Author Archives: Nicholas Nehaul

What is an American City?

Leave a reply

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.

Here Is New York, E.B. White

Leave a reply

E.B. White’s description of the three New Yorks certainly has not changed in the last 60 years. Even today it is very easy to categorize yourself, or people you know, as either native New Yorker’s, commuters, or settlers. However, the superiority he gives to the third group is overstated because New York’s character is equally dependent on the three categories of people. Finally, White’s understanding of how impossible it is for New York to exist is grossly unrecognized by most.

White’s categorization of each New Yorker into three cities is still relevant because it is easy to identify the group to which you belong. For myself, I am a commuter. I almost feel guilty contributing to the “tidal restlessness” of the City. In fact, it felt like an unexpected attack when White merely characterizes commuters as those who “fished in Manhattan’s wallet and dug out its coins, but never listened to its breathing… (White, 27)” It seems as though White makes a generalization by implying that commuters do not take time to appreciate the city, but only uses it as a means to earn their living.

Although the passion of the city stems mostly from those who settle here, they are not of more importance than the natives or commuters. The settler’s passion is on full display because that is their nature as artists, poets, and people who generally have a purpose for their presence here in New York. However, because their presence is outwardly expressed, it gives the illusion of contributing more to the character of the City. In reality, the commuters and even the native New Yorkers who accept their city as the norm, contribute equally to the nature of this city. Without millions of commuters, the city’s buildings would not need to continually extend upward. Subway lines would not connect spaces, culture, and people. In other words, New York’s liveliness and cultural diversity would be limited to its immediate residents.

While, I disagree with White’s generalizations and dismissive attitude towards certain versions of New York, I agree with his idea that the existence of New York as a whole is simply impossible. Its infrastructure alone is to be marveled. To think that an amalgamation of skyscrapers can sit on top a strip of land with hundreds of underground tunnels that shuffle people in and out through metal tubes is already bizarre. However, my greatest surprise is the fact that New York is truly resilient. As White pointed out, it has avoided being affected by deadly disease, mass hysteria, and the possibility of many casualties from a subtle mishap. Yet, amidst all that could happen, New York retains its cultural presence, its lively sidewalks, and continues to see its skyline grow upward.

Altogether, E.B. White does a good job of characterizing the various versions of New York from the perspective of its people. However, his decision to value the outward expression of the settlers over the subtle contribution of the natives and commuters is questionable. Nonetheless, White still makes a valuable and all-encompassing point that New York’s very existence is seemingly impossible because it is compact, massive, overpopulated, and still fully functional.