Is it possible for one to determine if a city inhabits a plane of existence that can be considered at or near a healthy equilibrium? Is there such a viable status for the entities that we call cities? The historical foundation that cities rest their existence as well as status upon is providing a benevolent platform for the pecuniary nexus. Therefore, is it fair to characterize a city based solely on this factor regarding its economic vibrancy (or lack thereof)? Or are there other elements, working in conjunction with the economic factors, that come to influence the composition of the city? In apparent reality there is a broad swath of significant characteristics pertinent to permanently evolving social settlements that provide them with a unique sense of place. The physical boundaries of a city determine its location, size, vicinity to natural resources and amenities, as well as other physical components. While these factors play a role in influencing the essence of a city’s sense of place, ultimately it is the social structures arising from human action that compose a city’s character and tradition. Working together in concerted fashion, the elements of character and tradition are juxtaposed to their geographical environment. Such factors, and their measure of fluidity, account for the seemingly paradoxical notion of urban continuity in an environment of constant flux.
Paul Peterson, in his piece The Interests of the Limited City, maintains that a city’s economic or market standing is such a central influencing factor in the health of that city that citizens should essentially desist any activity that would jeopardize its avenues for achieving economic success. Peterson also suggests that all the citizens of a city possess a similar interest in promoting growth, and therefore it is the job of city officials to adopt policies that create a local milieu that is conducive to business activity as well as one that caters to affluent residents. The core goals that localities must achieve for their cities to thrive in such a globally competitive environment are viable economic status, reputable social atmosphere, and political prestige. Although these goals are all equally important, Peterson states that the first goal must be paramount if the latter two are to be destined for ascent. This perspective on local politics prevails throughout cities in the United States, as most city government officials generally act accordingly to its principals. It makes sense for local governments to behave this way given that they find themselves within a system of U.S. intergovernmental competition in which cities are pinned against one another in desperate attempts at securing capital from investors.
Peterson briefly mentions the debate about the notion of “public interests.” While some advocate policies that attempt to redistribute wealth from businesses and affluent residents to those with fewer resources under the guise of fairness and equality, Peterson would contend that these policies would not be consistent with the imperative that city’s have to foster economic growth. He maintains that local governments have little choice in the direction of policy skewed towards economic vitality, and those social service policies should take a backseat to policies that stimulate economic growth. This analysis is contextual within the framework of a competitive economic environment among cities on the matter of attracting businesses as a means to the end of not only economic growth, but of attaining a high level of community vitality.
Land, labor, and capital each characterize the city in a fundamental way. Peterson points out that of the three, “Land is the one thing that cities can control.” Labor and capital conversely are much more difficult to control. Additionally, due to their obvious importance in terms of a city’s economic growth, the response to flows of capital and labor comprise of the bulk of the substance of urban policy. This intercity competitive ruthlessness is compounded by the reality that city governments, unlike their Federal counterpart, have fewer tools at their disposal to control the movement of labor and capital across their borders. Lacking the authority to implement policies that would directly intervene with matters of labor and capital such as immigration, prices, currency, wages, or the import/export of goods and services, city governments are given an ultimatum: compete for capital investment or endure the decline of the vitality of the local economy, and subsequently, the decline in not only the social order but also in the social prestige of the community.
Cities are tied to their geographic locations, whereas businesses are not. Herein lies the source of a major problem in urban politics; if a local environment is not amenable to businesses’ interests first and foremost, the companies and their investors (with all of their capital) may pick up shop and move elsewhere. According to this logic, we should see a pattern in which localities with heavy taxes on businesses and expensive regulatory measures are less likely to see new industry take root. Peterson aptly points out that this reality is largely due to today’s globally mobilized marketplace where actual location is a relatively small factor facing a company deciding where to erect or relocate. Thus, according to Peterson, how should public policy try to enhance the economic position of the city? He would argue that at the core of every great city is a thriving export industry. Although there is debate as to whether a city can become too dependent on any single industry for its economic health, Peterson straddles the fence by stating that governments must simultaneously maintain strong ties with the export industry’s vigor yet also make efforts to diversify the overall economic profile of the city. One major aspect of this dualism is the enhancement of infrastructure in the area that will allow other businesses to quickly plug-in to a city’s marketplace, such as commercial land zoning and the expansion of transportation projects. Businesses always appreciate low tax rates and minimal enforcement of regulations on economic practices. Such policies reflect a popular alternative route for city governments, especially when increasing local infrastructure is untimely, unaffordable, or inconvenient.
