The previous section offered a detailed analysis of the role of space within Harvey’s work. The conclusion was that the understanding of space that he advances conforms to the polarity within the geographical canon - an abstract space of geographical difference and a hermeneutic space of hypothesised general meanings – in which there is no consideration of the materiality of space. This section will seek to advance an alternative approach to the spatial problems which pre- occupy Harvey, one drawing upon the materialist conception of space advanced by Hillier et al. We have seen that while Harvey argues for the inseparability of theory and practice, in his practice he tends to develop theoretical ideas that he then extends into a ‘laboratory’ of
experience. Here I will reverse that logic, introducing two empirical case studies before drawing out what their theoretical impact might be. Although there are many potential examples that would be of relevance (and some of the later case studies employed in relation to the work of Giddens, Goffman and Foucault will have resonances with Harvey’s work) I have decided to develop two that apply to Harvey’s earlier concerns with spatio-economic relations, particularly the idea of the city as ‘movement economy’ [introduced in the previous chapter, pp 135-6]. The themes of his later work - for example the move towards more experiential understandings of space found in The Condition of Postmodernity - are touched upon by these later examples. The two examples are as follows; the first will revisit Harvey’s concern with the role of rent in the urban system, developed in Social Justice and the City and The Limits to Capital, and will demonstrate the importance of the physical space of the city form, understood through a
configurational approach, in determining rental values. The character of this example, particularly in relation to the approach to space upon which it is based, can usefully be compared to Harvey’s own more empirical exposition of these ideas in his essay Paris, 1850-70 [Harvey, 1985; pp 63- 220]. The second example will return to the key concept of a ‘spatial fix’ to capitalism’s crises, and will re-examine his weakly developed notion of competition between spaces and more favoured locations. The example will demonstrate that rather than conceiving of ‘space’ in abstract terms as a differentiated region of potential opportunity, the configuration of spatial systems plays a direct role in governing the success or failure of local economies.
Having demonstrated the utility of the approach, the beginnings of a theoretical reconciliation may be proposed.
Rent and Spatial Order
The aim of this thesis is to argue that the claimed ‘re-assertion of space in social theory’ relies on contrasting abstract and hermeneutic understandings of space that are opposed to common ‘material’ understandings abandoned through a reaction against ‘spatial science’ and
determinism. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Harvey’s approach to the role of rent in the urban system. For Harvey, as was demonstrated above, rent is of importance because it is the spatial expression of the inequalities of the capitalist process. Its central importance, both to his theory of urbanism and also in his reworking of historical materialism, derives from the fact that the differential spatiality of potential investment returns, defined by rental topographies, governs land price and “operates to allocate capital and labour to land, guides the location of future production, exchange and consumption, fashions the geographical distribution of labour and the spatial organisation of social reproduction” [Harvey, 1982; p 396].
This is, as was argued above, a quintessential ‘geographical’ conception of space - the abstract, systemic, birds-eye view, that Harvey himself describes as “invoking the facts of distribution” [ibid., emphasis added]. However, I suggest that distribution is a ‘second order’ spatial concept that describes the ordering of a category (defined a priori by theoretical constriction) within a notional, abstract (often diagrammatic or theoretical) space. The spatiality of rent topologies is important as a theoretical loop completing the recursivity of the system, but space is not fundamental to the process. In determining rent the importance of ‘location’ is often cited, but again this is typically understood in terms of proximity of access to other key sites (dependent functions, transport links etc) and so relates once again to ‘friction of distance’ considerations, more temporal than spatial.
