I feel that a global city is a city or area that has a reach bigger than its immediate geography. A global city is influential in all aspects of culture, and New York City shows that characteristic. In the case of NYC, people look to fashion, food, and attitudes from the five boroughs as sources of inspiration. From an economic standpoint, I see the global city as one that can dictate many other economic trends worldwide. The stock market crashes of the Great Depression and our recent recession shows this. Although those two instances are about events that affected people worldwide, most associate New York City and its stock market as a main influence. In general, I feel that a global answer can confidently answer the question, “Who run the world?” (awkward Beyonce reference)
To us New Yorkers, I feel that we underestimate or forget New York’s role as a global city. We don’t have personal responsibilities to show NYC as a global city, so it’s almost like we just live without knowing the scope of our city’s global reach. I sometimes forget how vast and how iconic our city is at times, just because it’s all I know. New York seems more of a bigger deal to people from other places. To other people, New York can be seen as the economic mecca, or the Capital for all capitalism (capital C.) In its relation to the rest of the world, New York is a city to look up to for developing cities, in all cultural aspects. Its role as a global city makes it more influential than what we really expect it to be. For individuals, our city can be seen as a destination, because of its far reaching influence.
Cracks in the Edifice of the Empire State was published in 2002. This was surprising to me, because it seemed so soon after the actual event. I was expecting the piece to be more recent, especially with the different economic climate of the world in general. His analysis of September 11th was harsh, and there are many points to which New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers alike would have a problem with. But I do find truth in what he described after the attacks. He said that it took the attacks for Americans to rediscover the values that were lost in economization and expansion. Looking back at it now, I definitely see that as a sign of the obliviousness of people during times of success. Although the outpouring of good people and community that came out after 9/11 was great, Harvey showed that it was troublesome in a sense. It was a wake up call in the most tragic of senses.
Economically, I saw Harvey’s piece as a message against American capitalism, or the new American values. Although he mentioned the restoration of values brought about by 9/11, he spent most of the paper speaking about the wrongs done by individuals, and the American people as a whole. He talked about how the 3 days without commercials hurt economically. One thing that he mentioned was how tourist would be able to see “a viewing stage at Ground Zero so people could view the scene of the crime.” I was bothered by this more than a little bit, for obvious reasons. At the end, he warned about the dangers of “excessive financialization.” He spoke of the towers as symbols of neoliberal globalization and New York’s role in political-economic development. From what I interpret about Harvey’s economic thinking, the destruction of the Twin Towers further emphasized the downfall and failure of American capitalism and excess.
