I’m that guy that Dr. Weffer scoffs
at. You know, the one who will claim to be from Chicago when out of state, but
who actually grew up on a two acre lot where I spent more time in cornfields
and having “bonfires” (a term which, by the way, us rural kids take very
seriously. If it’s in a pit, you suburbanites, it doesn’t count) than I
probably ever will spend within Chicago’s city limits. And yet while my
backyard is quite literally soybeans, I have always (and still would) consider
Chicago to be part of that backyard. I mean this in the most NON-literal sense,
of course. I can’t see the skyline, hear air traffic, or even use public
transportation to get downtown from my house. Yet being in relatively close proximity
to a world class city has certainly impacted my life. Between weekend visits
when we were kids, a past job, and even visitng a past girlfriend (TMI?), I’ve spent a
lot of time in Chicago. I’ve learned to navigate CTA, always been a cubs fan,
and have more friends who live there now than I do back home. But this
relationship isn’t solely dictated by physical aspects of the city, and my
experience with urban development certainly isn’t bound by the Chicago city
limits. When delineating urban, suburban, and rural areas we mostly give consideration
to physical boundaries. And yet it becomes clear when you examine the growth
and development of cities and their surrounding areas that “the city” does not
simply end at the finite line superimposed on a satellite image by Google Maps.
City culture and its values rather, permeate this line and makes the city and
its surroundings largely inextricable. Understanding this culture, how it has
changed, and its interplay with infrastructure hinges upon an examination of
urban history and development, a derivative of urbanism and urbanization.
Going
through the first three chapters of our text, it is obvious why the author’s
see the content as the “new” urban sociology; equally as dynamic as urban life
itself, our understanding of the forces shaping urban development is constantly
changing, and yet examinations of urban areas has, in the past, been rather narrowly
focused. Vastly different than the areas we consider to be urban today, early
cities were commonly formed with the sacred in mind; religious structures or
symbolic ideas were often at the heart of urban planning. As society has been
secularized though, so too has urban development. This could first be seen in Athens
which replaced the religious and cosmological ideas of its predecessors with an
emphasis on its’ political structure. In both instances, cities often revolved
around a central figure representative of the ideas upheld at that time. In the
case of Greece, Rome, and Athens, urban development paid homage to the gods,
reinforced power, and emphasized political structure respectively. Components of
these earlier societal focuses can certainly be seen within our cities today
yet they are no longer the focal point of their development.
As cities evolved and changed a new
urban culture developed, one which made cities self-sustaining. A new economic
structure was introduced as barter and trade for goods was replaced with
monetary expenditure. Today the central figure of our cities is dominated by
capitalism. Religious facilities or city halls are no longer considered the
center of cities, rather spaces like the “The Miracle Mile” in the case of
Chicago, or Times Square in New York seem to be the focal points. These
capitalist shopping Meccas have characterized our cities for some time now. Like
past focal points of urban development, they represent a cultural value upheld
so strongly that, quite literally, they are the foundations for skyscrapers.
However, something about these manifestations of cultural values appears
different than earlier focuses of urbanization. Early sociologists Marx and Weber both
recognized the extent to which capitalism would pervade society and saw the
complexities it would introduce to not only urban development but also to the
surrounding areas (now both suburban and rural). Unlike past urban development,
the expansion of urban areas today seems even more aggressive, parasitic and
perpetual.
The modernity described by Simmel,
which we easily liken with urbanism, has certainly escaped the limits of
urbanization. The “blasé” attitude and emphasis on calculated rationality
dominates so many aspects of our lives as to be institutionalized within our
society and extend beyond the classical limits of traditional urbanism and
urbanization. These lifestyle characteristics were once associated only with
the city, but living in a predominantly rural area has shown me this is no
longer the case. My friends and I often joke about a somewhat remote site
within our town limits where in the past year we have acquired a Walmart, Aldi,
two health care facilities, multiple fast food restaurants, and of course a
Farm and Fleet (preserving our roots, I suppose) – “Urban Sprawl Rockton,” as
we like to say. While mainly facetious, I can’t help but consider the truth
behind our jokes. In my assertion that I am from Chicago I recognize that I can
only be taking lightly, and yet in examining the new urban sociology and how
urban limits are expanding and becoming ever more ambiguous, I wonder if someday,
even in my current hometown, I might be.
No comments:
Post a Comment