Arrival Cities - The World's Future

ARRIVAL CITIES THE WORLD’S FUTURE OLIVER BALDOCK. DECEMBER 2014. 0536E

Discuss one of the following with respect to current issues in world cities. Do you agree or disagree with the author’s comments? You can bring in historical background as appropriate, but you should focus on present day situations using a limited number of specific examples: ‘…arrival cities are at the centre of the world’s future’ (Doug Saunders, Arrival Cities, 2010).

In the opening chapter of 'Arrival Cities', Saunders writes that 2009 was the first year where there was 'full scale acknowledgement that arrival cities are at the centre of the world's future'i. Through his book he argues that the cities that rural to urban migrants come into are key to the success of both those migrants and the larger economy. However, this essay will argue that these arrival points should not be considered cities but instead 'gateways'. The research and examples presented in this essay clarify the point by suggesting that the term 'arrival city' is detrimental to the process of integration into the existing community which is vital for the success of this type of migration. The term 'gateway' suggests an entrance point, a place to start and grow from making the whole situation more about the individuals and the communities rather than a generalised pack of migrants as can be seen in the examples which follow. The role of government intervention will also be emphasised, suggesting the world's future becomes much more about several factors inside the cities working well together rather than the simplification seen in this cropped quote.

Push and pull factors are key to the rural to urban migration. Low incomes and a poor quality of life pushes farmers, or children of farming families out of remote villages and the promise of better living conditions and entrepreneurial opportunities pulls these workers towards urban areas. This is certainly what has been seen in areas around Istanbul since the 1970's. Now it is the largest city in Turkey, an impressive claim since are large number of those migrants still remain unregistered and unaccounted for. Although Ankara is the capital, Istanbul is firmly set as the cultural, historic and economic centre of Turkey. Despite these obvious attractions, the appeal for the migrant workers comes from the promise of a more prosperous job away from rural roots which Saunders deems as 'the largest single killer of humans today'. However, as with many movements of low income workers in developing areas, this migration was not as simple as hiring a removal truck. In fact, the name given to these new Turkish settlements explains a lot about the problems faced. 'Gecekondu' literally means night-placed, there was no formal accommodation provided for these workers.

Unlike in Berlin or Shenzhen,examples explored later, these workers were not expected or needed

by the Turkish government.

The informal housing became settlements on which neighbourhoods formed and communities appeared. Although strong religious beliefs were rarely carried in from villages there was a strong defence of political views. There were many attempts by the government to bulldoze and drive out these communities and these communities were and, in some parts, are still disregarded by the 'original' citizens of the city. At this point it would not be too bold to say that this stage of development could be considered an 'arrival city'. It was disconnected from Istanbul and the dwellers had no tangible rights to their land. However, the entrepreneurship of the migrants, combined with the high density of the population, allowed these people to begin to affect and improve their own lives, and whilst these are small changes, there was significant improvement to daily lives and living conditions.

The big changes, however, began when the Turkish government realised the importance of their intervention and encouragement in these settlements. These migrants were not going to leave so they will have to become part of the city. It may have taken 20 years for locals to receive the rights to the land they had built on, but with the provision of infrastructure and services, these communities were given more and more opportunities. These rights allowed the buying and selling of homes, and the introduction of a third party, the developer. However, rather than the simple gentrification and beautification that might be seen in Shenzhen, these lower income brackets were not pushed out but received homes in these new high rise flats and apartments. The businesses continued in ground floor shops and the city of Istanbul began to extend out into these settlements.

Whereas before it appeared to very much be the city and the settlers divided the boundary is now blurred to the extent which the first migrant communities are now almost two-thirds of the way into the city.

As has been argued above, the integration of new citizens into the city is vital for both the success of the arrivals and the continued growth of that city. However, it does not mean that it is only the migrants which must adapt and change to fit it. Indeed, a city is allowed to develop and change. As Istanbul's centre grows busier and more congested, due to both the growing popularity of the city and the inability of it's historic centre to develop to meet needs, the 'pre-existing' residents can be seen moving out into these developing areas. The preferred use of 'arrival gateway', rather than 'arrival city', suggests there is still a boundary between these two communities, which there will be for a while, but it is more open, it allows communities to move through it rather than remaining stuck either in the 'arrival city' or, I'm guessing, 'The City'.

Those communities migrating from the rural parts of Turkey had an alternative to Istanbul, and it was a popular one. Berlin, over the same time span as the movement into Istanbul, has seen a growing proportion of its population come from Turkish background. In particular, the neighbourhood of Kreuzberg sees citizens of German descent to be in the minority. However, this is, until recently at least, an example of a less successful 'arrival city'. The key difference between Istanbul and Berlin was the prior provision of infrastructure and housing for those arriving. Indeed, parts of Kreuzberg and other neighbourhoods were given over to low income housing, mainly flats, for these migrants, setting them into pre-prepared communities. Of course, they did not own these flats, so immediately the sense of possibility and opportunity for growth is lost in comparison to those who struggled to build their own houses outside Istanbul. The Turks were, at least to the German government, a temporary problem, they didn't need German citizenship, and it was reinforced in these new arrivals that they would be going home soon.

