From valleys, civilizations and kingdoms in this modern 21^st century we are now left with this concept of a city. In his piece “What is an American City,” Michael B. Katz attempts to break down the definition of a modern city. However, this task serves quite a challenge, as there are multiple factors that make up a city, but there seems to be a general consensus on the idea that the suburbs are becoming the new city. Ultimately, with the goal of reforming political policies, Katz makes a strong argument on how essential it is we begin our “new urban progressivism.”

The first step that Katz takes is to define what the modern city is. The original definition of urbanism and cities was “tightly settled and organized units” whereas “suburban urbanization” like the city of Los Angeles, doesn’t have an exact center but rather the vast suburbs are what make the city instead. This process began primarily because African Americans moving into cities and the whites moved out to the developing suburbs. Through gentrification and racial segregation the dynamic of the suburbs began to change as more and more, as single affluent Americans moved there, resulting in the suburbs becoming the new city. While there was often an economic and racial segregation between these places and the “city” both of these areas were codependent on one another.

This theory of the suburbs being just as important if not part of the city dynamic is something that truly makes sense to me. I live in Long Island and I can see how the five boroughs and even Nassau County play an integral part to the functioning of New York City as one of the global cities. There is outsourcing, corporate headquarters all located on the outskirts of Manhattan, and most importantly the majority of people who work in Manhattan live outside of it considering the more stress free lifestyle. This outward looking metaphor appears to make more sense to me because the suburbs seem to be exponentially growing as the study seen by Robert E. Lang and his colleagues.

Katz’ concept of a global metaphor is also a theory that adds up because essentially the entire world is interconnected by multiple factors including the economy, fashion music and more. There are global cities that serve as a “transnational market” and this further proves Katz idea that changing public policy towards cities is not only required but also essential if America wants to maintain its position as a forerunner in the world economy.

I feel as if Katz did a pretty good job putting together this complicated idea in a few pages, however his writing was a bit dense and therefore a little hard to follow. However, his writing did definitely make his point clear that a new progressive era is required to keep up with this new and expanding metropolitan area around us. For further discussion my main question would be what public policies would we enforce so that the suburbs and the city can be the most efficient when working together? Should we further our public transportation? Should we remove the private sectors out of things such as public transportation, street cleaning and security? What do we do to prevent disasters such as homelessness, crumbling infrastructure and the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

In “What is an American city?,” Michael B. Katz discusses how American cities formed and changed over time. He explains that these changes make it nearly impossible to provide an accurate definition of what an American city is. The different cities in America developed under different circumstances and evolved to accommodate changing times. I agree with the idea that older models of defining American cities are no longer suitable.

Historically, most cities in America were formed around industry but, as Katz describes, this is no longer the case. Over time, the economy of America has switched from being industry-based to service-based. Some cities declined due to this transformation but others evolved and continued to thrive. These changes mean that the old characterization of American Cities as ones centered around industry is unsuitable.

I agree with Katz that we can no longer use the old characterization of American cities. I am not sure, however, if it would even be possible to come up with a new characterization of American cities. As cities evolved, each one became unique. At the same time, however, cities around the world have become more similar as the world became more globalized and cultures influenced each other.

In most cases, I don’t believe that it is appropriate to define cities based on the countries in which they are located. We live in a globalized world and major cities today function as hubs for international interactions. Cities like New York have substantial immigrant populations and, at any given time, usually contain a large number of people visiting from other parts of the world. Because of this, labeling a city as “American” seems unfitting.

In the world we live in, I am not sure that the different cities within one country are similar enough to come up with a characterization of what a city in that country is like. I don’t believe that two American cities are any less different from each other than from many other cities around the world. While every city has its own history and cultural influences that may differentiate it from or relate it to other cities, I don’t believe that it is possible to properly characterize a city as American.

In the New York Times article, “Diagnosis: Battered but Vibrant”, Benedict Carey discusses how a neighborhood environment can shape its future as well as the life of its residents. Carey talks specifically about a series of catastrophes happened within one of Chicago’s middle class neighborhood called Chatham. When social scientists studied Chicago’s neighborhood, they predicted that Chatham should be able to remain stable during the recession; however, it turns out to be completely different from what people were expecting.

I think that the most important factor of the neighborhood that will directly affect its future is the people. When there are economic hard time, or social disasters such as crimes, people must get united and fight to create a better future for their community. As I am reading through this article I actually have a question in my mind, Wortham’s father was saying that Cole Park was a very safe park, “but it got to where no one was controlling it”, I was wondering that whether there are 100% safe park exist, or they just seem like they are safe, but still have a high potential rate of being dangerous because sometimes there can be no one regulating the park.

In his article, Michael B. Katz offered many good ideas on what is exactly an American city. Moreover, he attempted to trace the development of defining what exactly is an American city. One familiar source Katz brought up was mother of the post-modern image of urban america herself, Jane Jacobs. Jacobs had always advocated a viewpoint of urban spaces which reflected that of a tight knit community, replete with mix commercial and residential land use, pedestrian friendly walkways, ect.

