The readings assigned for this week force us to ponder the following questions: What is a city? Is it defined by space? Is defined by people? What are we studying when we look at the city? I was particularly interested in the argument presented by Sharon Zukin in “Is There an Urban Sociology?” In this paper, Zukin approaches the city from a sociological perspective and provides a brief history of urban sociological thought placing her career and perspective on the city in conversation with French urban sociologists like Castells and the 1920s Chicago School of urban sociology. Through her research published in Loft Living, Zukin finds that “space” in a city is necessarily defined by political and economic forces. And, as she explains, “talking about the social production of space, especially for reasons of economic profit or even cultural attachment was a radical approach and not really welcome” (10).
As a student of political science with an interest in cities as political entities, it’s natural for me to perceive cities as inherently political and economic. Sure, cities are made of people living in a defined space, but these people are being taxed by a governing authority who provides at minimum “housekeeping” services such as garbage removal, and clean roads. In particular, since American cities are creatures of the states, they are primarily legal entities that incorporate as governing bodies. The American city is greatly limited in its ability to raise revenue and it relies primarily on property taxes and some cities, like New York, also levy an income tax. Another legal device that is particular to cities is their ability to enact and change zoning laws. Thus, the revenue stream of the city greatly depends on its ability to become an attractive place for people to live and work and it’s in the city’s best interest to use its legal devices such as rezoning to increase the amount of residential units.
However, as we have seen happen in New York City, these legal constraints create cities that favor the rich. As Zukin points out, by rezoning SoHo from an industrial hub to a residential neighborhood the city was not just creating spaces for residential lofts by pushing out industry, it was also taking away jobs that sustained the livelihoods of working class folks. If the city cannot provide both low and high skilled jobs in equal proportion, then the city cannot maintain a diverse socio-economic population.
I wonder what Robert Park would say if he were to study current day New York City. Would he see the high income inequality and lack of socio-economic diversity as endemic to the evolution of cities? Or would he take pause at the shrinking division of labor and specialized vocations and perceive them as detrimental to the essence of cities?
