As Louis Wirth states in his article “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” there are many ways to look at and define an urban city. Possibly the most important aspect of his theory is that, “A serviceable definition of urbanism should not only denote the essential characteristics which all cities—at least those in our culture—have in common, but should lend itself to the discovery of their variations,” (page 6) In other words, a definition of a city should be able to incorporate the commonalities and differences between all cities. In this sense, Wirth holds true to what every modern city holds, uniqueness and distinction, hence his final definition: “For sociological purposes a city may be defined as a relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals,” (page 8).
Worth’s first point, which I fully agree with, is density. As a city, the actual population is not what is important, it is the denseness of this population. For example, Chicago, the city in which we convene every week, has a population of approximately 2.6 million people in a land area of approximately 220 square miles. Naperville, our campus’s hometown, has about a quarter of that amount of land (40 square miles), but only a twentieth of the population (141,000 people). That means that Chicago has more people per square mile than Naperville, making Chicago more of an urban city. The facts simply support the theory in this case.
The other main focus of the article and the definition is the heterogeneity of a city. As I stated in the beginning, my own opinion is that a city is not truly a city without its range and assortment of culture. Within the city of Chicago today, we can find areas of poor, public housing units, full of graffiti and bullet shells, as well as million dollar penthouses on State Street or Michigan Avenue. These huge differences exist not only in housing and income, but in ethnicities, ages, stores, public parks, so on and so forth. Without such drastic variety in a city, it is more of a suburbanite’s dreamland, full of dull uniformity.
As is quite obvious from the previous paragraphs, I support Wirth’s conclusions on how to define a city. I feel that he addresses the two most important factors that characterize the urban way of life. However, things have also come a long way since 1938 when the article was written. I also believe there are two significant points that were not mentioned.
The first is that cities are built not only out, but up. Every urban metropolis in the United States, as well as around the world, consists of skyscrapers, and glorious monuments towering over the surrounding buildings and landscapes. I’m not saying that height should be a requirement, however I do believe that the architecture and layout of a true city should be included somehow into his definition.
Opportunity seems to be key in the city environment as well. Many prestigious universities and institutions are located in urban environments. Some of the best hospitals, doctors, and treatment centers are located in the walls of the city as well. Not to mention the amount of jobs, restaurants, shopping sites, and historical establishments situated there as well.
With the exception of my minor additions (which have come about in more recent years), Wirth seems to have created a definition of the urban city that can last forever. The breakdown and lack of detail to his definition is what makes it so beneficial and useable.
May Chicago always live up to its reputation, and Wirth’s definition.
