This article will begin by examining the basic dynamics that contribute to the centralization of activity within inhabited places as well as the forces that discourage such concentration. After discussing the integrative forces that form cities our focus will pivot to consider the social and cultural conditions that either bind a city together or tear it apart. After the forces of centralization are explored in both economic and social terms, a third type of integration formed around the concept of the natural area will be discussed. We’ll begin with a bold statement about the planner’s role as it relates to the forces of centralization.
YOUR FOUNDAMENTAL JOB
As a planner, it is your job to promote centralization through incremental efforts to foster opportunities for integrative forces to manifest within communities. This is true regardless of whether you work in an urban environment (the city planner) or a rural landscape (the county planner). Within the city, your job is to gradually work towards cultivating an environment where urban interactions and exchanges create the value that keeps people, businesses, and institutions within the city. If you are not doing this you are failing at your job – plain and simple. Across the countryside, your job is to preserve the ecosystems and opportunities for resource extraction that make production profitable and worthwhile. Part of this task is to promote mobility to distant markets and ensure that opportunities for agriculture support businesses and operations are well protected. If this is not happening, there is a chance that you are failing.
THE FORCES OF CENTRALIZATION
Forces that encourage the geographic concentration of human activity are integrative forces. That is to say that integrative forces can consist of any factor that encourages centralization. Traditionally, such forces have been viewed as those born between actors that rely upon each other to varying extents. One example might be the connections established between a business and its suppliers, servicers, and customers. Another traditional example may include the relationship created between the businessman and the politician who may need to engage in bargaining and negotiations. Beyond this traditional understanding, I argue that integrative forces can include a great variety of circumstances that relate solely to the individual and their interaction with the built environment of their community rather than its other inhabitants. One’s enjoyment of their town’s parks, landscapes, amenities, culture, sense of safety, or general livability may in fact be one of the most important centralizing forces within the modern city. Such individual forces of integration are important and should not be ignored. However, individual preferences are subject to fluctuations over time, and cities working to respond to such preferences should also not lose track of creating a system of incentives that effectively bring large interest together. In this manner, communities seeking to centralize and develop should simultaneously respond to both the individual and collective incentives that effectively bring people together.
SOME GENERAL EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATIVE FORCES
The Bond Between a Business and its Key Customers and Suppliers – I encountered an example of this dynamic in Salem, Oregon whereby an alternative arts and culture focused newspaper was heavily dependent upon the support of local businesses within the walkable portions of the community. Unfortunately, in that case, the newspaper ceased operations after fourteen years in business as local advertisers shifted their marketing toward online mediums (see article in the Stateman’s Journal). We’ll briefly discuss how the internet might impact traditional forces of centralization below.
The Industry and Its Workers – Another traditional example of an integrative force might be that of the large employer and its need to locate in close proximity to a healthy pool of workers. This particular dynamic helps explain the great urban development and high levels of historic density experienced within America’s powerhouse manufacturing cities. Places like New York, Chicago, and Detroit grew to great size and high density in part because the manufacturing that took place in those cities required many thousands of workers in close proximity. Cities such as Phoenix on the other hand were not originally propelled by a heavy manufacturing base, and lacking a comparable integrative force, never centralized the same level of urban density. The result for the latter group of cities has been more dispersion.
EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATIVE FORCES AT WORK IN MY LIFE
Public & Active Transportation – One integrative force that has influenced my attachment to various communities has been the presence of low cost transportation options. In general, the places where I lived that offered a very low commute cost have been highly attractive for their increased affordability. Conversely, places where I lived with a high commute cost have usually resulted in unstable living circumstances. Essentially, the ability to live near my job has been a source of financial efficiency, and I strongly believe that cities would be wise to enable their citizens to live near their jobs.
Mixed Use Neighborhoods – Because I have heavily relied on a combination of active and public transit modes throughout my life, close access to services and amenities has been a major integrative force. For most of my life, I have relied either on my own feet, my bike, or public transit in order to get around. Therefore, the ability to access useful services and amenities within my neighborhood or nearby has been so beneficial that I’m specifically attracted to seek residence in areas that offer this convenience. Nearby access to social opportunities and entertainment options has, to a lesser degree, produced a similar effect.
Local Politics – The desire or concern to live within the “correct” councilmanic district has served as an attractive force bonding me to a particular neighborhood. In some communities where councilmanic privilege plays a key role in shaping city life and services, the ability to be well protected by your local leadership is critical when the need arises to work with city government. Most Americans likely haven’t experienced this type of situation. However, within certain cities, where multiethnic coalitions exist and diversity is high, getting caught with a specific need for public support when your type reflects the wrong constituency for your local district can be a horrible experience. Therefore, the concern for living on the right side of a particular street can serve as an integrative force for belonging to a neighborhood. Conversely, the dynamics of councilmanic privilege can also be a dispersive force.