While I agree with many of the ideas proposed by Jane Jacobs, I can’t but think they are somewhat unrealistic. In addition, I feel they tend to dismiss the idea of urban areas as major commercial and business hubs. I do not see there any room for massive sprawling office spaces, ect, which are integral for a city’s success and development. While I believe major industry should be moved as far away as densely populated centers as possible, it would incur a huge transportation issue having them so far away. I think there should be a strong delineation between residential and commercial spaces.

One of there more fascinating elements of Katz’s piece which I enjoyed was the description of geographic-regional elements of American cities. Indeed, with the rise of suburbanization in the 1950s, a city now cannot simply defined which the context of tall skyscrapers and densely populated areas. Many suburbs see themselves as extensions of cities. Growing up on Long Island, I felt this phenomena firsthand. There was always a strong sense that us Long Islanders were indeed part of the New York CIty greater area. Advances in transit continue to bridge the gap between urban and suburban areas.

In his piece, Katz described a dualism between “inner city” and the consumeristic bourgeois areas of a city which are often romanticized and glorified about. The term  “inner city” tends to refer to poverty stricken areas of marginalized racial makeup which have fallen to the wayside with the advent of urban decay. Indeed, income inequality is one of the major forces shaping modern American cities today. This polarization is what often brings about the blatant urban decay which sparked the movements where figures such as Jane Jacobs made their names in.

In all, it is hard to identity exactly what is an American city. Moreover, it is especially more difficult to pinpoint a specific ideal for such a city. In contrast to thinkers such as Jane Jacobs, I believe there should be a stronger segregation between social and cultural life, and business life. WIth greater modernity and technological advances, the concept of an American city has become harder to define and greatly abstracted. Social, political, economic, and cultural forces continue to shape our cities in distinct ways. Even though idea if a uniquely “American” city has seen itself become diminished with increasing globalization.

In the New York Times article, “Diagnosis: Battered but Vibrant” by Benedict Carey, a neighborhood along Chicago’s South Side is discussed to explain how factors play major roles to shape a community. Carey talks about Chatham, a neighborhood once known to be a treasure and great for living. However, things changed in recent years. Chatham was scattered with foreclosed homes and the crime rate was rising. This was a result of changing attitudes and behaviors by residents. Nonetheless, one statement I found particularly interesting was that a “neighborhood’s character shapes its economic future at least as much as more obvious factors like income levels and foreclosure rates.”

I agree with Carey that a neighborhood is shaped by the attitudes of its residents. If ill-behaved teenagers loitered around the city, one would certainly see the correlation between behaviors and crime rates. Manners and respect for people and their community would disappear. With these characteristics, a neighborhood develops a bad reputation which would taint its image and prevent potential home buyers from making their purchase. Those who already reside in the changing region would also consider moving out.

I also agree that a neighborhood’s character relates to its economy. As a New Yorker, I have observed various different communities. From Jackson Heights, Queens to Chinatown, Manhattan, lower to middle class residents work around the clock to keep their local economy thriving. Main streets are usually busy with markets, grocery stores and restaurants. In some instances, communities such as these seem economically self-sustainable.

On the other end, wealthy communities such as Manhasset in Long Island and the Upper East Side in Manhattan are less busy and more peaceful. Residents of these neighborhoods are surrounded by luxury stores, restaurants and boutiques. Sidewalks are clean and wide. Homes are less likely to be foreclosed.

Another point I found interesting was how uniformly small buildings in a neighborhood can create an “ecological advantage”. Carey states that small residences such as one family homes can be very beneficial to the upkeep of communities. Neighbors would more likely approach each other if they find something wrong, such as garbage on one’s lawn. As a New Yorker living in Queens my entire life, I find that hard to imagine because there are very little bungalows or one family residences. Block neighborhoods are no where to be found. People in New York are known to keep to themselves, even if they live next door to each other in an apartment. Nonetheless, it would be nice to see that type of ideal community.

The New York Times article “Dissent: Battered but Vibrant” by Benedict Carey looks into what makes a community the way it is by focusing on the Chicago neighborhood Chatham, and how it has dealt with changes that came about during the recent years, which included the recession and the shooting death of an off-duty police officer.

William Julius Wilson commented that if Chatham were to maintain its stability after the crisis, the concept of a neighborhood effect would be a great contribution in figuring out how to prevent people from leaving a neighborhood and strengthen neighborhoods that are at risk of falling into poverty. I definitely agree with this because it is always through tough times when you can see the strength of a unit, whether is a person, family, or neighborhood. If the people in the neighborhood have a strong sense of community and look out for each other then the neighborhood is much more likely to survive because people will be less likely to leave. If a lot of people move out of an area, it gives the impression that it is not a good neighborhood and people would be afraid to move there, which gives the neighborhood a greater chance at falling into poverty.

