Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this entire post, you offered absolutely nothing except that developers in Accra are hiring architects whose design meets your approval when seen from a distance.
The outdated information I referred to earlier, presented by you in your argument, was completely useless for any purpose. It gave African urban populations for 1950 and 1975, and then projected numbers for a future which is now largely in the past.
What is it that you are trying to say? That cities are getting bigger? That cities are getting better, or worse, by some criteria that you imagine to be an indicator of the quality or the character or a symptom of urbanity?
And Yes, I did rebut how you apparently characterize what you say. Yes, African cities are growing, in that their populations are rising. But in my opinion they are not growing in such a way as to become, as most cities do, modern well-organized centers of human culture and economics. Their populations basically remain non-urban people, simply in much larger number within a circle.
In 2016, in Addis Ababa, and in 1976 in Lagos, Dakar, Dar Es Salaam, Abidjan, I basically saw people who lived and functioned in close neighborhoods. A great majority of the people may very well have gone years at a time without ever venturing further than a kilometer or two from their homes, having no need to. There may have been a great city spreading out beyond that radius, but most people never went there. This is why I say, although demographically the circle is expanding and becoming more populous, it is not truly "urbanizing". No matter how glitzy and brightly lit the skyline, the bailiwick of the tiny elite that controls the economy.
If you disagree with what I have just said, please address the points with your arguments to the contrary.
I'll make a couple of notes as someone who has been to 48 of the countries on the continent, most several times over the course of more than thirty years. Note: this down't make me anything like an "expert", but the repeat visits over the course of a fairly long period gives some perspective.
(Sorry, work calls. Will return to continue thoughts soon.)
Kinshasa when it was Leopoldville was a decent size livable city. Today Kinshasa is an unruly giant slum. It became this way as millions moved from villages looking for jobs. They didn't find any as only 5% of residents are employed in the formal sectors and most of them at government jobs that rarely pay.
Any city will have a wealthy area. I mean the NGO workers have to sleep somewhere. I go by how the masses live. Is there a viable middle class? I'm not seeing that in many of the cities mentioned but hey I supposedly hate black people or something. So never mind me.
In this entire post, you offered absolutely nothing except that developers in Accra are hiring architects whose design meets your approval when seen from a distance.
I never said you can't post a about architecture, but those building have a function. As part of the airport, homes, and business.
And you created straw man because I like and found those building interesting, you painted a straw man as if I said all building most meet those standards and architecture, I never said that you said that. You completely assumed and created a straw man argument. It doesn't matter the architecture or height I post because their development with in cities, and just decided to compliments. And you took that created a straw man argument.
Quote:
The outdated information I referred to earlier, presented by you in your argument, was completely useless for any purpose. It gave African urban populations for 1950 and 1975, and then projected numbers for a future which is now largely in the past.
This highlight I was right in my original thought you simply don't make sense.
The chart is from 2009 in which projection data hasn't changed there was nothing outdated. The chart show historical growth as well as the projected growth. By seeing it start in the 1950's and saying it's outdated shows you don't know how to read graphs.
Quote:
What is it that you are trying to say? That cities are getting bigger? That cities are getting better, or worse, by some criteria that you imagine to be an indicator of the quality or the character or a symptom of urbanity?
whether these cities are going grow have nothing to do with my opinion. It's a fact by the UN, Worldbank and etc. I'm "trying" to you nothing, I am telling you.
And your last sentence is again a straw man you arguing with your self.
I said since cities are growing, I ask what are cities plans to deal with growth?.............. Everything else you made up in your head.
Quote:
And Yes, I did rebut how you apparently characterize what you say. Yes, African cities are growing, in that their populations are rising. But in my opinion they are not growing in such a way as to become, as most cities do, modern well-organized centers of human culture and economics. Their populations basically remain non-urban people, simply in much larger number within a circle.
In 2016, in Addis Ababa, and in 1976 in Lagos, Dakar, Dar Es Salaam, Abidjan, I basically saw people who lived and functioned in close neighborhoods. A great majority of the people may very well have gone years at a time without ever venturing further than a kilometer or two from their homes, having no need to. There may have been a great city spreading out beyond that radius, but most people never went there. This is why I say, although demographically the circle is expanding and becoming more populous, it is not truly "urbanizing". No matter how glitzy and brightly lit the skyline, the bailiwick of the tiny elite that controls the economy.
If you disagree with what I have just said, please address the points with your arguments to the contrary.
And this what I'm talking about you post is base on character of urbanity, in which my post of are not.
You have this weird hatred of high rises, and because I posted a pic with a few you automatically assumed that was my full definition of urbanity. Partly because your view on urbanity is that narrow. And stating stuff like basically people living in small nit community makes not urban, when most urban planners would tell that definition of urbanity. So you have this off definition of urbanity and Your more criticizing sprawl, but calling it urban. At the same calling denser human scale community not urban, when that what Urban is.
