Cities 07

Simply put, Webber thinks that the city has transitioned from an industrial hub to a ghetto hinterland. His main reason for this effect is the use of technological advances in the fields of travel and communication freeing the urban bourgeoisie from the city. He does explain that this process is not just an upper-class windfall, but also helps to bridge the conceptual divide between urban and rural populations. He points out that the urban landscape is blamed for non-geographic social problems.

He fails to realize, however, that the effects of a nation’s population increase may have a greater effect on the phenomenon he describes. Webber argues that the technological increase and the accompanying increase in speed is the driving force behind extra-urbanization. While he is partially right about increased speed of transport/communication as a contributing factor, he fails to consider the primary factor in all past eras of rural/urban comparisons: simple population growth. More than any other factor, an increase (or decrease) in the human density affects the operation and perception of urban areas.

Relating to other authors, Webber’s argument is contrary to that of Wirth, if you accept that Webber’s conceptualization of the urban environment is no longer physical but social. Hence the physical distance is great and the social distance is small, the opposite effect of what Wirth describes. Marx seems to be channeling through Webber, because the extensive technological innovation leads to a growing contrast between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. As newer generations are educated in the newer technologies this process can only speed up and caused greater spatial agglomeration. Engels would see Manchester in the descriptions of the new physical urban wasteland and misplaced social policies directed at phantom symptoms. Webber and Le Corbusier would disagree sharply, with Webber arguing that there is no reason to build a perfectly planned environment because the only occupants inhabiting it on a regular basis would be those that Le Corbusier would not want living there. Also, Frank Lloyd Wright’s vision of idyllic futuristic nature communities does not work for Webber’s urban expanse, but it would fit those not hindered by geography quite well.

I am left trying to fully understand Webber’s intent: is he attempting to blame or exonerate technology and the role it plays in spatial agglomeration? What happens when there is nowhere left to expand? He mentions that waterways are experiencing population density increases unlike any other region, which seems to contradict his point that people are choosing to live where ever they want. He does not want to take the responsible path in his argument and acknowledge that there may be other primary or ancillary causes to the phenomena he describes. The presence of higher population densities along water is normal: water is and always has been a good source of food, power and transportation. Webber does create an interesting comparison on the networking of the physical interconnectedness of the cities themselves and people that feel free to skip between the cities conversing with each other. Would either of these be possible without the other? Was there a form of dependence created with the institution of the internet that goes beyond daily life?

David Hauser