Place aesthetics now serve as lures for mobile capital

Evidence

The second reaction to the internationalism of modernism lies in the search to construct place and its meanings qualitatively. Capitalist hegemony over space puts the aesthetics of place very much back on the agenda. But this, as we have seen, meshes only too well with the idea of spatial differentiations as lures for a peripatetic capital that values the option of mobility very highly. Isn’t this place better than that place, not only for the operations of capital but also for living in, consuming well, and feeling secure in a shifting world? The construction of such places, the fashioning of some localized aesthetic image, allows the construction of some limited and limiting sense of identity in the midst of a collage of imploding spatialities. — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, 1920

Categorization

• QUESTION: Passage cuts off mid-sentence at location 1923 (continuation elsewhere). The claim about localized aesthetics as capital lures is the load-bearing idea — worth chasing the completion.
• XREF: Connects to gentrification studies and the ‘urban entrepreneurialism’ literature — the reader’s flexible-accumulation comparison likely touches this. — connects to: Postmodern architecture’s surface fascination masks underlying conflicts between place-rootedness and cosmopolitan style. — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 548

Broader Connections

• Postmodern architecture’s surface fascination masks underlying conflicts between place-rootedness and cosmopolitan style. #complicates (0.82) — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, 548