Contrary to what the social scientist predicted, Chatham did not remain stable throughout the recession. Local businesses were having a tough time, with one example given of Bull’s Eye Barber Shop whose revenues were down 40% in the first year. At the end of the article, it says that there are encouraging signs, one of which is that Bull’s Eye Barber Shop is busy again. Researchers believed that Chatham’s strong identity and block groups would help protect residents from larger economic problems. Given that Chatham didn’t really remain stable and had and down and up, I don’t think that those two factors really did anything, nor do I really understand how it would actually help protect residents from larger economic problems.

Something I found interesting was that Chatham has more that a hundred block groups. I didn’t know that neighborhoods actually did this; it just seems like something on television shows. Initially, I thought block groups were like neighborhood watch programs, looking out for dangerous people which I thought belonged more to not so good neighborhoods where more crimes might occur, so I didn’t think of that as an advantage for a neighborhood. However, the article describes the Chatham block groups as “citizen volunteers who monitor the tidiness of neighborhood lawns, garbage, and noise, as well as organize events.” When a block group is meant to keep a neighborhood nice and organize events, I can definitely see how it would be an advantage for a neighborhood.

Another thing that caught my eye at the end of the article was what Mrs. Worthmans said about how nothing changes unless people look after their children. I’ve never thought about that and like she said, I would blame other things like the city but children are the ones who would be staying in a neighborhood so it really is important to for people look after them is they want a neighborhood to remain nice. If the futures of a neighborhood don’t care what it is like, then it would just go down.

Distinguishing between urban, suburban and rural areas was once an easy task. Cities were thought to be poverty-stricken industrial hubs cushioned by surrounding homey suburbs that eventually led to rural farmlands. Now, convention is being challenged as the definition of “city” is changing. What truly determines a city or suburb, and where do different neighborhoods fall on the spectrum?

As Michael B. Katz explains in his article, the United States has undergone a historical metamorphosis after the Second World War. Transformations of demography, economy and space have all led to new urban forms; the borders between cities, suburbs and countryside continue to blur. Cities that naturally blend with their urban and suburban peripherals and were able to withstand deindustrialization have been most successful. In fact, Katz uses Los Angeles as the best example for a perfect city. As the most important twentieth-century industrial city, Los Angeles has long been multicentered and multiethnic. In contrast, Katz mentions industrial cities such as Philadelphia and Detroit that have not experienced such vibrancy. Their populations decreased and jobs were lost, but why?

Katz says, “ We concluded that America is living through a transformation as profound as the industrial revolution—one that reshapes everything, from family to class, from race and gender to cities.” But will America ever stop evolving? I do not think so. However, that is where the beauty lies. I think that the U.S. Census Bureau’s attempt to “…develop a reclassification of municipalities based on a sophisticated mathematical model…” will be to no avail. There are too many variables that come into play when defining the word “city” (income, race, politics, etc.) that an equation would be rendered inadequate.

Personally, I agree with Nick’s earlier post in that Michael Katz’s article comes to no definitive answer. Instead, he illustrates that the structure of American cities seems to change as often as their definitions do. Whether through industrialization, redevelopment, gentrification or reclassification, America’s demographics will continue to shift and the “growing pains” are many, but that is the nature of existence.

Side Note:

During our class projects this semester, I think it would be interesting to use Katz’s concept of a successful city (such as Los Angeles) as an allegory. Do our sites employ multiple hubs so as to lend to multicentered and multiethnic areas of attraction? Will this help emulate Los Angeles’ success? Perhaps we can carry out our assignment with these questions in mind and see if there is any correlation.

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.

In Michael B. Katz’s “What is an American City?,” there were several interesting points that he rises in regards to the makeup and definition of the modern-day city. His claim that “America is living through a transformation as profound as the Industrial revolution” was especially interesting because I never thought of modern-day American cities to be in that extreme of a phase as the Industrial revolution was.

I agree that American cities behave in cycles and people and cities themselves are always going to be changing over time. This is obvious through photographs of nineteenth and twentieth century American cities, which show very different lifestyles from today. I also found it interesting how he compares the development of Philadelphia and Los Angeles. In modern-day America, these cities are considered to be two of the biggest and most lively cities, but clearly it was not always that way. Los Angeles grew more rapidly than Philadelphia, which lost its population because it was an old industrial city and many manufacturing jobs were lost. The growths of these cities have made them very different but they have change drastically from the cities they were considered to be before. This further emphasizes his curiosity about the definition of the American city.

It is also interesting how the development of so many American cities was based on the regional location and the types of jobs that the cities can provide for its residents. For example, it is interesting that cities like Las Vegas and New Orleans build their cities around entertainment. The distribution of jobs in various American cities is a vital reason why many cities today are the way they are.

Another strong influence on cities has been immigration in America, which has clearly made many American cities stronger than before. Immigration in general changed the culture and lifestyle in many cities. I agree with his point that over time, the distinction between cities and suburbs was diminishing.

Personally, I agree with the belief that modern-day cities are defined by what they produce. Since America has become a consumer-based country, the cities are easily identifiable by what they have to offer. For example, Silicon Valley is clearly infamous for producing successful technology companies. In conclusion, I don’t really think that there can be a permanent definition for what makes up an American city since there are always changes taking place, but the closest one for modern-day cities would be defining them based on what they produce.