The Plan of Chicago; loosing sight of Chicago's beauty (Blog 2)

There are many issues that Chicago and any other major city must address, such as housing and sanitation and crime. As an outsider I feel I have very little knowledge of these issues, but walking around Chicago I began to see some of the problems that Burnham may have feared when he looked to Chicago’s future. 

In his design of civic centres and parks, Burnham “urged the building of more parks and playgrounds in the city and the setting aside of natural areas in Chicago,” (145) in order to prevent people from, to an extent, going crazy in the city. I think this was an admirable and important aspect of the plan that was eventually implemented, and I could tell that people were using it for such a place of escape. 

It is difficult to believe that this peaceful scene is situated along side the busy Michigan Avenue, but as we can see it offers this citizin a peaceful respite from the speed of the city (Jenny Riley, September 2011)

Another danger in modern Chicago is people giving in to the monotony of commuting to and from work every day and not stopping to truly appreciate the beauty of Chicago. On Michigan Avenue I think this could be truly seen with the ornate, European style architecture contrasting the modern buildings that now dominate the city. Although I do not believe we can force commuters to stop and appreciate the beauty of Chicago, it was probably still a fear of Burnham’s that Chicago would just become ‘another city’ in which to conduct ones daily business. 

There is a danger that residents in Chicago may loose sight of the beauty of the city that can be found alongside the modern skyscrapers and office buildings (Jenny Riley, September 2011)

Daniel Burnham and the Plan of Chicago (Blog 1)

Given the problems of density, transportation, sanitation and the lack of civic structures that faced Chicago at the time of the plan, to say Burnham’s claim that the city should look far into the future was justified presents a difficult question. I do not think his claims were justified, but that does not mean I believe them unjustified. I believe he looked too far into the future and so neglected important issues of the present, such as addressing housing more in the plan. 

But I do not want to say that his claim is unjustified because I believe it was admirable to create such an elaborate and detailed plan in an attempt to create a feeling of community in an otherwise disjointed and isolated city. As I said in last week’s blog, I feel that Chicago is a collection of smaller cities that creates one large city, but this also creates a sense of loneliness that I believe Burnham wanted to address. It also does not hurt to look far into the future, just as long as you don’t lose sight of what is important today. 

The challenges facing Chicago today are, like I said, similar to those it faced 100 years ago; transportation, though not as dangerous as is demonstrated on page 37 of Carl Smith’s The Plan of Chicago, is still a major issue, with congestion and parking considered two of the most pressing matters in our class discussion last week. 

 This image demonstrates the extent to which transportation and traffic were an issue at the time of the plan (The Plan of Chicago page 37)

URBANISM AS A WAY OF LIFE

Louis Wirth’s definition of ‘the city’ fundamentally relies on three characteristics; a dense population, heterogeneity, and a large, permanent settlement. I think that this is an accurate, although simple, way to describe a city. If you only wish to understand the physical presence of a city (how large it should be or foe example) and distinguish it from a rural area, this is an adequate description. However, in order to truly comprehend the splendour of a modern city like Chicago, you need to consider many more levels within the city itself. 

Wirth fails to demonstrate the economical diversity of the city that can be seen when one compares the affluent neighbourhood of the Gold Coast to that of the less wealthy Cabrini-Green. The mere fact that such assorted neighbourhoods exist along-side one another is not mentioned in Louis Wirth’s work, and such a distinctive aspect of the city wants some mention in any definition of it. He also neglects to mention the actual physicality of living within the city, with little (if any) mention of congestion, pollution, the encountering of hundreds of people on the street or the availability of goods literally minutes away (with 7-Elevens and Starbucks on almost every block).  

The most interesting point that Wirth makes with reference to the urban way of life is his mention of how city dwellers experience “(weakened) bonds of kinship”(21) compared to residents in a rural community, even though frequently a city dweller may know dozens more people than a rural resident. This made me think a lot, and made me realise just how lost someone can feel when they know that many people, but may not be able to call all of them ‘friends’. 

 I know that I find myself lost, especially amongst so many cultures that are not my own, and particularly when I think just how LARGE the city is. You could even argue that a city like Chicago isn’t just one city at all, but dozens of small towns or cities enclosed in the same geographical area. The neighbourhoods are so diverse that sometimes it is difficult to comprehend that you are in the same place!

Wirth’s article was a very enjoyable read, but it I think it is stuck in the time of its publication. It reveals the fundamentals of urban life and what makes up the skeleton of a city, but misses a lot of what makes a modern city truly unique in nature.