 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next Last |
A universal linear approach to cities has been in place and accepted for a long time. As this approach falls short of explaining a number of aspects of city life, such as the diversity between cities, new ways have been sought. Influenced by post-structuralist thinking a new approach was born: using spatial thinking it is possible to not only fill the gaps, but indeed replace the old completely.
Three characteristics have been identified as defining a city: the number of people to area (density), the networks of the city, as well as a particular way of life. None of these characteristics alone is enough to make a place a city.
Until recently cities were almost exclusively viewed as part of a single, linear line of development. Starting with the Greek city-state, this linear approach placed each city somewhere, and it was believed that it was only a matter of time until the next stage along the prescript path of advancement was reached. For each stage an exemplar was identified. Step by step from Athens onwards to Venice and London, Los Angeles seemed to be the ultimate stage of a postmodern city. Such an approach regarded a city as a single static entity, which could be studied disconnected in time and space. This leads to a theoretical framework with little connection to real cities, but these were simply seen as less clear examples. In spite of apparent shortcomings, this approach is still very commonplace in respected and popular publications.
Despite its wide acceptance this traditional approach to cities had serious shortcomings. Firstly, leaving the latest stage aside, it was completely eurocentric. It was believed that every city in the world could be compared with a past stage in the history of one European city. Secondly, there was no real explanation when and how changes occurred, how another stage in the line of development was achieved. There seemed no need to follow the changes of one city, but instead attention was turned to another exemplar. Thirdly, the disconnected view of cities is problematic. It implies that history, culture and connections of a place do not influence a place, which is questionable. Some thinkers argue that a history ignoring connections is necessary incomplete. Fourthly, the traditional approach missed to define what makes a city. It is unclear why one place is regarded as a city while another one is not. Lewis Mumford argued in 1937 for a social dimension, describing cities as geographical plexuses. Finally, viewing cities as a single body misses modern conceptions that there is more than one story to a place. The city of an aristocrat will surely differ from that of a slave. This also reflects a shift away from one single history of the powerful élites (often referred to as city élites) to a multidimensional perception of history. The notion of city rhythms has been introduced to highlight the different aspects of city life.
As a modern approach to cities, modern urban thinking, promises to cater for these issues. It is especially the focus on connections and internal divisions which allows a new perception of cities. Using such spatial thinking it is possible to understand many aspects the traditional approach fell short of providing a satisfactory explanation.
One important aspect of spatial thinking is looking at the connections of a city. Such connections allow to explain the unique character of a place. Rather than treating all cities the same, places are seen as interconnected through networks of culture, economics, trade or history. So while London and Tokyo are economically linked through stock markets, Graz and Stockholm are so by the cultural links of Cultural Capital of Europe.
These networks overlap and are concentrated in cities. Arguably this concentration of networks creates a unique feeling of a place. Such networks, however, do not only link cities with cities, but also a city to its surroundings. The notion of a city footprint reflects the idea that a city on its own is not sustainable: it depends on produce from its surroundings, it needs trade links and other connections for economic viability. Looking at networks, it becomes possible to explain the rise and fall of cities. This has to do with the changing importance of connections and is maybe best illustrated with the arrival of Spanish colonizers in America. Within a short time, connections to Madrid became more important than connections to the former centre Tenochtitlán.
The concentration of networks in cities can be used as an explanation of urbanization. It is the access to certain networks that attracts people. As various networks spatially run together in a confined area, people gather in cities. At the same time, this concentration of people means the introduction of new networks, such as social links, increasing the creation of new possibilities within cities. Urban social movements are a direct result of this possibility of making new connections. It is this openness to new connections that makes cities both attractive and to a certain degree unpredictable.
Another important aspect of modern urban thinking is looking at the divisions within a city. This internal differentiation is linked to the external connections of a city. As places of meeting histories, cities are hybrid and heterogeneous. Hybrid they are as the connections which link places are bilateral, involving giving and taking in both directions. Heterogeneous they are because of the dynamism of cities. New encounters are ongoing processes where social relations and differences are constantly negotiated and shaped, reflecting the unequal power involved.
Neither the internal differentiations nor the connections and networks of a place on their own define a city. Internal divisions are caused by external links, while at the same time connections to the outside open up the possibility of new social divisions. Divisions and connections in every city are intertwined, and only by considering both aspects of spatial thinking the complexity of cities is approachable. Immigration illustrates this interconnection of external networks and internal divisions well. The networks concentrated in the core of the city attract immigrants. As they immigrate, the newcomers bring along their histories, bringing new networks or enforcing existing ones. At the same time, their history offers opportunities to identify with or likewise exclude. Division and connection come hand in hand. Rather than attempting to eradicate such tensions and contradictions in the theoretical framework, modern urban thinking – influenced by poststructuralist thought – accounts for both sides. Static universal bodies are replaced by multidimensional networks, allowing for fluidity and dynamism.
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|