This graph expands on the earlier posts’ documentation of the predominance of democratic nations in the FIFA World Cup over the years.
As the cascade of population bubbles shows, the rise in totalitarian regimes during the cold war years is evident in the cluster made up of primarily the USSR, Romania, and Hungary while the only winners in non-full democracies were the military-run Brazil in 1970 and Argentina in 1978. As of 1990, the only exceptions to the democratic dominance are the weak performances by China in 2002, Iran in 2006 and 2014, and Saudi Arabia in from 1994 to 2006 - none of whom made it out of the group stage.
Another notable bubble - the “other” 5.4 billion people who live in nations that are not participating in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Perhaps many of them are more interested in the 2015 Cricket World Cup.
(World Cup Participants Population, Government, & Placement)
"Free Design through Steel"
Artur Marques Kalil
Competition Entry for ACSA Steel Competition 2008
In addition to the advantages of playing closer to home, a proximity in levels of development seems to also make a difference in winning the World Cup.
Of the thirteen cups won by non-hosts, nine were won by countries with lower GDP/Capita* than the host nation. Only in 2010 did a country with a significantly higher GDP/Capita than its host win the cup.
This may reveal two factors in a country’s success at a world cup. First, historically, countries with fewer resources may exceed their normal performance levels when playing in a country that provides superior infrastructure and resources than the players would find at home. Second, the recent win by Spain in less-wealthy South Africa in 2010 may signal a shift in the treatment of national squads in host nations where nations with superior resources are able to afford and transplant any and all of their needs to the host nation in order to provide themselves with their ideal conditions. Case in point - Germany’s custom training ground in Bahia, Brazil for the 2014 World Cup.
* GDP/Capita levels for this table were adjusted to the PPP according to Geary-Khamis international dollars.
What’s the Big Idea?
Possible City is an experiment in engaging the city’s forgotten spaces to bridge a crucial gap in current urban planning practice. Top-down master planning, while cohesive and potentially visionary, is static and often insensitive to the needs of communities and individuals. Bottom-up advocacy planning addresses these issues, but can be fragmented and fall victim to “design by committee”. The Web provides a virtual medium for a sophisticated new approach whereby an organized vision for an entire city can emerge from networks of citizens working to improve their local environments . Vacant properties provide the physical medium, open to transformative new possibilities. Neither top down, nor bottom up, Possible City is a web-based framework for a symbiotic network of continuous experimentation, feedback, and synthesis more in-tune with the city as a complex and evolving entity.
Scientists will sometimes stain a certain element of organic matter to enhance its visibility under a microscope. These surreal and sharply colored images could be mistaken for such contrast-enhanced biological material.
They are actually Google Earth photos of tianguis, the famous street markets that spring up all across the Distrito Federal. In a collection compiled by Fabian Neuhaus of UrbanTick, and featured on Nicola Twiley’s Edible Geography on Monday, the markets — sheltered beneath red plastic tarps, which gives them their distinctive appearance from the air - look more like living organisms than groups of merchants. They sprawl down certain streets, seemingly chosen at random from an endless grid, turning corners or branching off into side streets. Their logic, from above, is mysterious and undeniable.
Read more. [Image: Flickr/UrbanTick]
Flexible Spaces Designed for Contemporary Families
Concept completed 2012