hong Kong and London.  In this impact analysis, the discussion will include the political situation of each city as well as the social and economic condition of Hong Kong and London.  After which, the analysis of the relation of these aspects to the urban form of each city will be provided.


Overview of the City


Hong Kong City 


Hong Kong City is has a population of 6, 787, 000 people with a total land area of 1,001 km² (386 mi²).  Hong Kong has been known to be a former British Colony.  In was taken by the British Empire in the 19th century and was given to China in 1997.  Hong Kong means (Fragrant Harbour).  Hong Kong today is regarded as the major seaport, business hub and financial centre of Asia. The Hong Kong city is also recognised as the home of many business tycoons and Giant Corporations as well as poor illegal migrants.  It is said to me the city of extremities, opportunities and busy street life (Fong & Tung, 2001).


Political, Economic and Social Aspects 


Hong Kong’s success is legendary. After a meagre start as a British crown colony established on fishing villages of nearly barren rock in 1842–part of the spoils of victory from the Opium War–Hong Kong has become a cosmopolitan city-state of global significance. Though it ranks ninetieth in terms of population, it is the world’s eighth largest trading economy, with a per capita income higher than some developed countries including Britain, its colonial master. With eighty-five of the world’s top one hundred banks, it is one of the five international financial centres. Hong Kong’s miracle economy has made it one of the Four Little Dragons of East Asia, a title shared with Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Finally, Hong Kong is the undisputed gateway to China, which is Hong Kong’s largest trading partner (Hong Kong is China’s second largest trading partner after Japan) (Findley, 1993). Hong Kong serves as a powerful catalyst for the economic development of South China, where Hong Kong companies employ over three million workers in neighbouring Guangdong Province alone. Thus, it is natural that most Hong Kong people see their future as inextricably linked to China’s economic growth and political modernization.


Hong Kong’s developmental experience is worth emulating. Yet, its free trade, market economy and open society have been in stark contrast to its lack of a full-scale, genuinely democratic form of government. In this sense, its prosperity and stability within the context of freedom without democracy have been the hallmarks of British colonialism–indeed; the colony is a remarkable case of borrowed place, on borrowed time, and with borrowed people (Cochrane, 1995).


In late 1984, Hong Kong was compelled to embark on its most dramatic historical change. The Sino-British Joint Declaration mandated the end of British rule and the resumption of sovereignty by China on July 1, 1997. The policy toward Hong Kong’s sovereignty retrocession is based on the” One Country, Two Systems” formula and has two principal objectives: China’s national reunification with Hong Kong, which would set the example for Macau and Taiwan, and the maintenance of Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity so that it would continue to contribute significantly to China’s economic reform and modernization.


The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration promises to preserve Hong Kong’s existing legal, economic, and social systems and lifestyle for fifty years from July 1, 1997, when the colony is to become a Special Administration Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Furthermore, this promise became enshrined in the SAR Basic Law which codified the constitutional framework that is to give effect to the promised “high degree of autonomy” with “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong,” as well as to regulate central government-SAR relations. The Joint Declaration explicitly calls for the Hong Kong SAR legislature to be fully elected–a major departure from the (until 1985) totally appointed colonial legislature (. As such, preparation for the future SAR political system necessitated the most drastic and fundamental change in Hong Kong’s colonial polity. These constitutional and electoral reforms triggered controversies and confrontations within the local community and between Britain and China. The resulting tensions and conflicts that have characterized the transformation of Hong Kong since the mid-1980s, unfolded under the ever looming “China factor.”


The China factor has become an overwhelming influence on life in Hong Kong. It is the single most dominant force shaping Hong Kong public affairs, government decision-making, and policy implementation as well as Hong Kong’s external links and global interactions. This situation gave impetus to the further development of Hong Kong’s new political culture. A growing civic awareness, political activism, and articulation of social value orientations began to have a decisive effect on the rising expectations and future perspectives of the Hong Kong people. Meanwhile, the increasingly close relationship between Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland in trade, manufacturing, investment, transportation, finance, skills and technology transfer created an intimate economic interdependence, even integration, between the two. In this respect, the China factor remains the principal force underwriting much of Hong Kong’s economic prosperity.