This created a serious problem, for if the Turks were to be going home soon, there was no need for them to make the effort to integrate. Whole communities in Kreuzberg remained segregated and self-involved. Any entrepreneurship that happened among these communities was kept in the 'grey space' for without any official German citizenship any kind of business wasn't allowed. But, of course, the Turks are not going home any time soon and although the Government has come to realise the need to grant German citizenship to these people it comes as a cost. After the 20 years of creating these unofficial businesses, to become a legal citizen, these entrepreneurs must give them up. This examples puts up and argument against the need to integrate. Schlogel has described Kreuzberg as the 'place to get rid of the redundant'ii. In fact, through this overarching view of redundancy placed on the Turks by the government, strong 'social ties' have formed throughout the neighbourhoods and there has been much internal success. Many of the German owned shops and taverns have been replaced by Muslim butchers and Turkish cafes, with many of the older German residents relocating to other areas of Berlin. Kreuzberg has become a tourist attraction in itself with many considering it the Brick Lane of Berlin. This strength and solidarity in numbers is important if these Turks want to push for citizenship on their own terms. However, even within this community there is a struggle between the poor and the affluent, and as gentrification is becoming a bigger problem there is a need for these 'arrivals' to integrate into Berlin so both the existing city and these migrants can benefit from each other.

More interestingly, as the world gets smaller, the future is going to be more globalised, and opportunities on that scale rarely come at a community level. The German government is currently running two main campaigns, 'Berlin Needs You' and 'Berlin Suits Me' to try and involve this major

workforce, a huge resource into the city of Berlin, and to encourage the migrants to become citizens and benefit from the opportunities that Berlin provides them. As Fadi Saad, a community organiser, mentions, 'It's possible for Berliners to live in the same city yet in completely different worlds'iii.

Perhaps for the individual in the city this isn't such a problem, but since we are looking at the 'future', the 'arrival city' as an underused and undervalued resource to a government is not particularly helpful especially when viewed by many of it's citizens as a hindrance.

Whilst Kreuzberg remains in a grey area with regards to the success of it's rural to urban migrants in the city, Shenzhen is currently a complete failure. Whilst the city is highly successful and acts as a major IT hub for Asia, attracting many thousands of highly skilled technicians and engineers, it fails the low income workers that are vital to further success and expansion in the future. The reason being is that, simply put, there is no 'arrival city' or 'gateway' of any kind. There is a staggering amount of job opportunities available, in fact the minimum wage has been increasing significantly over the years to try and encourage these migrants into the city. This increase is so significant that many businesses have lost out to competition due to the rising cost of manufacturing. However, even on this higher income bracket, there is no way of affording the cheapest housing available.

Currently workers live in dormitories, there is no room for family and they are only guaranteed work until they are thirty-five. Rather than Saunder's theory that urbanisation will help to stabilise the population, an obvious concern in China, this attitude towards a major proportion of the population threatens a much more unstable family life where workers are separated from family back home in their villages. Family life is a key factor in allowing migrants to socialise within communities, many workers interviewed have said there is little more to their life than work and sleep which is highly detrimental to the health of the population. There is also very little room for job growth, without a solid foundation in both home and work life, entrepreneurial opportunities are limited and thus so are chances to create a better life. This all comes back to the necessity for not just an arrival city, but an area where these workers can set up homes which they can improve over time and allow them room to introduce their families to the cities. The issue that the government contends with at the moment is beautification, that the city of the future should look like the future.

However, as we have seen in the two previous examples, these areas given over to arrivals can take on all shapes and sizes, and arguably, without such infrastructure, this city won't be participating as much in the future as it hopes.

Therefore whilst I agree with Saunders in the thinking that the world's future and future opportunities within cities lie together with the major rural to urban migration that the world will continue to see over the coming years, the idea of an 'arrival city' is generally a demoralising

concept. This term doesn't promote a connection between the existing infrastructure, the current city and these people settling outside. Moreover, it is not the city as a whole that should be considered at the centre of the world's future but these smaller communities and individuals who work with what the government provides to improve their own lives. Of course the gecekondo or government provided low income houses are a start, but they should be treated as just that, a board from which the migrants and the following generations can improve their lives. I propose the term 'arrival gateways', entrances into the city through which both sides can integrate, and a place where these migrants are greeted by governments and then guided by them in their quest to improve their life.

Other Sources Consulted: Awumbila, M. Owusu, G. Kofi Teye, J. (2014). Can Rural-Urban Migration into Slums Reduce Poverty?. Migrating Out of Poverty. Paper 13, 8-9.

Becker-Cantarino, B. (1996). Berlin in Focus: Cultural Transformations in Germany. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group. 90 - 91.

Boyes, R and Huneke, D. Is it easier to be a Turk in Berlin or a Pakistani in Bradford?. An AngloGerman Foundation Report.

Esen, O. Stephan, L (2005). Self Service City: Istanbul. Germany: b-books.

Senocak, Z. (2007). Turkey's Corset of Modernisation. Available: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1453.html. Last accessed 20/12/2014.

Tasan-Kok, T. Kempen, R. Raco, M. Bolt, G. (2014). Towards Hyper-Diversified European Cities.

DiverCities: Governing Urban Diversity. (2), 36-38.

The World Bank. (2009). Reshaping Economic Geography. World Development Report. (2), 146 170.

Yong, L. (2008). Tsinghua Professor: Big Chinese Cities Need Slums for Migrant Workers.

Available: http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/04/tsinghua-professor-big-chinese-cities-need-slumsfor-migrant-workers/. Last accessed 20/12/2014.

i Saunders, D (2010). Arrival City. Great Britain: William Heinemann. 58 ii Spirova, E. (2013). The multicultural Kreuzberg. Available: https://berlindividedcity.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-multicultural-kreuzberg/. Last accessed 20/12/2014.

iii Bakar, N & Ulfat, J. (2009). Scrutinizing Berlin's Diversity. Available: http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/32-in-kreuzberg-there-are-no-foreignersscrutinizing-berlin-s-diversity. Last accessed 20/12/2014.