Landscapes of Power

Key Principles

Following in the tradition of the historian Karl Polanyi, who described the emergence of capitalism in The Great Transformation, Zukin outlines how deindustrialization and the shift to a postin-dustrial economy in the United States has changed five different locales.

The conception of landscapes of power includes the thesis that market forces and attachments to place have become ever more antagonistic. Zukin explores this thesis in a number of different regards. She examines how deindustrialization has meant that towns developed in relationship to particular industries are particularly vulnerable to changes in the economy. For instance, Detroit has become one of the most intensive concentrations of poverty in the United States as the domestic auto industry has lost its economic viability. Attachment to a particular place can be an economic disadvantage if workers do not want to relocate to follow economic opportunities, or if the economic opportunities available in a given locale do not match their skills. Douglas Rae has pointed out in his examination of New Haven, Connecticut, that the economy changes much more quickly than the infrastructure that is built to support it; therefore, we can see a gap between how quickly the market and the landscapes that support it can change.

This theme is also explored in recent work on globalization and place. The globalization of the economy has detached production from particular locations due to the reduced costs of transport. No longer do products need to be made near the spaces where materials are found, nor is it necessary that objects be made in proximity to where they will be sold or consumed. For this reason, economic production becomes less bound by geography.

Just as the concept of creative destruction encompasses the demise of some forms of market behavior and the birth of new ones, so the concept of landscapes of power argues that market forces end up destroying some landscapes while giving rise to new ones. The analysis explains both degenerative and generative changes in the built environment through reference to shifts in economic production. Deindustrialization has hollowed out former company towns such as Gary, Indiana, and Detroit, Michigan, but it has also spawned new developments such as those catering to retired workers in moderate climates.

Zukin also describes how landscapes of power can lose their particular characteristics as another example of the antagonism between the market and locality. For instance, malls around the country have the same stores, restaurants, and recreational opportunities. The economies of scale offer a competitive advantage over competed distinctive local establishments. On the other hand, divergence in the landscape is also evident. Zukin points to the growing disparity of economic opportunity in the United States between coastal regions and the interior as a result of shifts in the market. Evolving market arrangements do not entirely remake the landscape, however, and different layers of economic history are evident in many different locations, as, for example, the luxury loft apartments that have become common in abandoned warehouse space, showing how the economics of intensive capital can redefine—and recycle—the spaces of industrial production.

...