Peterson’s notion of a city possessing a “unitary interest” of economic growth is predicated on one major, controversial assumption. The theory presumes that the interests of the people in cities will essentially be served in a top-down fashion, fundamentally reflective of the Trickle-Down Economic Theory. Is it the case that if the economic position of the city is advanced, the job market and tax base will necessarily serve the population as a whole? In other words, is there a guarantee that an increase in economic status will reach the general population, or might it just end up back in the coffers of the various boosters of the city in order to attract more businesses? It will soon be shown that urban character is made up of more than economic sectors of a city, as we will see later. It also may be suggested that Peterson’s assertion that economic health precedes social and political prestige may be off. Many people would agree that living in a community that provides few social services, is lacking in labor law legislation and enforcement, decreases the prevalence of expensive yet vital environmental protections (and therefore their positive effects), and is flush with the banality of the color asphalt as far as the eye can see, hardly fits into the American Dream. A valid question thus arises: does anyone want to live in the city that defines its interests in such a way?
A second distinct criticism of Peterson’s theory is that it tends to ignore the complexities of local politics. While local economic prosperity will always be high on the agenda for local politicians, the reality of our liberal democratic political institutions remains; a politician must also mobilize sufficient political backing from those few who do vote if they wish to maintain their status as public officials. This balancing act causes local government officials to act in ways that sometimes may run counter to pure business interests, undercutting the power of Peterson’s argument that no citizen should interfere in any way with the economic growth of a city in order to ensure communal stability.
Clarence N. Stone is one such thinker who puts forth a challenge to Peterson’s definition of how a city effectively governs itself and balances its own interests. As mentioned above, city governments’ ability to create policy is much weaker than the Federal Government’s ability to do so. Therefore, in local settings informal agreements take on a special importance. Rather than conceding, as Peterson does, that the primary issues that should concern city officials are over matters of economic growth, Stone points to the prevalence of “urban regimes” in order to account for cooperative relationship that exists between political and business elites within the city. In Stone’s model, local regimes are not simply composed of business elites who demand low taxes and the gutting of social programs; they reflect a marriage between both economic and political actors who together negotiate agreements among the varying political groups and interests. This intimate relationship between the two powerful groups does, however, have the ability to result in a scenario in which the protection of privilege becomes as much of a concern of local governments as the welfare of the city in its entirety.
Stone uses the term “preemptive power” to describe the process by which powerful groups embed themselves into local political coalitions, and therefore shape the regime on their own terms. This cyclical power essentially enables the already powerful groups to protect the privileged position that gives rise to their control over the regime in the first place. Some examples to illustrate this preemptive power include business elites using their position in local government to secure lower taxes, lessen the effect of economic regulatory policies, and rezone desirable land for commercial and residential development. Moreover, the shielding of the urban regime from the consequences of its decisions on the community as a whole plays a significant role in its inability to comprehend, and therefore act with the city’s true interest at heart. According to Stone,
"…those who govern only have a limited comprehension of the consequences of their actions. Steps taken to correct one problem may create or aggravate another while leaving still others unaddressed. Those who govern can discover that only, it seems, through wide representation of the affected groups. Otherwise, choices are limited by an inability to understand the city’s full situation." (Pg 38)
Therefore, Stone is arguing that the type of urban regime a city possesses will determine the range of local perspectives it fosters. It follows then that a more diverse and open the urban regime is, the increase in the chance that democratic public policy will follow. Why this matters is reflected in new interpretations of what makes a city grow and maintain equilibrium: whereas economic factors seemed to previously dominate individual’s choice of residence, it is argued by some that American society is entering an era in which the way a city is perceived in terms of being hip is just as important of a factor in creating a flourishing urban environment.