Desyllas aims to understand more thoroughly this location variable in office rents [Desyllas, 1997 and 1998]. He draws a distinction between the importance of location in the ‘micro-behaviour’ of individual firms, and the ‘macro-behaviour’ that defines the market place as the aggregate of these decisions, which in turn produces the emergent structure of location rents across the city. This concern with the emergent structure at the macro/aggregate scale has obvious parallels with Harvey’s argument. However, Desyllas [1998] begins by challenging overly simplistic
conceptions of the relationship between location and rent, arguing that “although there is a broad consensus...that ‘location’ is in some sense a critical factor in determining rents, the exact role that the location factor plays is unclear and elicits little consensus” [ibid.; p 2]. While previous
studies have attempted to use multiple regression analysis to isolate spatial and non-spatial variables in rental values, he notes that little work has been done relating the ‘location rent’ (that part of rent paid for the location distinct from other factors) to the observable pattern of rent in cities. His aim, therefore, is to separate out the locational variable of rent and, through mapping these values, to identify an emergent pattern and an underlying spatial logic.
He also provides a far more sophisticated understanding of rent than does Harvey, necessitated partly through his empirical focus. He demonstrates that there is considerable difference between the ‘asking rent’ (that which typically is in the public domain) and the headline rent (that which appears in the concluded contract between tenant and landlords)10. Using multiple regression
analysis, Desyllas is able to account for the non-spatial determinants of rent, and by segmenting his sample into time periods is able to neutralize the influence of time, the most important non- spatial variable. Mapping of the residual factors produces a distinctly non-random pattern, suggesting that the ‘location rent’ has been isolated [ibid.; pp 6-11].
It is this spatial analysis location rent and the critical choice of study area that makes his work so interesting. The sample of 435 office leases are taken from Berlin between 1991 and 1997, a period of rapid spatial reorganisation following in the wake of reunification. What the mapping of location rent shows is that the most desired location in the city, measured by location rent
‘hotspots’ changes rapidly post unification following “a re-valuing of locations by the market” [ibid.; p 3 sic]. While in the immediate wake of unification the peak location rents are bifurcated, with hotspots in the West Berlin CBD and a weaker concentration in the East, in the period 1995- 7 there has been a significant spatial shift to a much more monocentric pattern, focused on the former East Berlin district of Mitte [see figure 6.3]. As Desyllas concludes, “Downtown has moved from West to East Berlin” [ibid.; p 15].
Although thus far the case-study adds much needed empirical evidence to Harvey’s work, it still treats space as descriptive rather than as an independent variable. Desyllas’s aim, however, is to relate the observed pattern of ‘location rent surfaces’ to such an independent analysis of the spatial system of Berlin. While previous studies have tried to relate location rent approximates to ‘dummy area location variables’, these are themselves significantly determined by the observed
10 He makes further distinctions between ‘consideration’ and ‘effective’ rent, but concludes that headline rent in all but
Figure 6.3 Location rent values for Berlin CBD for 1991-1994 (top) and 1995 – 1997 (bottom). The analysis shows a clear spatial reordering following reunification [Source: Desyllas, 1998].
Figure 6.4 Axial analysis of Berlin before and after unification, showing the relocation of the integration core (higher integration values shown moving from blue, though green, yellow and to red) [Source: Desyllas, 1998].
rent patterns, and models of distance from a point or points over-simplifies the complexity of accessibility in urban systems [ibid., p 17].
Desyllas turns, therefore, to the Space Syntax technique of ‘axial mapping’ (described above, chapter 5) to provide an independent measure of accessibility (‘integration’ in the Space Syntax terminology11). Figure 6.4 shows the analysis of the spatial configuration of the urban system
before and after reunification. The correspondence with the location rent pattern is striking, and is demonstrated by Desyllas statistically.
