What was most surprising to me in the past reading was how the idea of the “American Dream” has changed so much over the past two centuries and how this has affected generations to come. Looking at many of the first colonists, the American dream originally focused on freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the freedom to conduct business and pursue a better life. As these colonies advanced and grew, the dream did as well. No longer were people happy simply being free; they wanted to move up in life. It became about building the biggest and best cities with the best technology to produce the best goods that money could buy. Forming cities became magnets to the iron shavings of colonists looking to make it in the world. The small cities that first developed by waterways out of survival turned into bustling port cities while small towns situated by waterfalls and other bodies of running water became major textile hubs. There was the rise of what could be considered the first middle class, a working class.

As this working class advanced with the technology around it, the American dream did as well. Working in large cities was great and all, but who wanted to deal with all the pollution and waste? With the advent of cars and the improving railroad and trolley systems, the working class sought escape from the city, leading to the rise of the suburbs. Here, I think, is where things start to get interesting. As this middle class leaves the city, they leave behind many things. They leave their dilapidated neighborhoods, their tight living quarters and they leave behind groups they consider to be of a lower class. What they don’t leave behind are their jobs, leaving those that are left behind little or no opportunity to advance as the original middle class once did. This social class segregation can still be seen and felt today, especially in neighborhoods all throughout New York. Many neighborhoods in Downtown Brooklyn that were once home to some of the richest New Yorkers in the early 20^th century changed and were considered to be some of the worst neighborhoods in the borough up until about a decade ago when gentrification really took off.

The reading gave me a quick refresher of what the United States history is all about. In the colonial era, we get a good understanding of how the nation was established. Migrants from around Europe left behind almost everything they had and came to the Americas. Some for economic purposes and others in search for a religious haven. The essence and the growth of these great cities across North America was due to the diligence, better life seeking individuals that migrated.

It is sad to see that in modern day we hear rhetoric in our political system that promotes bigotry and hatred towards certain religious groups and certain immigrants. These folks are running to become the leaders of this nation, this nation that is the foundation of immigrants and religious freedom. To see how viciously they criticize and attack certain groups because they are either immigrants or have a different religious practice and be able to get away with should spark an outrage by the people. Such politicians should notice shunning and shut down by the American people. However, the sad reality is that many agree with them. Most are ignorant of the fact that their ancestors can be traced back to European immigrants that may have fled for religious freedom. How can such people oppose and hate immigrants and a group of people that practice a different religion, when the establishment of this nation was by immigrants that seeked religious freedom?

This passage was interesting in its approach, giving readers a new perspective to the shaping of American history from the colonial era to the present day. This chapter mentioned cornerstones of U.S. history such as the market crash of 1929 and the migration of many African Americans to the North in search for better job opportunities. Unlike when these ideas were taught in history classes, this reading focuses solely on how cities and urban life was affected.

The growth and expansion during this time seemed to be completely motivated by competition between cities. Macionis. J. and Parrillo, V. (2003) state that, “Philadelphia attempted to keep pace, opening both canal and turnpike routes west… Not to be outdone, New York opened the Erie Canal in 1825… Undaunted Baltimore began another round in this interurban rivalry by opening a railroad line to Ohio in 1828. Others cities followed suit.” The cities emerging quickly shifted from a tight-knit community to one where each city had its own identity and become independent of others. This sense of pride and competition is mirrored in their European counterparts. Many believe the reason Europeans were successful was because of their geography, which forced them into small, independent peoples in constant competition between themselves. It is interesting to see how individuals came to America to be independent of Europe and their ways but implement many of the same practices and habits. For example, some thought of the States as a place with more “space” and an escape from urbanization. However, the new cities inevitably became just as urbanized.

An underlying theme present in this chapter is that history seems to repeat itself. For example, just as urbanization was built around the routes of railroads, the extension of subways in New York City also facilitates economic and population growth. Also, during the late 1800s many relied on the city government to fix the numerous problems they were facing with the incoming millions to house and find jobs for. However, city officials became corrupt with bribes and dictatorial political figures began to take control of the city governments. The citizens were outraged and pushed for reform. This could be compared to the current problem in New York City where those in power are not the ones who are suffering. The growing difference between the rich and poor in the city that began decades ago can lead to a decline of a working city yet again.

