[Pops]

Huge modern cities didn't exist before fossil fuels and only a handful of cities of any size existed before modern agriculture.

It is interesting to me that in recent history, say the last 500 years, there were only a few large cities but various 'oligists go on and on about the huge cities of ancient times, 1-2-3 million people in Rome for example. Whereas in modern times it was not until the 18th century that London reached 1 million. Strange.

I think we tend to forget that the "great" cities of the distant past were very special cases, reliant upon an excess of power for their survival just as modern cities. The it was human slave power and or military power able to force tribute from subsistence farmers (in the form of food) to feed non-farming urbanites. Basically they were command economies. They simply could not have existed otherwise because there wasn't the technology that would allow a surplus of food - a voluntary surplus that is.

I actually think that lots of the great ancient cities were mere symbols of power, political or religious, some surely were densely inhabited for a time but many only sparsely.

Anyway aside from however the ancients did it, up to the 18th century the vast majority of the population lived on the land as subsistence farmers with only a vanishing minority in cities, again because there was not the technology to grow a surplus that would allow specialization and trade and manufacturing that constitutes and is the excuse for a city. They may have slept in a village of a few dozen families or inside the walls of a fortification but they were subsistence farmers nonetheless.

Jethro Tull invented the seed drill in 1700 and that really was the beginning of modern cities. In the 18th & 19th century there was finally enough food surplus to allow populations to grow without the need for slave labor. Obviously slave labor was still profitable but eventually the civilizing effect of a full belly brought most overt slavery to an end.

So in addition to being the seat of power, whether government, religious or military, after the first ag revolution they became increasingly the center of growing trade and manufacture.

But again I think we forget that it is only in the last couple of hundred years that cities really become common centers of population. Even as late as 1900, only 13% of the world's population lived in cities and not until 2007 that the percentage exceeded 50%. In the US the 50% mark was passed in the 1910's


We also tend to forget (perhaps because we live in the city and forgetting is convenient) that fossil fuels are the slaves enabling the huge population of modern cities. Fossil fuel extraction over the last 300 years has enabled the growth and very existence of cities that would not and can not survive otherwise.


http://www.gizmag.com/go/7334/
http://www.localhistories.org/farming.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City

[glaucus]

The best analysis of why cities were established and how they've evolved over time is called "The City in History" by Lewis Mumford. It has an academic tone and though it's getting on in age, it remains the starting place for a comprehensive view of urban history.

Though Mumford was initially a technology booster, over the course of his career he became very disheartened at the effect that the introduction of mass technology (like the automobile) was having on cities. Mumford was very prescient for his time. When you read the last chapter you'll get goosebumps at how well he predicts the negative implications that this would have on our cities.

As an aside, I spoke with John Michael Greer at the Age of Limits conference briefly and he really lit up when I asked him how familiar he was with Mumford's work - turns out he's a big fan too.

[Pops]

Thanks galacus I'll try to get that, I see it's on Amazon, my library is in no way city-size. ;^)

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('glaucus', 'T')he best analysis of why cities were established and how they've evolved over time is called "The City in History" by Lewis Mumford.

[Newfie]

In Philadelphia, and I believe in many larger US cities, there are special zones that get greater care and protection.

In Philly it is the Cent City District and was funded by downtown business in an effort to stave decay.

It caught on and now the U of P has its own special district. There may be others.

Other portions of the city are essentially abandoned.

In Philly we have magnet high schools, which can be quite good. The rest of the system is dismal at best.

I see this as a trend of decay where substantial portions of the cities are being abandoned by social services as we speak. At some point the pockets of decay will overwhelm the wealth put in to shore up the gentrified areas.

I hope to move out first.

[anador]

Part of the problem about talking about "Cities" rather than "Urban Places" is that it tends to confuse some peoples' understanding of the Topic.

I think its most useful to talk about urban places rather than cities. A city has an arbitrary implication of size and scope which is different from person to person. Indeed many people here that live in the suburbs consider themselves to live in a "city" even though it inst a particularly urban place: no mixed uses, single family single use zoning, auto dependency, etc.. Furthermore those that describe themselves as living in a rural village, may actually be living in an "urban place": shops close-by,relatively close together houses, mixed uses, etc...

My point is merely that urbanity is more important than the concept of city, especially in regards to power-down.

Part of the problem that Mumford saw occurring in the development of the suburbs was the distortion of what living in a city meant, it had once been very black and white; in the city- in the country. He saw the beginnings of the city centers being spaced out and De-urbanized, while the countryside developed and De-ruralized. The result was not "Garden Cities" the Utopian vision that Mumford, and Ebenezer Howard thought would occur, but Sprawl, the devilish waste-place we have been left with.

Bringing it back....

Humans have adapted to live in urban settlements for many dozens of millennia. Even non city building nomads establish mobile camps that have alot in common with city life: close proximity of non-related individuals, entertainment, work, all in close proximity. Urbanity pre-dates the city. Humanity is a social creature and meant to live in urban organizations. Even if this is a village of 100 or a moving hunting tribe of 50, the kinship of society is what urban organizations create.

After every major disaster, depredation, or war, people have always re-grouped, that is how society goes on.

Urban Places will always be a part of our future, because they are part of us, solitary confinement is a punishment to people.

The cities we will inhabit will be smaller, more compact, better defended.

There will always be people living where the major cities are, even if they are ruins, they occupy the most important transportation and resource nodes on the landscape (those founded before the 20TH C that is)

Rome and Alexandria both were depopulated for centuries, both dipping far below the 10k mark, before they eventually adjusted to a new system and were resettled again.

There will be chaos in cities and their populations will rapidly decrease, but they will never be totally abandoned.


Sorry for the drafty response.

[anador]

Also Death and Life of the Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, really hashes out a lot of the delicate self-regulation that make cities work in a civilized manner, and specifically how it can be made to come undone.

[Newfie]

Hers a bit of real time news on Camden, NJ.

police force............
http://news.google.ca/news/story?q=camd ... CDIQqgIwAA


And on schools........
Shttp://www.philly.com/philly/news/2012 ... pe_up.html

Camden is, and has been, breaking down. Along with a few similar cities.

[Newfie]

More on Camden, metal thieves force school closures.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local ... =124488469

[Newfie]

Dup post