Most large cities Even Tokyo, London, Paris and NY outside Manhattan are not high rises but rather low rises and building 2 to 5 stories. So the notion that my view of urbanity is just skyline is already backwards of you, your assuming too much and creating straw man argument.
Kinshasa when it was Leopoldville was a decent size livable city. Today Kinshasa is an unruly giant slum. It became this way as millions moved from villages looking for jobs. They didn't find any as only 5% of residents are employed in the formal sectors and most of them at government jobs that rarely pay.
Any city will have a wealthy area. I mean the NGO workers have to sleep somewhere. I go by how the masses live. Is there a viable middle class? I'm not seeing that in many of the cities mentioned but hey I supposedly hate black people or something. So never mind me.
It's how you come off looking, Do you want these situation to improve or are just pointing out to insult people? that the difference.
It oblivious African cities need improvement that not worth the argument, but are we going discuss and celebrate the improvements or we just going be negative nacys?
Kinshasa is one of the worst situation because the The country is in the civil war. So investment and future planning is not like Lagos, des es salaam, Narboi and etc that have bolder ideas.
Kinshasa when it was Leopoldville was a decent size livable city. Today Kinshasa is an unruly giant slum. It became this way as millions moved from villages looking for jobs. They didn't find any as only 5% of residents are employed in the formal sectors and most of them at government jobs that rarely pay.
Any city will have a wealthy area. I mean the NGO workers have to sleep somewhere. I go by how the masses live. Is there a viable middle class? I'm not seeing that in many of the cities mentioned but hey I supposedly hate black people or something. So never mind me.
But when Kinshasa was Leopoldville, their was a genocide and the villages weren't even connected in anyway to the capital and they were several times more backwards than they are now, so the capital was useless in unless you think the transportation of natural resources is important. Even as a slum now, Kinshasa is infinitely better than Leopoldville times. In Leopoldville times Leopoldville looked nice and the rest of the country was being slaughtered by the masses, and was much poorer than today.
I never said you can't post a about architecture, but those building have a function. As part of the airport, homes, and business.
And you created straw man because I like and found those building interesting, you painted a straw man as if I said all building most meet those standards and architecture, I never said that you said that. You completely assumed and created a straw man argument. It doesn't matter the architecture or height I post because their development with in cities, and just decided to compliments. And you took that created a straw man argument.d
The fact is, you never said anything. You presented a bunch of photos of buildings and let those photos do your talking. They were just exterior walls of buildings, which may or may not have had anybody doing anything inside. What are all those Africans doing inside those buildings, that is useful or productive to those cities or those countries or the citizens thereof?
You made yourself a strawman by never presenting yourself as anything else.
Tell us what, in your opinion, a "city" is , and what it is supposed to be and how does one judge if a city is developing in the right direction and how that can be measured. Then, we'll come back with thoughtful comments in line with your position. Until then, we take ourn own position, on the unannnotated material you presented.
But when Kinshasa was Leopoldville, their was a genocide and the villages weren't even connected in anyway to the capital and they were several times more backwards than they are now, so the capital was useless in unless you think the transportation of natural resources is important. Even as a slum now, Kinshasa is infinitely better than Leopoldville times. In Leopoldville times Leopoldville looked nice and the rest of the country was being slaughtered by the masses, and was much poorer than today.
This is incorrect the slaughter came under King Leopold which predates independence by 50 years. Congo colonialism was more insidious than others but the country on economic terms at least was far better. It was one of the most industrial countries in Africa at the time. Now there are hardly any paved roads.
The above is a rather incomplete, G-rated description of what the authors endured over nearly 2,500 miles. While the average first-world driver can complete a 100-mile trip easily within two hours, in the DRC 100-miles traveled represents a very successful day. Figure that the authors' 710 mile passage from Kinshasa to Kananga alone took place over 15 days. During one 5 mile stretch as they exited Kinshasa, they were stopped by government officials no less than four times.
This is incorrect the slaughter came under King Leopold which predates independence by 50 years. Congo colonialism was more insidious than others but the country on economic terms at least was far better. It was one of the most industrial countries in Africa at the time. Now there are hardly any paved roads.
No, the country economically was in shambles. If 3,000 people benefit from minerals being transported and all that is built is a road or railway to were the minerals are that isn't economic prosperity. It's a lie that any country got worse after colonialism. Life expectancy for Africans didn't drop from 50 to 40 and then climbed back up to 60 today. Your romanticizing a system that actually didn't benefit anybody except for an elite class of people. Congo might have been one of the most "industrial" country's in Africa at the time, but it is certainly more developed now than it was 50 years ago. A railway through a jungle and a few factories isn't an industrial country. The funny thing is industry as in industrial buildings) and paved roads don't suddenly disappear. It's not like Congo was an easy country to cross during colonial times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