Discussion Question: How is it possible to effectively decrease the growing difference between the rich and the poor? Is it possible to have a city with such a large population and fewer jobs available to ever be successful?

This reading makes clear the fact that cities were essential to the North American economy from the late 17th century to the early 20th century because they were centers for the production of goods. Originally intended to be sources of income for their mother countries in Europe, the cities quickly became independent and kept the money they made. One reason they became so populated was that many people were required to maintain these centers of commerce, and these people wanted to be close to their jobs. Today, however, transportation and communication have been greatly improved. Macionis and Parillo discuss this in the reading and it made me wonder about the fate of the North American city.

Once it became possible for people to live in the suburbs and commute to their jobs in the city, this became the goal for most city dwellers. The upper middle class people living in the cities moved out to the surrounding suburbs, leaving the poor behind (along with the very rich, who controlled the city and profited from it). Those who could afford it would rather commute to the city for work rather than live there, and it seems that this was the beginning of the decay of the cities. Table 3-3 shows a population decrease for every city except New York (where the population remained approximately the same) from 1950 to 1970. This makes sense because in the 1950s and 60s, transportation became easier, allowing people to live farther from their place of work. Today, however, living far from one’s place of work is even more prevalent because of phones, the internet, and the nature of the work conducted in cities. Cities are no longer centers of manufacturing; rather, many of them are centers for business. This trend towards white collar work means that people do not need to be physically present to do their job, as they had to be in the 19th century. Furthermore, people can remain in constant contact with each other via the internet, and working from home on certain days of the week is becoming increasingly common for white collar jobs.

This shift implies that the population in big cities should decrease while the population of the surrounding suburbs increases. The anti-city sentiment described by Macionis and Parillo is not completely absent from today’s society, and virtually every city has bad areas. This could cause even more people to leave cities, increasing the population of suburbs and “edge cities.” Of course, some may prefer to relocate to the Sunbelt, but even that area is starting to suffer the same fate as the Snowbelt cities. It seems that cities suffer from a vicious cycle of implosion and explosion, with people moving farther and farther away. What used to hold cities together was the fact that people needed to be near their work. That is no longer as big an issue, so what does this mean for cities? Much of the revitalization in cities is government funded, and even so, gentrification has its drawbacks in that makes the cost of living skyrocket. Cities are now entering the postindustrial era, and their futures remain uncertain.

Discussion question: What attracts people to cities now? What does the future hold for North American cities?

The reading was very interesting as it brought to light many things that I have wondered about or never known regarding the development of cities. While reading, I came across a number of issues that I was interested about. One of these was was development of infrastructure to provide the necessary service to urban dwellers. Services like water, electricity, gas, transportation are necessary, yet expensive and difficult to organize for large cities. As a result, wealthy entrepreneurs offered to fund such projects in return for under the table benefits from the government. Today, we can still observe how the problems with having adequate infrastructures are still affecting large cities.

For some time, I worked part time in an office located in Brooklyn Heights. The neighborhood features rows of low rise brown stone buildings. The neighborhood is one of the oldest in Brooklyn with history dating back well over 150 years. This means that many of the existing infrastructures, such as water, electricity, gas, and transportation, are old and can only support the small population of people in the existing neighborhood. However, with all the housing development in NYC, Brooklyn Heights is about to be changed. New multi-story condo buildings are being developed and will replace a number of buildings in Brooklyn heights. These condos will increase the population of the neighborhood by at least a few thousands. This raises a problem with how can the city provide the necessary services to this neighborhood once these new condos are built.

As I’ve mentioned before, the existing infrastructure is not designed for the large amount of people that will live in the neighborhood after the condos are built. Utility services will need to be improved drastically to match the growing density. Transportation is another problem. The streets in this neighborhood are extremely narrow. Parking is already scarce and will be made even more so after the condos are built. Subway lines in and around this neighborhood are already running very close to full capacity. The increase in residents would place additional strain on this already insufficient service.

