Michael Katz’s “What is an American City?” comes to a disappointing conclusion because it provides an ambiguous answer to its own question. However, Katz’s correctly states that there is no clear standard upon which we can characterize a city as American because cities, in general, are constantly in flux. Yet, within each city there persists a pattern of inequality that might hold true if examined further.
Although Katz examines both the transformations of cities and the metaphors used to characterize them, he finds no solid ground upon which to base an American City. Instead, he suffices to say that the definition of a city is “a continual process of assessing and reconciling multiple metaphors and exploring their implications” (Katz, 25). Granted, it may be true that there is not much consistency as to what may characterize an American city, but the very nature of a city is to reflect the needs of its people. Hence, regardless of difference in structure, composition, or location, each city can find common ground in its fundamental purpose: to serve the people. As a result, it was disappointing that Katz never came to any such conclusion after analyzing data from a plethora of historical scholars and modern theorists.
The idea that there is no clear defining factor about American Cities is plausible because cities have never been stagnant or unchanging. As Katz points out, there are continuous economic, demographic, and spatial transformations that occur within a city in response to public policy and the overarching needs of the people. Perhaps the characteristic of an American City is that it continuously changes, progressing both in function and scope. Still, there is nothing strictly “American” about this concept if left alone. However, if the nature of America’s people (their interests, pursuits, and values) is reflected in the functions of the city, then the characterization would start to make sense. Even though Katz outlines no clear criteria or characterization for an American City, I believe we can find commonalities by coupling both the transient nature of cities with the people’s expression of American interest and ideals through their city. This combination of both culture and progression can give us a basis for defining an American City.
One of the most interesting ideas Katz raises is that cities, though constantly changing, still retain a pattern of inequality. Socially, many cities are divided into a “dual city,” where class polarization is substantial enough give the appearance of two separate worlds between upper and lower class. Although this is primarily viewed as negative occurrence, I believe it is a legitimate criteria for any functioning city. It is difficult to envision how a city might come together without creating a stark contrast between demographics, income, and/or housing. Hence, the pattern of inequalities that occur within cities seem to be a natural byproduct of their existence.
Altogether, even though Michael Katz never came to a strong conclusion in his piece “What is an American City?,” I believe there are general conclusions that can be made from the evidence collected. For instance, an American city can most likely be characterized by examining its people’s needs, its progressive nature, and its patterns of inequality. As a result, while I appreciate Katz’s accumulation of evidence and historical accounts, I am disappointed in his reluctance to render his own ideas and come to a decisive conclusion.
Michael B. Katz, “What is an American City?” Dissent, Summer 2009, 19-26.