The importance of this result is that it shows that the reordering of the spatial structure of the city was the driver of the spatial shift in rental values. The spatial configuration of the urban form itself is shown to have a direct impact on the rental market, therefore, because the configurational properties of the street grid will tend to influence locational decisions, forming an emergent pattern in aggregate. What Desyllas has shown is that the spatial distribution of rents can be explained without problematic reflexive recourse to social and economic data but through an analysis of the physical space of the urban form. He therefore treats spatial structure as an endogenous variable, rather than as an exogenous variable as in conventional studies [Desyllas, 1997; pp 04.12-04.13]. This is to reverse the logic of Harvey, who sees spatial characteristics of the market as a dependent, though recursive, variable. His ‘spatial’ concerns are limited to the descriptive level of distribution without engaging with the fundamental influence that material space of the urban structure has in influencing that emergent spatial pattern of rental values. 'Local Spatial Advantage': configuration and uneven economic development
The second case-study [see figure 6.5] builds upon this result but develops the consequences further. Here the focus is upon the consequences of spatial configuration for the relative
‘consolidation12’ of ‘site and service’ settlements in Santiago, Chile [Hillier, Greene et al., 1998, Hillier, Greene and Desyllas, 2000]. The study is of relevance to Harvey’s argument because the results point to the role of urban configuration in determining economic activity through what Hillier and Greene term ‘local spatial advantage’, analogous to the disparity of potential between locations that is the impetus to Harvey’s spatial fix. Once again, the empirical analysis offered by
11 See Hillier, 1996 and Hillier and Hanson, 1984 for a full description and mathematical basis.
12 Consolidation is defined by several complex composite indices of physical, social and economic factors [Hillier,
Space Syntax points to the fundamental importance of material space, ignored by Harvey in his focus on the spatiality of other factors, principally rent.
The study examined 17 settlements in Santiago of differing perceived levels of consolidation, collecting data on land use, pedestrian and vehicular movement as well as questionnaire data from 553 households across the 17 settlements for the formulation of the consolidation indices. Furthermore, an axial map of Santiago was constructed to quantify aspects of the urban
morphology of the spatial system as a whole as well as of the individual settlements and their immediate (1.5km radius, 7km) areas.
The results contradict conventional understandings because they show, through regression analysis, that the social factors (income, savings, persons per dwelling, length of residence, car ownership etc) have relatively little influence over the consolidation indices, while spatial configuration is seen to be more influential, as are space use factors, particularly vehicular movement rates which are themselves largely determined by configuration [see analysis in Hillier, Greene et al., 1998; chapter 7]. Furthermore, there is a strong relationship between the level of commercial activity and consolidation. While this might be expected, there is an unexpected spatial refinement. There are strong correlations between the consolidation indices and the ‘edge commercial index’. This is an amalgamation of two ratios seen to be of importance; firstly, the number of commercial premises to the number of plots in the settlement (shops/plots) and secondly, the ratio of such commercial premises located on outward facing edges of the settlement to those on interior streets. The combined index expresses the rate of commercial activity in the settlement and its spatial orientation; a measure of ‘edge-oriented commercial activity’ [ibid.; p 163].
The multiple regression analysis reveals four key determinants of settlement consolidation: edge- orientated commercial activity, crime, vehicular movement and aspects of local and global spatial integration [ibid.; p 168]. However, it is only the latter that are truly independent. Crime is shown to be dependent upon the level of commercial activity as well as income (and has been shown in previous studies to be highly dependent itself on spatial configuration as it impacts upon
pedestrian movement potentials [see for example Hillier and Shu, 1999, 2000]). Edge orientated commercial activity is determined principally by vehicular movement (an R2 result of .888) but also with another independent spatial variable, Local Spatial Advantage, as well as spending (not income) within the settlement. Vehicular movement is critical, therefore, but because it is shown
Figure 6.5
a
Figure 6.5 Informal settlement dynamics in Santiago. Figure a (see previous) shows the axial analysis of 17 settlements in the Santiago grid. The configurational structure is a strong predictor of vehicular movement (b). Figures c-f show two settlements with conversely weak (c & d) and strong (e & f) positions in the configurational structure. The settlement with the stronger vehicular movement at the periphery (strongly influenced by configuration) develops a high degree of ‘edge-orientated commercial activity’ (see d & f). This in turn is shown to be a strong factor influencing the combined consolidation index of settlement success (g) [Source: Hillier, Greene et al. 1998].
not to be affected by the level of car ownership within the settlement, what is critical must be the accessibility of the settlement to the wider urban context.
The key determinants of vehicular movement (and in consequence edge-orientated commercial activity) are two independent spatial measures. The first is termed ‘synergy’, meaning the correlation between local and global aspects of spatial layout, and the second ‘Local Spatial Advantage’. This measure expresses the degree to which each settlement holds an inherent spatially strategic position in the overall urban system13. The higher the value, the more the
settlement has a higher integration value compared to a uniform metric context.
