Throughout this semester, I have read four urban study articles. The first reading came from the American Journal of Sociology by Robert Park. The second reading came from the American Academy of Political and Social Science and was titled “The Nature of Cities.” The third reading also came from the American Journal of Sociology, but it was an article written by Harvey Molotch. Last but not least, the fourth article was a social psychology reading written by Stanley Milgram. In general, people don’t always agree with someone or see “eye to eye” meaning people don’t always view things the same way. All of these articles were written at different times, so the perspective in every article wasn’t the same as it was in others, but I can still point out a few similarities and differences within them. As a beginning to my comparisons, I will first briefly summarize each article.
With attention to Robert Park and his urban sociology reading, which in this case was reading #1 for me, the first thing to remember is his viewpoint. This article was written in 1915 from a sociology viewpoint, mainly focusing on humans and the city. Some key points that I have noted from reading this article was that the institution of a city is coupled with human behavior in the city. According to this article a cities institution is its framework and ideas. This is coupled with human behavior because a city is rooted with the habits and customs of people which results in the city possessing a moral physical organization. Social organization in a city is created when one becomes dependent upon their community. A main point in this article was the authors belief that “city air makes men free”, meaning that when one utilizes a cities aspect such as diversity and task, they are capable of developing an individual talent that can guide them to be anything/ anyone they wish to be. The author believed that once one found the diversity of interests, individual talent, or other opportunities that the city had to offer then organization of society was based on vocation instead of family.
The second reading, titled The Nature of Cities, was written from a geography/ spatial perspective by Chauncy Harris and Edward Ullman. Here the main focus was the support and internal structure of a city. From reading this article, I noted that support of a city is dependent on the services performed for the area because services serve the population. Edward Ullman expressed that the support of cities can be summarized into three categories: cities as central places, transport cities, and specialized-function cities. Cities as central places serve as trade and social centers and typically are in the shape of a hexagon because a settlement is equally spaced in the center then surrounded by six medium centers which are then surround by six smaller centers. Transport cities are dependent on transportation and consist of railroad junctions, airfields, highways, and port facilities. They are responsible for performing break of bulk services such as the shipment of cargo. Specialized-function cities are large manufacturing centers surrounded by small settlements with resorts. Examples are Miami and Atlantic City. These specialized-function cities have a good concentration of satellite services and industries.
In addition to the support of cities, the internal structure of cities are just abstract principles of settlement by concentric zones, sectors, or multiple nuclei. The concentric zone model suggests that cities grow outwards in rings over time with the central business district being the first ring in the center. The sector theory represents axial development, showing that cities contain pie-shaped districts instead of rings. The multiple nuclei land use model was developed by Harris and Ullman. In this model, a city has multiple central business districts and represents that as a city grows, it becomes more diverse, with no specific developing pattern.
The third reading was The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of a Place written by Harvey Molotch, coming from an urban sociology perspective. According to the Urban Growth Machine Theory, distribution of wealth and power are important factors of how a city is shaped. According to The Urban Growth Machine Theory, the main purpose of a city is to promote growth. Politician, land owners, and developers all influence a city’s growth. Different people had different definitions of the city, urban place, and metropolis which led to urban based social issues. The two main issues addressed in this article was how to define a city or urban place and the establishment of community power. The growth machine costed people more money related to the physical environment and utility costs, and was liable for an increase of suspicion. Each unit of the community strived at the expense of others. Because of this, antigrowth movements formed. It was found that rapid growth is associated with higher unemployment rates, issues of public morality such as the distribution of goods and services, and a lack of respect for the land-use policy. Urban growth only benefited a small portion of a city’s local residents. Changes in urban growth was led by growth coalition, who supported growth but created better planning principles for future growth. Smart growth was created to promote healthy communities and a better economy and environment.
Last but not least, the final reading was titled The Experience of Living in Cities, written by Stanley Milgram from a socio-psychological perspective. The main purpose of this article was to discuss the differences of living in a small town compared to living in the city. The two factors of how one mentally processes what is going on around is based on the urban overload hypothesis and social responsibility. Overload can be defined as inability to process inputs from the environment. The urban overload hypothesis is the theory that people who reside in cities are under constant pressure so they tend to stay to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed. One who lives in a city is more expected to have higher stress because they have more going on in their environment, such as more face to face interaction with other and the fast-paced movement. Social responsibility is the willingness to trust or assist strangers. Moral and social involvement with individuals is restricted, resulting in refusal, since everyone around are strangers. Those residing in smaller towns tend not be as aloof because they are more familiar with the people in their town. People living in cities are less likely to trust or assist strangers compared to those from small towns.
Comparatively, the first and third journals were both from a sociology perspective and came from the American Journal of Sociology. In both of these journals, community involvement was a common topic. In Robert Park’s article, the main focus was humans and the city, more importantly highlighting how human behavior relates to a cities environment. Part of a cities environment is how it grows. Reading #3 focused on the city as being a growth machine. Both of these readings are similar because they both state factors that determine how a city is organized. Park stated that physical organization is based off the habits and customs of people. Molotch’s article suggested that the success of a city’s growth comes from its constant rise in population. Based off this, it can be interpreted that a city wouldn’t be the same without its people. The city’s environment, how it is organized, and its features depends on who resides in the city. Parks article also points out that money is a valuable mean of exchange that must be maintained. Molotch’s article supports this because a main issue was the political economy. The antigrowth movements in reading #3 sponsored the costs of additional growth. The growth machine resulted in unemployment, but once smart growth came into place people gained jobs which caused society to be organized by vocation as stated by Park.
Reading #2 focused on the nature of cities, whereas reading #4 focused on the experience of living in cities. These articles are different because the second article was from a geographical/ spatial perspective more related to urban planning. The fourth article was coming from a psychological perspective from the view of a person living in a city that already has a set “nature” (support and internal structure). Both of these articles compare the city as a whole to a rural life, such as a small town. In reading #2, it is stated that city aspects such as tall buildings and crowds contrast with the rural side because they are opposites. In a rural area, it is less crowded and doesn’t have many buildings. In the fourth article, it correlates to how the cities structure can affect a person living in the city. The tall buildings, loud noises, overcrowding, and chaos can make a person feel overwhelmed.
As a final analysis, I can say that I have learned something from each and every one of these journals. Just by observations for when I enter new cities, I will be able to tell what type of city I am in, because I am now more familiar with city structures and support. When I am older, and debating on where I want to live, I now know that typically where one resides is closer to their occupation. I know that if I chose to live in a really large city, I shouldn’t expect people to be as friendly because I will be just another strange face to them. I now know that urban growth doesn’t “create” jobs, it distributes them. Government decisions such as determining the cost of labor, taxes, and goods affect local growth. This is important when comparing the cost of living in different cities. I now can understand why people have different city experiences from a sociological, psychological, and geographical perspective.