The Plan of Chicago

In reading Carl Smith's Plan of Chicago, i was astounded to read about the horrible conditions of the city that are not too far behind us in the past.  In as little as 100 years, the city has transformed from a place of unsanitary conditions, overcrowded streets and smog ridden air into the modern version that we see today.  Daniel Burnham envisioned a plan that would take Chicago into the future safely and efficiently.  Though many of his plans were put into effect a few years after his death, not all were realized.

While I believe that Burnham did a fairly good job in addressing the structural problems of the city, I feel that the future was not readily addressed in an appropriate manner for certain things. Chicago was being redesigned in order to fix the city and promote longevity.  But with longevity in mind..why were only buildings considered?   For example, with the ever growing population and all the cars/trucks/carriages crowding the streets, why weren't more parking structures built?  There is barely enough room for street parking, and places with parking spaces available charge $22/hr (modern day).  Furthermore, the streets were widened enough for the 1930's, but with the future in mind, some streets should have been widened even further.  If something isn't done soon, we are probably going to be spending 7/8 of our lives in a car instead of at home with our families.  I realize that the planners couldn't have anticipated this many people, but they wanted to make structures for the future and families.  I feel like the situation with cars could have been considered a little more carefully.

Also, I believe that more parks could have been created to "break up the city" in a sense. When walking around, all you see is building after building after building.  In order to go to take a break from the city life, you have to walk all the way to the east side of the city to Grant Park.  Personally, I wish there were more "Grant Parks" throughout the city.  Yes, there are parks throughout the neighborhoods, but they are mostly for children.  Adults need a place to relax as well.  Bigger parks (like Grant) should have been placed throughout the city to give people a place to go when they are on their lunch break or want to catch a five minute break before heading home through the rush hour(s) traffic.  Maybe more areas where people can relax will help to calm down the fast paced environment - A little bit of nature can go a long way.

Urbanism As a Way of Life

Wirth begins his article by describing a city using density, heterogeneity and size (large and permanent) as his three main focal points, attempting to gain a better understanding of what we may define as a city.  In my experience, coming from a small town near the Wisconsin border, the city may be described using Wirth's main points as defining characteristics.  The density and size of the city were the most obvious things that caught my eye the first time I visited.  All the buildings were incredibly close together, cars lined the streets, hundreds of people were on the same sidewalk and even the air felt a little bit thicker.  The city was also filled with many different types of people.  As Wirth describes in Urbanism as a way of life,  "the heightened mobility of the individual, [brings] him within the range of stimulation by a great number of diverse individuals."  This was also holding true to Wirth's definition, as everywhere I turned there were what seemed to be very different people all in the same group, standing outside of a building, talking; no two people were the same.

However, in moving into Taylor Lofts, I realized that the only reason I would agree with Wirth is because I was an outsider.  I lived in a very different environment for most of my life, and the city was simply different.  Now that I have the chance to actually live the city life, I realize that Wirth missed a few things.  One thing I cannot argue with is the size and density of the city.  However, the heterogeneity is a bit skewed in Wirth's definition.  Once you live in the city, you begin to see that it is not so heterogeneous at all.  Neighborhoods and even streets are divided by different ethnicities, cultures, genders, age, etc.  Walking one block will bring you to an entirely different group of people without even realizing it.

Wirth also does not touch on how fast paced the city is.  No matter what you are doing or where you are going, you have to get there as quickly as you can.  This is why one may not notice the difference in the "heterogeneity" of the city.  People are too submerged into trying to keep up with the pace of the city, that they do not notice the changes in the blocks, people and buildings they are walking past- leading to skewed definitions of the city. The only thing heterogeneous about the city is that they all move together in an orderly fashion, never breaking from their organized pattern of movements unless they are ducking into a building to go to work.

Furthermore, Wirth does not look at how the media affects the people in the city; it gives us a definition of the city all on its own.  The city is big, fast and dangerous according to the media-which only emphasizes our need to be running around like chickens with our heads cut off for fear of being late, and increases our fear of certain avenues or blocks when in reality they aren't so bad.  The media molds us as a people, and most city dwellers never think to deviate from their media stricken roles.

However, even though our modern world is much different, there are definitely still characteristics that With observed to be true about the city life. I did enjoy reading Wirth's article none the less as it gave me a new perspective on the city, and a base to draw new conclusions that fit our modern world.