Similarity Between North American And Developing Worlds

The wise words of Tim Marshall, that “All leaders are constrained by geography,” reinforces the notion that world events are indeed affected in context to its physiological traits. With the rise of fierce competition for geographic resources, the developed world differs vastly from those that are still developing. Constricted by the institutional structures set by global developed countries due to their fierce industrial competition, lesser developed worlds recede further and further from the economic standards of the world. Influenced by economic outbursts, each respective developed and undeveloped countries form their own urban models due to the restraints of their geography. In current times, there’s been a harsh but true division of resources

between countries. Those divisions currently place North America and Europe or the “Western World” on a pedestal standing tall as economic behemoths. Of course, other countries with less opportunities due to their limited geography would then be classified as “Developing Worlds” with hopes that they too, one day could stand along these financial mammoths. As the growth of the global economy broadens progressively, there are varying urban models to properly explain the differences between the behemoths with the pygmies. Thus, the interaction influenced by the demographics of developed and developing worlds with varying similarities and differences, would forever have an effect in its socio-economics, political gains, and industrialization.
The foundation of all countries whether affluent or indigent in their resources, share some subtle similarities.

In every model between North America, Europe and Developing Worlds, there’s the emphasized importance on accessibility. The centrally located central business district in a concentric model such as that in Europe and Developing Worlds makes its land value the highest, sharing a common theme. While North America is founded upon a multiple nuclei model, it shares the distant decay theory with the concentric model of Europe and Developing Models. Centralized business districts’ sphere of influence decline gradually with distance along with population density. Yet despite both models varying in differences, the prevalence of residential segregation due to socio-economic status is not limited to one or the other model. Lower-income groups of residents live in the inner city to reduce time and cost of transport near the factory zone in return for the easiness in working opportunities, goods and services. Residential segregation being applicable to both variable of models, no amount of urbanization and development will not substitute comfort and

accessibility.
Despite similarities, there are easily identifiable differences in the urban models of the “Western World” compared to “Developing Worlds.” North America, with its enormous fortunes built upon vast amounts of land and resources, there’s no denial that its technology would not be renowned.

With the advancement of technology came motorized personal transportation establishing reduced transportation costs. Although the foundation of a multiple-nuclei model is built on a central business district, greater movement due to personal transportation allowed for specialization of regional centers. This would include business centers, technological buildings, along with recreational areas and parks. Despite the separation of a centralized district, events and activities would be together for a mutual benefit as it was easy to travel through the city. This is the optimal model to follow a city through its expansion. North America differs from its brethren, Europe from the “Western World” being that Europe adopted the central business model for its urbanization. Despite both being countries being economic whales, their identifiable difference would be the land mass each continent holds. Europe, due to their scarcity of land sets a stimulus to constitute a central business district model. Yet subtle difference in transportation between Europe and North America would create a substantial node that differs population density. There’d be more prevalence of apartments in Europe rather than

North America due to the high urban population density.
The future holds a very uncertain model for the ideal city. Each urban model, with their varying benefits but of course, with deficiencies as well, makes it hard to adapt to what the future might hold. As the population of the global world grows, so will the need to update the urbanization growth. It is undeniable that there are other factors that played a pivotal role in the socio-economic institutions in the development of the global world, however no one can argue Europe was the pivoting point in history for urban development. As history progressed so too did the liberal ideas developing into a more equal socio-economic class within developed countries. As the saying goes “Rome was not built in a day,” neither was cities in developing countries. Seasoned journalist, Tim Marshall in his publication of “Prisoners of Geography” would defend his thesis that physical characteristics of countries engage in the development of the following countries. In relation to the history of Europe, fierce competitions between neighboring countries such as Britain, France and Germany would create the pavement towards the industrial revolution. This mechanized revolution would then transfer to the oversea continent of North America who had just as equal if not more resources than the ancient land of Europe. History would not be complete without close examination of geography.