Time creates change, which in turn creates history. Over the years the United States went through different phases of change that significantly impacts society, such as the Industrial Revolution which started the time of technology. Each person has their own view these changes that have occurred and may disagree with such terms of change. In Michael Katz’s “What is an American City?,” he describes the different views of cities during different periods in time. Most of these perspectives involve metaphors that focus on different aspects of a city, such as economic or racial profiles of the city, to define what an American City is. Katz appears to find certain details in these variety of opinions that make him disagree with the provided definition of what an American City is; however, is it not obvious that focusing on certain aspects to define a city will lack definition on what an American City is as a whole?
Katz mentions that during the transition of centuries, terms began to take on new meaning due to the new forms of urbanization. He mentions how an emerging industrial civilization created the “industrial city” in the transition from 19th century to the 20th century. Theories of how to define this term took on different aspects of the changes in society. ‘One model based its theory on immigration, social geography, and interaction of industrial change.’ By basing only on these three aspects, the theory fails to address other changes, such as economic changes. Even though the theory does not provide a well rounded definition of an “industrial city,” the focus of the theory should provide enough reasoning as to why the city was named so. However, from this Katz concluded that there need to be new answers on the question of what an American city is.
Katz states that there should be new answers to what an American city is, as so much time has passed and many information about the past is available. I do not believe this is the case. With more information available, there should be updated definitions that derive from new answers. People who have define a city of the past without actually experiencing it would be able to see other points that may define the city. However, it seems to lack realism. People who wrote about the city having experienced it first hand would know observe first hand the significant changes that had the most impact on their life. Although Katz is correct that there should be new answers, these answers should not replace or overshadow others’ answers.
Throughout his article, Katz mentions how metaphors are paired with different terms of cities. For example, the term “inner city” is a metaphor representing a variety of problems, some of which are crime, drugs, and poverty, as well as symbolizing poor and black. Also, the term “postindustrial” is another metaphor solely focused on urban manufacturing. These two metaphors fail to expand on their meanings, which Katz believes should include other areas not mentioned. However, by broadening out the meanings, won’t the metaphor and term itself lose meaning of what the city was during that time period? Although it is good to expand the perspective, I believe that the true representation of the term lies in the meaning provided by people with first hand experience.
Although Katz believes that there should be new answers to his prompted question, he does not provide his own meaning of what an American city is. From the article though, it seems to imply that he is looking for a well rounded definition that covers all aspects of the city, especially since the question incites a “cacophony of definitions.” Even with a variety of definitions, he states that “it is unlikely to be as buoyant as their past,” which seems to imply that previous meanings were excellent but just not enough. In this case, I would agree with Katz, but disagree that there should be new answers to replace old ones.