The China factor has also been the accelerator, stimulant, and even midwife to the processes of decolonization, localization, internationalization, and democratization which are still unfolding in the current transition. This has given rise to identity awareness among the local populace, who have come to see themselves as Chinese nationals with aspirations for a more modern, post-colonial, Chinese community that is self-conscious of its heritage. In this sense, the China factor has promoted a fundamental change in Hong Kong’s polity and socio-cultural mentality.


City of London 


London has a total population of 7, 172, 036 in city and 11, 850, 000 in metro it has a total land area of 1579 km2 (609 mi2). London is known to be one of the most energetic, cosmopolitan and dynamic cities in the world. In addition, London is also regarded as a hub of politics, culture, history, finance as well as learning and entertainment.


This city is moderately low rise, having a tall buildings clustered in the City of London and Canary Wharf.  London also has a mix of eye-catching architectural landmarks including St. Paul’s Cathedral, Tower Bridge, Palace of Westminster and the Tower of London.  The city has also landmarks which have a new breed of astonishing modern structures such as BA London Eye, City Hall and 30 St Mary Axe.


Politics, Economic and Social Aspects 


            Nineteenth-century London was a place of firsts and superlatives: the capital of the first industrial nation; the largest and richest urban agglomeration in the world; the first city with extensive mass suburbanisation, to name but a few. It was also a city of contrasts which could be seen in the extremes of wealth and poverty; in dynamic, successful industries alongside declining ones; in people at leisure and those locked in the most menial drudgery; and in new architectural and civil engineering wonders next to acres of dilapidation (Fainstein, Gordon & Harloe, 1992).


Identifying such distinctive features and how they changed over time is at the heart of any narrative urban history. Yet, the characteristics of any city cannot simply be described. There needs to be an explanation of how things came about and there is no shortage of explanations within the wide literature on London’s history. What is noticeable, however, is how little use has been made of modern economic theories, particularly those falling within the ambit of urban economics. To claim this is not to beat the drum of professional jealousy nor to suggest that economics can explain all, but rather to suggest that developments in nineteenth-century London were mainly stimulated by what are now reasonably well-understood economic processes.


This viewpoint is at variance with many histories of London because they tend to identify uniqueness in the character of the metropolis at the centre of their explanations. Uniqueness can certainly be found and as a theme it has a long pedigree. The capital city of the United Kingdom, the leading world power by the 1820s, was a special place that caused wonderment at its vastness. At the same time, its scale filled many contemporary observers with horror, mixed with pride at the scale of the human endeavour needed to create it. Yet, the causes of the growth of London were generally regarded as something of a mystery.


Other cities in Britain, like Manchester, had burst forth out of virtually nothing at the end of the eighteenth century, but they could be seen to be a product of the new industrial capitalist society. The same forces transformed London but this was not so obvious because there were few of the features that spawned the industrial towns of the Midlands and North. Near it were no coalfields; there was no intense specialisation in heavy industry or textiles; nor was London even a focal point for a network of surrounding industrial towns (Giradet, 1990).


Only one thread of argument seemed to explain London’s existence. Despite all its apparent modernity, the metropolis was a unique throw-back to a bygone mercantilist age: with its scale generated by the conspicuous consumption of the wealthy, the world-wide tentacles of the City and Empire, and a terrible exploitation of a mass of poor people. Uniqueness was clearly important within this interpretation, because, if it was extrapolated to the nation as a whole, this view was revolutionary in content but, when localised to the capital, it was believed by many who were hardly radical in their general politics. This explanation had a powerful effect on what was seen as London – an image that has persisted in much of the literature until today. The capital was like Wilde’s Dorian Gray. The proud architectural and cultural face of Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian London existed because of the hidden picture that was the inner-suburban industrial districts and the poverty associated with them. The problem of London was contained in the misleading geographical metaphors of the West End versus the East End and the City versus Industry (Haughton & Hunter, 1994). 


Impact Analysis 


Urban life started over four thousand years ago, when human beings combined specific building technologies with ways of organising society to create densely populated living spaces. Since then, many different types of society have found urban living useful, and technological change has made the potentials of city existence manifold apparent. Yet, it was not until the nineteenth century that countries larger than city states became structured as predominantly urban ones. Britain was the first country to experience that shift, and London towered above all its other cities in size, wealth and productive capacity – housing over a fifth of England’s population by 1900. The cause, of course, was associated with the development of modern capitalist societies – a process in which Britain took the initial lead.  Urbanisation went along with industrialisation and sustained economic growth. These inter-linked processes subsequently spread through other countries and continue to encompass more areas of the globe. 