This additional challenge to Peterson’s contention of economics as the sole driver of city growth and prosperity is embodied in Richard Florida’s notion of quality of place. Recently, many examples have shown how tourism, entertainment, culture and urban amenities have drastic influences when it comes to the revitalization of urban centers. Florida identifies a growing creative class that is made up of educated professionals, intellectuals, artists, eccentrics, etc, etc. The culture of the class dictates that when choosing a place to live, these people weigh in lightly on concerns about the job market; more important are concerns regarding which city has the better music or bar scene, or maybe the most aesthetic look and feel. A positive externality of this congregation of educated and creative minds is the expansion of innovative businesses within those areas. This innovation essentially draws on the experience and expertise of the creative class and uses its growing numbers to expand its professionally able labor market. Florida further asserts that this class of people represents a new political movement that calls for upscale urban amenities in the neighborhoods in which they live, work and play. This results with a revival of old downtown districts as well as inner-city neighborhoods, proving that sense of place plays a large factor in where individuals choose to take root and cultivate their lives, and that it reflects the fluidity of the movements of its people.
The fact that cities experience such varying levels of success and decline pays tribute to the complexity that urban political environment is situated in. From a sociological perspective, the lack of emphasis on urban character as an influential element on the urban political scene is apparent in the growth-centric positions of most urban political scholars. The social ecologist Louis Wirth, in his piece Urbanism As a Way of Life, makes one of the first comprehensive attempts at measuring urban character in a “scientific” manner. In his essay, Wirth develops a “minimum sociological definition of the city” as “a relatively large, dense and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals.” He saw these three elements creating two social consequences; crowding of diverse types of people leading to segregation of homogeneous neighborhoods, and increased contact between city dwellers due to lack of physical space, contributing to a break down of existing social and cultural patterns and essentially encouraging assimilation and acculturation. To Wirth the consequences of the growth of the city are essentially ambivalent. On the one hand it increased mobility and encouraged the exchange of good ideas and created a cultural Melting Pot Effect. On the other hand, he saw the urban dynamic perpetuate a system that exchanged traditional primary relationships for more impersonal secondary relationships. The latter associations were seen as “segmental, superficial, transitory, and often predatory in nature.” Thus the large and densely populated heterogeneous city, with its constant influx of newcomers, became segregated into homogeneous neighborhoods that would come to be known as the mosaic of social worlds. (Park)
Such a system created a new urbanite, due in large part to the explosion of mobility that city dwellers experienced, which was “anonymous, isolated, secular, relativistic, rational, and sophisticated.” Anomie, Wirth’s concept for the social phenomenon of the erosion of traditional social norms and subsequent subjugation of traditional moral order, is seen as the inevitable byproduct of this process. In order to function in urban society and avoid the pathology of anomie, the individual is structurally coerced into cooperation with others in matters such as business, representative government, and voluntary associations. A prime example of this phenomena is the division of labor found in all industrial cities; as one can only do a single specialized task, the individual has no ability to serve all of their needs, necessitating an intense level of interdependence between city inhabitants.
The sociological ecologist Ernest W. Burgess asked, how does one account for continuity in the face of change? Burgess states that flows of capital and labor will change the city until it reaches equilibrium and takes on a sort of stability, and compares this stability ecologically by dubbing it apart of a city’s metabolism. Wirth’s error was that he saw pathological alienation of the individual as the inevitable consequence of the growth of the city. Wirth was describing a snapshot of a chain of events; ironically missing the holistic aspect of the life of the city as viewed within ecological perspective.
The chain of events that arise out of this aspect of the ecological outlook are cyclical: it begins with a change in population; the change in population causes a disorganization within the city and among its inhabitants; this disorganization eventually becomes reorganized after a period of shuffling; stability occurs as a result of the reorganization. Therefore, Wirth’s notion of ecology was valid to Burgess, especially the notion that the stages of disorganization and reorganization affect the psychology of the individual urbanite.
In Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: a Re-evaluation of Definitions, Herbert Gans argues that Wirth’s distinctions between urban and rural societies were in fact not that at all; rather they were distinctions between industrial societies and pre-industrial societies. Gans’ more complete distinction exists between the ways of life in the modern city and the modern suburb. Central to this newer distinction was the redefinition of the erosion of primary to secondary relationships. It sought instead to assert instead that suburban inhabitants reported large amounts of quasi-primary relationships. Quasi-primary is the term Gans uses to describe relationships between neighbors. He explains,
“Thus, it would appear that interactions in organizations, or between neighbors generally, do not fit the secondary-relationship model of urban life. As anyone who has lived in these neighborhoods knows, there is little anonymity, impersonality, or privacy. In fact, American cities have sometimes been described as collections of small towns.” (Gans 40)
In other words, the mosaic model of relatively homogeneous neighborhoods seems to encompass the outer living spaces like suburbs just as well as it does for urban ones. Therefore, it follows that the difference between city and suburb lifestyle is either generally non-existent or so minor a distinction that it is inconsequential in terms of determining behavior of the varying types of inhabitants. In fact, according to Gans, ecological concepts describing human adaptation to an environment severely lack sufficiency. Ecological systems, while good at describing the dynamics of the plant and animal world, do not adequately account for the element of human choice.
Individuals make choices. These choices generally reflect their characteristics as an individual within the social system of the city. Thus, an individual’s “characteristics can be used as indices to choices and demands made in the roles that constitute ways of life.” (Gans 45) Moreover, the two most telling characteristics of individuals that determine their lifestyle, if they do actually possess a choice, seem to involve class and life cycle stage. So that we may better understand cities and the behavior of its inhabitants, Gans maintains that one must look at characteristics of the individual, as they are hints to socially created and culturally defined roles, choices, and demands:
“A causal analysis must trace them to the larger social, economic, and political systems which determine the situations in which roles are played and the cultural content of choices and demands, as well as the opportunities for their achievement.”
Essentially then, the greater the choice available to the individual actor, the more compelling the concept of characteristics becomes in understanding their beliefs and actions.
As we see, at some point the non-ecological argument explaining urban character and behavior tends to take precedence over the city’s ecological status. Claude Fischer is a contemporary proponent of a somewhat ecological perspective, and in his piece Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism, population density as a function of size plays a vital role in the creation of unconventional expressions of behavior. These expressions represent the vibrancy of subcultures that arise out of a densely populated mosaic that has steady access to mobility between the different neighborhoods. The process of cultural diffusion creates milieus that are conducive to the formation of various subcultures within the mainstream. However, even Fischer himself admits that the ecological elements are less equipped for determining behavior than are the non-ecological ones.
“The Subcultural Model does not, however, imply that such ecological factors have large, practical, or policy relevant effects. By far the more important influences on behavior are the non-ecological ones. The real implication is theoretical: a full understanding of life in cities requires incorporation of ecological factors, subcultural development, and diffusion in a dynamic model.” (Fischer 1337)
Thus, the implication of what makes a city legible is the combination of ecological and non-ecological factors.
Harvey Molotch provides a compelling response to this question regarding urban character: how does one account for continuity in the face of constant flux? People, through their actions, make structures. These structures in turn effect the actions of individuals, thus creating structuration process in which we create, and are created by, the social institutions that determine our organization. Character is made up of snapshots in time of actors and their creations; tradition is how that character surfaces in later conjunctures. Therefore, continuity in the face of change arises out of this process of the defining and redefining of a place, but doing so according to a sort of predestination dictated by first character of a place and then compounded as that character becomes an urban tradition. Thus while we are constantly changing, we seem to carry something fundamental with us throughout.
The legibility of a city as defined by interests has proven to be a difficult measure to say the least, and an unsustainable model for the behavior of cities when the established interest is the growth of all sectors of industry at all moments in time to say more. In contrast, the legibility of urban character is more tangible, yet highly complex. While the ecological and non-ecological approaches have had their respective moments in the sun, any description that espouses one or the other as wholly dominant in the course of urban character development cannot be entirely accurate. The ecological approach paints the scenario in which tangible variables such as size of settlement, density of population within the settlement, and diversity within the settlement all meld to from a fluid urban character with a real sense of place, and whose influences can ultimately be seen to set the terms of civic behavior. The non-ecological approach conversely contends that other factors such as age, ethnicity, social class, or position in the life cycle show a stronger correlation to lifestyle behaviors than does the distinction of whether or not one resides in a large dense city or small sparse settlement. Reality paints a more ambivalent picture of the theoretical contest, as both positions have very valid stakes on the nature of urban character.