THE FORCES OF DISPERSION
Forces that discourage the geographic concentration of cities are those of dispersion. That is to say that forces of dispersion are non-integrative for cities. Among these are conflicts and struggles present within the urban environment that tear a city apart and decrease urbanization as a result. Traditionally, forces of dispersion may come in the form of high taxes, rampant crime, poorly performing schools or other public services, and traffic congestion among others. Essentially, non-integrative forces of dispersion can take of the form of anything that encumbers economic prosperity or general livability. However, the limits on what can be considered a non-integrative force that discourages one from dwelling in a certain community are often a matter of individual preference. Community planners should work to carefully document, ideally on a scientific level, the top forces of dispersion weighing on the population(s) within their jurisdiction.
SOME GENERAL EXAMPLES OF NON-INTEGRATIVE FORCES
High Taxes – Prohibitively high taxes might be one of the most commonly cited forces of dispersion. People look for bargains and ways to save money, and high taxes at the local level are not a part of that equation. Whether a jurisdiction’s taxes are actually high or merely perceived to be high does not appear to make a difference much of the time. I have found that some people would never consider life in a larger city based heavily on their perception of the taxes. Having lived within a wide array of communities myself, ranging from rural areas to small towns to mid and large sized cities, I can suggest that the emphasis on local taxes is largely overblown. However, prohibitively high taxes will disperse people and families, and even whole developments, across jurisdictional lines. Similarly, tax rate differentials between municipalities may discourage consolidation even when their residents consider themselves to belong to the same community.
Failing Public Services – When public services fail to provide for people, people disperse. Unfortunately, school districts in large cities have displayed a clear example of the dispersion caused when public services fall short of expectations. Within America, it is the exception to find a well performing urban school district rather than the rule. The failing performance of urban schools has played a major role in decentralizing cities by motivating middle class families to relocate into the suburbs and neighboring small towns. Finding solutions to improve urban education for children would be transformative for larger American cities.
Traffic Congestion – Congested streets are not only a hinderance for all activities in life, they are an economic burden on cities and regions. The economic burden imposed by congestion, whether it be on streets, rail lines, water ways, dock facilities, airport runways, or somewhere else, stems from its impact on limiting the reach of consumer markets and labor markets. Essentially, congestion is a supply chain issue of the logistical type. Since most people interact with congestion in the form of roadway traffic, I’ll provide two short examples based on vehicular congestion. For workers driving to their jobs, routine traffic congestion increases the amount of time lost during their commute. Since the typical worker can only allocate so much time within their day to their commute, the more congested the roadways the slower the average speed of travel and the less distance that can be covered during a routine commute. The question is, of course, how far can workers travel within their livable allowance for commute time? For myself, I struggle to maintain any commute longer than 45 minutes. A second example of the negative impact or non-integrative force imposed by congested roadways concerns their impact on the market reach of product suppliers and businesses. Heavy roadway congestion either increases the lag time or outright reduces the distance that businesses and suppliers can deliver their goods into surrounding marketplaces – thus reducing their overall reach, profits, and competitiveness.
Crime – High crime directly impacts one’s sense of safety and livability within a community. If crime is too consistent or high, people will seek a safer environment. Most of the time, this means moving to a different community – hence, a non-integrative force.
EXAMPLES OF NON-INTEGRATIVE FORCES AT WORK IN MY LIFE
Crime – The inability to safely live within certain neighborhoods has cut down on the range of housing options that have been available to me in the past. This issue particularly arose while living in Philadelphia where it was difficult to find a “middle of the road” neighborhood that was also safe for outsiders.
Transportation – Access to good public transportation along with the ability to walk to select amenities has been crucial in my living situations. However, when these systems break down, a dispersive force emerges. In Philadelphia, failed negotiations led to a transit strike that made commuting very difficult, if not even almost impossible, because of the traffic congestion that resulted. Otherwise, Philadelphia was excellent in terms of public transit and walking. The real non-integrative force that limits my association with many opportunities across America is the poor investment in good public transit options and the lack of walkable communities.
Housing Stock – Much of the housing built today has a tendency to support only certain kinds of consumers. Fancy downtown condos for the rich, big suburban mansions for the somewhat less rich, single family homes for the upper realms of the middle class, urban apartments for new money, and so forth. When it comes to the working class, affordable options in prosperous cities are very often limited to perimeter trailer parks, rundown suburban apartments, residual urban slums where crime has stayed gentrification, and a select few units set aside for those making below a certain percentage of area medium income – should you be so lucky on the waiting list. Unfortunately, good affordable housing within a nice city is a hard find for the 21st century worker.
Planners would be wise to understand the most basic and dominant forces of integration and dispersion present within the communities where they operate. Doing so should be considered as a necessary workplace assignment.