In today’s Third World can be seen the fastest urban growth rates ever, and it is estimated that over half the world’s population will live in urban areas within a decade, so the process looks set to continue for the foreseeable future and undoubtedly beyond. In many senses, therefore, the growth of London in the nineteenth century represents the first example of this modern phenomenon and its economic history is interesting for that reason alone.


The technical and organisational characteristics of capitalist cities, moreover, make them highly amenable to economic analysis. Clustering does not arise in such societies through some pre-conceived plan but through the responses to market forces of a multitude of individuals and firms. The foundation of urban organisation is consequently that of markets – the stuff of economic analysis. The strong positive impact that cities make on the productive potential of society overall, and the social ills which go along with it, in addition, make an economic analysis of cities important for an understanding of general economic development. (It is one of the professional paradoxes of economics that modern growth theory has tended to ignore the urban dimension when looking at the causes of economic growth.)


The first was that London’s population began to expand continuously at the fast rate of around a fifth every decade. This growth continued for over 150 years until the suburbs spilled far beyond the juridical area of the metropolis. City growth, in other words, was a self-sustaining process – no longer linked to government and aristocratic behaviour but to market relations.  The second new characteristic was that traditional work practices had noticeably given way after centuries of slow dissolution, so that nineteenth-century London industry was, in the main, openly competitive and exhibited overtly capitalist behaviour.


In addition, it was particularly significant in nineteenth-century Britain. There was a marked specialisation of the country’s regions in particular economic activities and the rapid appearance of major cities in the areas where manufacturing became important. London, therefore, was not alone. An array of other urban areas simultaneously existed, in what came to be called ‘conurbations’, but with notably different features from each other and the metropolis – reflecting the differing industrial specialisations of the regions in which they emerged. London, consequently, was the first amongst many. This influenced its development and provided a means by which to compare its development. 


Institutions were also significant with regard to social policy, labour markets and other key areas of the economy, such as the City, the docks and the structure of consumer industries. London government during the period, similarly, is often regarded as woefully inadequate because of the earlier institutional framework from which it developed and the lack of change in it. This negative description may be debatable but the impact of urban governance on infrastructure provision, private as well as public, was none the less substantial.


In the case of Hong Kong and London both city have their urban style or urban form.  As can be seen in the above discussion, Hong Kong has become one of the world’s busiest cities in the world. Hong Kong represents an outstanding case and urban form of its own. This city is unique because it represents an extreme case of overcrowding, rising population growth, shortage of land resource, intensification of land-use activities, hampered by an absence of raw materials and natural resources. Yet, the story of Hong Kong as a Sky City invites wide interest from urban designers and managers to avail clues to successful managing of limited resources, and more importantly the ways to maintain a vibrant and rich living and working culture in a vertical land use approach, the vertical dimension of which amaze the world at large.  Hence, the urbanisation of Hong Kong was due to how the city manages its resources and also the economic stability of the country as well as its strong social structure which are mainly affected by the Chinese structure.


Conclusion 


The urban world is dominated by a small number of centres that are the command and control points for global capitalism, the world’s dominant economic system. Such centres are distinguished not by their size or their status as capital cities of large countries, but by the range and extent of their economic power. They are the locations for the key individuals, institutions and organisations that manage, manipulate, dictate and determine the formation and reproduction of capitalism across the world. These attributes give such cities a disproportionate and exceptional importance, so that they occupy dominant positions in the global urban hierarchy. So pre-eminent is their status and so powerful and pervasive are their influences that many analysts argue that they merit designation as world cities.


Analysis shows that Hong Kong and London as a city have their own political, economic and social differences. These highlighted differences have made the two cities become what they are known today.  Although both can be said as strong and competitive cities, each has constituted its own reasons for urbanisation. Historically, the influences of the British Empire to both countries can also be considered as one factor why these cities learned to manage all its resources well may it be in political social and economic aspects. 


Word Count: 2996, excluding references




Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top