Cities: Good or Bad?

For centuries, philosophers and scientists have studied the value of cities in contrast to rural settings. Historians provided records of ancient cities dating back thousands of years BC. Scientists from other disciplines studied the historical documents to derive their structure and function. From these and contemporary studies they've drawn modern-day conclusions about how cities best work. In the early US history there was an intensive debate about the nature of the city as being evil. Many felt that the smaller, spread out cities supported better physical and mental health (although little science went into their claims). Some claimed that the mega city had the best to offer and architects laid out enormous city plans, some using mega-buildings, other using parks and grids to create the ideal city plan that attempted to balance urban traits with rural ones. Many of these plans were utilized in the development of suburbs.

Individuals often weigh in on the debate. Urbanites are drawn to the city for a number of reasons including: the energy, diversity of people, dining and entertainment, safety (yes, many people feel safer in cities), cultural events, and sporting events. Those not attracted by the city are repulsed by: fear of crime, large numbers of people, expensive costs, congestion, and crowding. I remember one of my students expressing how afraid he would be of having an accident out in the countryside and no one being there to provide help. Another student added that he was afraid of psychotic children jumping out of a corn field and killing any strangers who wandered by. Yet another student chimed in that he felt just as much in danger in the city because there were so many different types of people and unless you were "street smart" you couldn't distinguish the bad guys from the good ones.

Herbert Gans published an important work about the types of people who live in cities. In many ways his ideas still apply today (see Gans, Herbert 1968. "Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life. A Re-evaluation of Definitions." In People and Plans, pages 34-52, Basic Books: NY.) Gans focused on the life-style of the city-dweller as much as the demographic background. Cosmopolites are intellectuals, professional, and artists who are attracted to the city because of opportunities and community that are found there. Unmarried Singlesaging in the 20-30's typically enjoy the city-singles scene and will probably move when they get older or marry. Ethnic Villagers are city dwellers who group together with others of the same ethnic background and set up miniature enclaves. The Deprived and Trapped are the very poor, disabled, or emotionally disturbed who are often victims of other city dwellers.

Certainly Gans' descriptions have merit in our day. We might add a few other categories since over 40 years have passed since his work was published. On one hand we might add opportunist who see the big city as providing their big break in life. We might also add the business entrepreneur who wants to capitalize in the concentrated marketplace of the modern city. On the other hand, we might add organized criminals, white collar criminals, and gang members. Since we discussed organized and white-collar criminals in the previous chapters, let's limit the discussion here to gangs.

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 1151