Dear’s model reflects postmodernist thinking - particularly ideas of an important group of
Southern California intellectuals identified as the Los Angeles school of urbanism. One good
way to think about the internal structure of city-regions is by contrasting the Chicago school
model (as described by Burgess) with the LA school model (as described by Dear).
The Los Angeles school of urbanism consists of the work of a group of intellectual mavericks
with different approaches, but who share enough in common that they self-identify and are
identified by others as a distinct school of urbanist thought. Dear correctly argues that their
point of view is radically different from earlier modernist points of view, including Burgess’s.
According to Dear, key differences between modernist and postmodernist views as
represented by the Burgess and LA school models are that:
● Burgess and other modernists view city-regions as coherent regional systems in
which the central business district (CBD) organizes the rest of city space and the
metropolitan hinterland beyond the formal city limits. In contrast, postmodernist
members of the LA school view city-regions as fragmented, with different areas
influenced largely by global, rather than purely local, forces. LA school theorists
argue that CBDs no longer act as centres defining the city-region. Rather, they argue
that urban peripheries tend to organize what remains of the urban centre.
● According to Dear, Burgess believed that the personal choices of individuals shape
overall urban conditions. In contrast, Dear and LA theorists believe that great global
structural forces determine metropolitan spatial structure. They believe that global
corporate-dominated connectivity is balancing or even offsetting individual-centered
agency in urban processes.
● Burgess and his Chicago School colleagues held an essentially teleological view of
urban evolution. They believed cities were evolving to ever more advanced and
modern levels; that, despite their problems, cities were becoming better over time.
The LA school questions that assumption. They see evolution of cities as a nonlinear,
chaotic process. They see ,amu pathological aspects of postmodern LA that make it
arguable a much less advanced city than many earlier cities.
● Postmodernist concepts include the world city (a few urban centres controlling the
world economy), the dual city (increasingly polarized by race, class, income, and
gender), the hybrid city (characterized by new hybrid communities) and cybercity (in
which digital connectivity shapes all aspects of urban life).
The most compelling metaphor Dear and his colleague Steven Flusty use to describe the LA
school paradigm is “Keno capitalism”. Substituting a real-world land parcel for the Keno
square, Dear and Flusty argue that in Los Angeles and other of the world’s most dynamic
metropolitan regions, global development consortia choose a land parcel for development
nearly at random and inject a huge amount of capital to develop mega projects there.
Land values close to the chosen parcel skyrocket and the selection of the parcels touches
off a whole string of development activities nearby.
Southern California intellectuals identified as the Los Angeles school of urbanism. One good
way to think about the internal structure of city-regions is by contrasting the Chicago school
model (as described by Burgess) with the LA school model (as described by Dear).
The Los Angeles school of urbanism consists of the work of a group of intellectual mavericks
with different approaches, but who share enough in common that they self-identify and are
identified by others as a distinct school of urbanist thought. Dear correctly argues that their
point of view is radically different from earlier modernist points of view, including Burgess’s.
According to Dear, key differences between modernist and postmodernist views as
represented by the Burgess and LA school models are that:
● Burgess and other modernists view city-regions as coherent regional systems in
which the central business district (CBD) organizes the rest of city space and the
metropolitan hinterland beyond the formal city limits. In contrast, postmodernist
members of the LA school view city-regions as fragmented, with different areas
influenced largely by global, rather than purely local, forces. LA school theorists
argue that CBDs no longer act as centres defining the city-region. Rather, they argue
that urban peripheries tend to organize what remains of the urban centre.
● According to Dear, Burgess believed that the personal choices of individuals shape
overall urban conditions. In contrast, Dear and LA theorists believe that great global
structural forces determine metropolitan spatial structure. They believe that global
corporate-dominated connectivity is balancing or even offsetting individual-centered
agency in urban processes.
● Burgess and his Chicago School colleagues held an essentially teleological view of
urban evolution. They believed cities were evolving to ever more advanced and
modern levels; that, despite their problems, cities were becoming better over time.
The LA school questions that assumption. They see evolution of cities as a nonlinear,
chaotic process. They see ,amu pathological aspects of postmodern LA that make it
arguable a much less advanced city than many earlier cities.
● Postmodernist concepts include the world city (a few urban centres controlling the
world economy), the dual city (increasingly polarized by race, class, income, and
gender), the hybrid city (characterized by new hybrid communities) and cybercity (in
which digital connectivity shapes all aspects of urban life).
The most compelling metaphor Dear and his colleague Steven Flusty use to describe the LA
school paradigm is “Keno capitalism”. Substituting a real-world land parcel for the Keno
square, Dear and Flusty argue that in Los Angeles and other of the world’s most dynamic
metropolitan regions, global development consortia choose a land parcel for development
nearly at random and inject a huge amount of capital to develop mega projects there.
Land values close to the chosen parcel skyrocket and the selection of the parcels touches
off a whole string of development activities nearby.