This analysis allows Hillier and Greene to suggest a direct spatial process affecting what they term the ‘pathways of development’ of different settlements. They argue that the key independent variables are spatial, relating specifically to the local configurational environment determining how individual settlements cohere with the wider urban morphological context. In consequence, this determines the pattern of movement through different settlements, particularly vehicular movement. In settlements with a particular local spatial advantage, the concentration of vehicular movement stimulates the generation of edge-orientated economic activity (i.e. commercial activity orientated to the wider urban context as well as simply the internal spaces of the particular settlement). This in turn is seen to be the prime determinant of overall economic success in different foundling communities evidenced through the various consolidation indices [ibid.; p 169]. Even individuals’ incomes, conventionally thought to be determined principally by education, are seen in this study to be affected to an equal degree by the spatial factors of local spatial advantage. Taken together education and the local spatial advantage of the settlement in question account for 66% of the variation in family incomes and 71% of the variation in individuals’ incomes (r-squared values of 0.656 and 0.711 respectively [ibid., p 170]. As with the previous example, this demonstrates that the physical layout of settlements has a demonstrable effect upon the capitalist process, impacting directly upon not only rental topologies but also upon the viability of local neighbourhood economies, with the knock-on impact on social variables identified in the consolidation indices.
13 This is calculated by taking the mean radius-n integration value of each settlement in the context of the 7km local
system, and dividing it into the mean integration value of the 7km system [Hillier and Green, 1998; p 162, for detailed discussion of the principles of this calculation see Hillier and Hanson, 1984, and for a brief summary above chapter 5].
The space of difference
These two worked examples have sought to demonstrate an alternative approach to the problem of space in the economy of the urban system. These studies have not relied upon a notion of ‘spatiality of capitalism/ the market/ the urban system’. Rather, they have approached space in a material way that is in stark contrast to Harvey’s historical-geographical materialism. The focus has been upon the physical space of the city, approached through the idea of configuration, and the direct impact that this has upon economic factors. In this way it puts space at the centre of the analysis, as an independent variable with observable and quantifiable emergent effects, rather than as a theoretical construct brought to bear on an intellectual problem, without correspondence with empirical examples beyond the level of anecdotal reference.
However, this is not to encourage a separation between empirical exegesis and theory, for the technique of Space Syntax is rooted in a theory of the relationship between society and space which, moreover, is implicitly spatial. Critically, it is founded upon an approach to space that does not necessitate the ‘trade-off’ between the material and processual which lies at the heart of Harvey’s approach. For Harvey, ‘space’ refers either to the abstract spatial differentiation of the capitalist process, or to the symbolic meaning of built forms. Both are conceptually one step removed from lived experience, rejecting the direct, unmediated, influence of physical space. He rejects the possibility of this influence early on in his essay on “the conceptual problems of urban planning”, itself part of the rejected ‘liberal formulations’ of the first section of Social Justice and the City [1973]. There he makes the early orientation away from the importance of the physical, arguing that, “if we are to understand spatial form, we must first enquire into the symbolic qualities of that form” [ibid, p 32, emphasis added]. He offers two approaches; the first using psycholinguistics and psychology to approach “the measurement of spatial and
environmental symbolism”. His second approach, however, is “simply to observe people’s behaviour and thus gauge their reaction to objects and events…At the aggregate level, we have to rely upon the information provided by a generalized description of spatial activity” [ibid.; p 33]. However, instead of relating spatial activity directly to the physical form of the city, Harvey’s interest (rejected within the same volume) is to relate spatial activity to the response to the symbolic meaning of the city; “If we are to understand space, we must consider its symbolic meaning and its complex impact upon behaviour as it is mediated by cognitive processes” [p 36].
These early ‘liberal formulations’ are rejected entirely by Harvey in favour of his more ‘socialist formulations’ focusing on the ‘space-economy of urbanism’. What the approach of Space Syntax