This is just an example of how infrastructures are struggling to keep up with the constantly changing city. This problem extends beyond Brooklyn Heights and affects other neighborhoods and cities as well.

Globalization is the main marker in American Cities, while European cities are continually growing into that trend. It’s true that no American City has the history that European Cities have, but American Cities grew out of a New World filled with different people and commerce, while European Cities have to adjust their workings to fit into this perspective.  I enjoyed visualizing Manhattan as a medieval village. I do see medieval styled building in Greenwich Village with its strange streets. It’s also strange to visualize early American cities having homologous populations of people with the same background and religion. Now, every American major city has many ethnic enclaves. It’s interesting that America’s diverse population does truly come from people seeking opportunity, as America’s diversity began to increase during the late 1600’s- 1700’s due to its increased economic strength. America became America when it built efficient centers of commerce. My AP US History teacher made sure to stress that the Revolutionary War was not mainly do to ideological reasonings, but financial reasons. As soon  as it became more profitable to separate, Americans began to oppose the British.

Cities can only grow with innovation, as evident in their boom after the Industrial Revolution. As commerce increased and technology increased, cities increased. Populations grew as the buildings grew. Those who did not grow and look forward to change fell behind. North Eastern Cities grew economically and culturally, while the South did not move forward and stuck to its traditional way of life. The differences between the North and South are still visible today, as the South is generally poorer with worse education and the North generally does better in these areas. Cities, as hotbeds of opportunity, could not support all the people it drew. The cities grew to surrounding areas. As the city expanded, ethnic and economic lines of its people deepened. Wealthier on the outside and poorer on the inside As the cities’ growth slowed, these divides became more evident. I wonder why Toronto is not as greatly affected by these divides?  This trend is starting to reverse and wealthier people are moving back to cities and poorer people are moving further out. When did moving back to the city become more desirable?

Discussion Question: How has technology benefited the city, bringing people together, and how does technology create a divide in the city?

The reading brought to light many of the different aspects of city structure and the profound impacts that they have on a city’s development. Firstly, the governmental structure of cities are highly interesting because many have grown to consume smaller outlying towns and districts. The way that the governments handled theses new areas was and is very important because if a small government retains its power the city as a whole may suffer. This is because large metropolitan areas require massive infrastructure in order to handle water, waste, and services. Interestingly the reading stated that Toronto created federal governments to handle the management of these service. I wonder if New York has any semblances of that because as far as I know it seems to be much more of a city, state, and federal mess of a system.

This brings us to a similar aspect of urban development. We are seeing new southern and western cities develop in a much more orderly fashion but in at least one aspect this appears to be hurting them. Old cities have grown into their space and have been enclosed by surrounding municipalities, whereas southern cities have been allowed to grow out with much more ease. Some even have built in mechanisms for annexing outlying areas as needed. This leads to less dense cities which in turn require more driving and a decreased reliance on public transportation. This leads to increased pollution in the air. Southern cities also have issues in ensuring future supplies of water. This is in contrast to the cramped norther cities that nearly preclude the idea of cars as a major mode of transportation. In New York we have relatively low air pollution (though it is still omnipresent) and we are also fortunate to be located in a well hydrated area.

Finally, I find it interesting that city centers were emptied of upper class individuals to the suburbs where there was more room. This left the city centers in the slums and therefore less expensive. Now things are moving in the other direction and so called “yuppies” are moving back into the city centers which means that the economically disadvantaged are now trapped in an unaffordable city center, surrounded by suburbs which they also can’t afford. This makes clear the problems that this city is coming to face.

Discussion Question: How does the fact that housing close public transportation is more expensive affect economically disadvantaged people in New York? And conversely, does the increased prevalence of commuting in cars alleviate the problem of high housing prices by allowing people to commute from areas which are too far away for effective public transportation?