Geography 595

Cities and Nature are Multiple Entities December 10, 2008

I wonder if the reason more urban scholars are not incorporating nature into their analyses of the dynamics of cities is not because they truly understand nature to be the antithesis of the urban, but because of the level of complexity incorporating nature as part and parcel of the urban adds.  Doing a study that combines social and environmental sciences while avoiding the nature/city dualism can be really difficult.  Gandy does an excellent job of this, I think.  While I find his book to be primarily about urban development in New York City, he brings nature into his investigation throughout the book.  He shows how the meanings and uses of nature has changed over time, based on the needs of those in power, but also due to advances in science, engineering, and other fields. 

One of my favorite insights of Gandy’s book is his description of natural entities as “multiple entities”.  They are not just material, nor are they just socially constructed.  They are both simultaneously.  And nature is not static, but it changes over time, both materially and semiotically.  Natural entities possess their own biophysical laws and properties through which they influence society.  But in the process of influencing society, they are themselves influenced by society in terms of their political and cultural factors.  One example of this is the transformation in both the use of water by society and the meaning of that water. 

Unlike other authors we have read this semester who point to changes in addressing environmental problems or changed in the ways nature is incorporated into development as responses to changes in public opinion regarding nature and the environment, but fail to look at the sources of the shifts, Gandy discuses what precipitated some of these chanes in public perception.  For example, people became concerned about water systems due to increases in water related illnesses and new knowledge linking sanitation and health, as well as the growing status and professionalization of engineering. 

However, throughout Gandy’s book, the main stimulus for changes in public attitudes toward nature was always shown to be based on what would produce the most money and highest status.  For example, although public opinion toward water had changed, this was not the most important impetus for changing the way water was managed.  Unlike in Colten’s book on New Orleans, Gandy suggests that poor infrastructure and sanitation are not due to incompetence, but to the drive of those in power to accumulate wealth.  Improvements in sanitation and infrastructure were to do changes in what would promote capital accumulation.  Gandy explains that the real push for building a water system was due to city boosters’ perception that “in the absence of a secure water supply. . . the city would lose out to its main rivals and be stymied” (p. 30). 

The story remains much the same today.  Citizens’ desire for environmental protection is influential in the push toward greening cities, but it is the perception urban governances have of the necessity for cities to be “green” in order to compete with other cities that has truly driven this transformation.  Without the growing environmental awareness among the public, greening would probably not be seen as a viable strategy for capital accumulation.  However, based on Gandy’s analysis, without the drive to compete and ultimately to accumulate wealth, greening strategies would be undertaken by cities.