PEOPLE DO NOT ALWAYS MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS
In conversation, I often hear people who express high taxes as their top reason for not wanting to live within the city. I understand that certain lifestyles might be easier to achieve in suburban or rural-residential communities, but I always find the high taxes reason to be puzzling. I feel people do not account for higher transportation costs and lost time that often come attached to living further out from the city core. One living within the core of the city and subject to higher taxes is ideally relieved by shorter commute times, the greater flexibility that comes with transportation options, and less auto-dependency. In other words, the difference between being a two-car household and a single-car household can easily account for the differential tax burden on property owners in the city versus the suburbs and outlying areas. In fact, even a two car household within the city may see a substantial reduction in their transportation cost resulting merely from the fact that they are likely to drive shorter distances between home, work, amenities, and errands. Nevertheless, the tradeoff between transportation costs and lost time to the municipal tax differential between central cities and surrounding areas seems to be lost on many consumers.
BEYOND ECONOMICS, A LOOK AT NATURAL AREAS & CREATING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY:
When it comes to the attachments people form with their community, not all decisions are based on economic factors. Social characteristics and the relationships formed between individuals often play a critical role. Edward C. Banfield’s and James Q Wilson’s excellent 1963 book on the political forces at play within cities, “City Politics,” provides a concise and articulate description of what makes a community:
“The city is among other things a set of values, habits, sentiments, myths, and understandings which are (more or less) shared by the people who live in it, and the sharing of which constitutes (again, more or less) a social bond attaching the people of the city to one another and – if the bond is sufficiently strong (it may not be) – making themselves to be, and therefore to be in fact, a community.”
Robert Park, urban sociologist, among others, introduced the concept of “natural areas” in the social tapestry of cities. Each natural area within a city exists as a sub-community because it satisfies the fundamental human needs of inhabitants through its own order of social organization and ethos (Banfield & Wilson, 49). Natural areas can function to reduce, for their members, the sense of alienation and anomie that often come with city life. With varying degrees of cohesion, some examples of natural areas include those formed along ethnic, racial, and religious lines. However, Banfield and Wilson also suggest that natural areas can form around institutions like a university or types of communities based on their lifestyle characteristics and appeal such as suburbs. Another type of natural area suggested is the one that forms around business establishments and the type of people they attract – some examples may include gamblers, artists, wealthy individuals, and others.
Banfield and Wilson highlight three socio-economic types of natural areas that may exist within a city. The following passages describe these three types of natural areas in detail and where taken directly from their book, City Politics (52-53):
[LOW INCOME AREAS] Some are tenement districts in which low-income migrants live, where family life is disrupted, church membership low and social life limited to a few friends or to a “gang.” In such areas, political preferences are unstable, people care little about the area or about the city as a whole, and they vote (and, more rarely, participate in politics in other ways) mainly when prompted to do so by organizations that offer material inducements or that appeal to particular, often personal loyalties.
[MIDDLE INCOME AREAS] Another type of natural area consists of small houses in which live semiskilled and clerical workers. In these areas, family activities are of the greatest importance, there is much “neighborliness,” many people attend church regularly, and there is a sense of obligation to the “community” and to neighbors. Few people have much leisure, however, and the educational level is rather low. Membership in voluntary associations (other than churches and unions) is also low. Although the sense of community is fairly strong, few people participate in local affairs and few take much interest in the government of the larger city or have much confidence in their ability to influence it. Such areas tend to exert a stabilizing, “balancing wheel” effect in city politics, but they seldom take a leading active role in it.
[HIGH INCOME AREAS] In the third type of natural area, where incomes and educational levels are high, neighborliness may not be very marked; this is especially the case where there are high-rise apartments. Membership in voluntary associations is high, however; both husbands and wives belong with varying degrees of enthusiasm to organizations having civic, educational, or fraternal purposes. Many people participate in civic projects and cultural affairs that transcend neighborhood lines, and the sense of obligation to the “community,” by which is generally meant the city (or even the metropolitan area) “as a whole,” is particularly strong.
MY THOUGHTS ON NATURAL AREAS
I like the aforementioned quote concerning how the values, habits, sentiments, and other factors can create a social bond between individuals that may in turn create a sense of community. It is possible that this sense of community could be tested during occasions of one’s out of town travel. Let’s say that you are travelling somewhere else within your state and happen to strike up conversation with a stranger whom you learn is from your same municipality. If you find that each of you feel somewhat more relatable to each other simply because you come from the same municipality, then such circumstance may be a sign that your municipality has a strong sense of community. However, if the coincidence of being from the same city is merely a minor fact or afterthought, because just being from the same municipality does not encourage further conversation, all else equal, it is possible that your municipality has a weaker sense of community.
