Havana, 90 miles from the mainland of the United States, was first a client of the US, and later allied with the Soviet Union.

Isfahan, located on the periphery of the Soviet Union, received resources from both superpowers.

Taipei, strategically located near America’s interests in Asia (particularly Japan), was a client of the United States.

They each were impacted by the global flows which urbanists now argue have come to underpin the contemporary world system.

These include:

1) ethnoscapes produced by flows of business personnel, guest workers, tourists, immigrants, and refugees

2) technoscapes involving flows of machinery, technology, and software produced by transnational corporations and government agencies

3) finanscapes consisting of flows of capital, currency, and securities

4) mediascapes comprised of flows of images and information through print media, television, film, and — now — the Internet

5) ideascapes including flows of ideological constructs, mostly derived from Western world views, e.g. democracy, sovereignty, representation, and human rights

6) commodityscapes produced by flows of material culture that encompass everything from architecture and interior design to clothes and jewelry

Moreover, since all three cities received large amounts of weapons in the early years of the Cold War when urban expansion was at its peak, I would add another ‘scape’ and call it a defensescape.

At any rate, cities worldwide were susceptible to external influences at the same time that they were being transformed through strong domestic forces.

In each instance, superpower support and influence involved flows that triggered a contestation with more local happenings.

And — in each of the three cases under discussion, a close relationship with the United States ended midway through the Cold War period. By the conclusion of the Cold War conflict in 1990, not  one of the three countries retained client status — or even a diplomatic relationship — with the US.

From the American perspective, the break with Havana and Isfahan was involuntary, the result of revolutionary change.

In contrast, the break with Taipei was voluntary, based on the US desire to establish a relationship with Mainland China that would pit Russia and China against each other.

In actuality, each city was most affected by Cold War inflows for only a portion of the Cold War conflict: Taipei from 1950-1979; Isfahan from 1968-1979; and Havana from 1960-1986. Today it’s fair to ask: What is the residual effect of these inflows? We’ll examine their legacy in posts to come.

From the end of World War II in 1945 until the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, strategically located cities throughout the Third World were unintentionally molded by Cold War competitive grand strategy.

In the context of the American-Soviet competition for global prestige and influence, many cities in the developing world received large infusions of superpower military and economic assistance, weapons, and technology.

The impact of Cold War assets on cities was so substantial and so pervasive that the urban form and organization of many metropolitan areas began to reflect, in varying degrees, their inflow.

Most importantly, the opportunity structure available to urban planners and decision-makers was affected by Cold War rivalry.

The pervasiveness of the Cold War conflict makes it difficult to find a metropolitan region that was not, at least in part, impacted by superpower pressures.

Superpower ventures and military investment had substantial impact on Third World cities during the Cold War era because, during this time frame, militaristic activity overlapped with a period of domestic change involving rapid urban population growth and spatial expansion.

Some observers label the reorganization that occurred “restructuring,” but others argue that the change was the result of a more profound transformation of the capitalist system.

All agree that urban adjustment occurred in several areas:

• patterns of settlement
• regional and urban economies
• occupational structure
• urban spatial patterns.

Of course, change in any one of these areas influenced development prospects.

Clearly Cold War and domestic variables intermingled to reshape the postwar process of urbanization throughout the less developed world.

In the 1950s the rate of Third World urbanization exploded, catching up with and, in fact, exceeding that of the already industrialized countries.

For example, between 1950 and 1960, the proportion of the population in cities of 100,000 or more rose about a third faster in the underdeveloped regions of the world than in the developed areas.

As we have mentioned, Cold War influences were not the sole determinant of urban transformation. Rather, they were occurring in tandem with accelerating population growth from natural increase and rural-urban migration.

Therefore, any restyling of the urban environment during the Cold War period must be considered in the context of other factors — demography, social structure, political and economic development — which are more historic and internal.

Nevertheless, the spillover from the American-Soviet militaristic competition was so widespread that many cities integrated Cold War resources into their post World War II reality.

As examples, during this period, Isfahan (Iran) grew from a sleepy tourist city of 200,000 to a militarized metropolis of one million. Taipei (Taiwan) expanded from a colonial city of about 300,000 to a defense oriented ‘world city’ of almost three million, and Havana metamorphised from a dependent (capitalist) city of less than 700,000 to a socialist city of over 2,000,000.

The effects of Cold War military expenditures on each city deserve closer examination in light of current budgetary allocations for our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, these cities provide insight into the success or failure of possible military action in Iran and North Korea.

Photograph by Lisa Reynolds Wolfe.