In many ways, the formation of natural areas as sub-communities in cities is reassuring. It makes me optimistic to think that our large cities are bonded together by natural affiliations that form along a diverse array of linages rather than purely through a system of economic incentives that act as integrative forces. Communities that form along racial lines may provide comfort to those who feel or actually are marginalized within the city. Those forming along ethnic lines may strengthen our cities by setting the stage for welcoming new immigrants. Neighborhoods that attract individuals with specific interests such as in the sciences, technology, or arts may create a fertile environment for the growth of cultural movements or large, economically-disruptive enterprises. Without these natural areas a city might not be able to exist, and a city without them is hardly a city at all.
I’m uncertain whether the three natural areas highlighted along socio-economic lines by Banfield and Wilson can actually be classified as natural areas but rather as cleavages dividing the population within the larger city. It is likely the case that low, middle, and high income families will concentrate in select places, but it will often be the case that such concentrations will occur multiple times throughout even a mid-sized city. In many cities, there are multiple low income neighborhoods and a few high and middle income ones as well. I may then ask, can there by more than one location of the same type of natural area within the city? Or are such duplicative areas always distinct?
Regardless of how such questions might be resolved, one observation highlighted in City Politics that I find particularly interesting is the reference to the “stabilizing” or “balancing wheel” effect of the middle income neighborhoods in the political life of cities. In times of heated political exchange, I have felt that there is no crime greater than the politized action that ends up harming the ordinary people who seldom, if ever, get involved in political affairs. An example of this might be the politician, who, out of political retaliation, closes down a facility in a manner that harms people or causes social damage. If cities are commonly driven by conflicts between their wealthier and poorer residents, then a stable base of relatively non-engaged middle class families might be vital for preventing things from becoming unhinged. Unfortunately, as many American cities have lost their middle class populations, the effect of this “balancing wheel” may have become minimized.
HOW MIGHT TECHNOLOGY INFLUENCE CENTRALIZATION & OUR COMMUNITY ATTACHMENTS?
The rise of high speed internet and related technologies may be reducing the forces that contribute to the centralization of populations. Edward Glaeser has said, in his book, Triumph of the City, that “distance is dead.” The death of distance may have major implications for cities and city life as we know it. In fact, in the wake of the Global COVID-19 Pandemic, many companies are entertaining situations where their employees entirely work remotely. In some other cases, firms employ workers who work mostly from home and only convene in the office for the most important meetings, trainings, or events. Taking this trend to the extreme, our once prized downtown’s filled with corporate offices might have to be remodeled into conference spaces that are perhaps shared by more than one firm. It is possible that many of these spaces could also be located in the suburbs. Numerous articles published over recent years have lauded the rise of small towns and satellite cities, sometimes located far away from large metropolitan areas, for exhibiting robust growth both in terms of population and jobs. Such places have risen as dispersive forces in large cities such as housing affordability, crime, transportation cost, and others have left consumers questioning their existence in the big city or even its traditional suburbs. These trends suggest that cities will continue to hollow out as the traditional office core becomes irrelevant and consumers look to smaller towns located further from the heart of the metropolitan area to seek a better quality of life.
I agree with Edward Glaeser in that we are witnessing the slow death of distance. This death will deemphasize the need to keep transportation cost within the city low, modify what we know as the typical home, and alter what many recognize as the primary function of the downtown office core. However, with the gradual death of distance we are also witnessing a pent up and long overdue rebirth of place. The desire to establish the human’s sense of place has been documented in a steady and growing stream of articles over recent years, and common realizations made during the COVID-19 safety measures have led many people to reconnect with the physical activities offered by the outdoors and nature. Although the advances propelled by the internet will come to represent a new transportation technology along with new habits for how space is consumed, the desire to belong to a place or natural area will remain. If people are to be defined as more than their jobs, then cities should be defined by more than just collections of jobs and sites for economic exchanges. Over the coming years, our cities should focus on what they did well prior to the massive office space booms that begun in the 1960s. Downtowns should work to be the “face” of their region. This includes being a place of central assembly, a neighborhood, the seat of local governments, a cultural center, a business hub, a historic showcase, a center for institutions, an intellectual community, a place for the exchange of ideas, and a desirable choice for interactions between people. The gradual death of distance paired with new technologies might drive workers towards remote locations but humanity’s innate desire to connect with a sense of place will bring people back to the city.
SOME CLOSING QUESTIONS
How can we document the forces of integration and non-integration at play in our jurisdictions?
What are some ways that we can strengthen the attachments people feel with their cities or communities?
To what extent will advances in technology encourage people to move away from cities or metropolitan areas?
With the rise of the internet, will natural areas continue to play an important role in communities?
How can cities create places in which people feel attached?
SOURCES:
Banfield C. Edward and James Q Wilson. City Politics. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and Random House, Inc, 1963.
Glaeser, Edward. Triumph of the City. New York, Penguin Group Inc, 2012.