The Plan of Chicago: parks importance/movement

"Density of population beyond a certain point results in disorder, vice, and disease, and thereby becomes the greatest menace to the well-being of the city itself. Natural scenery, on the other hand, furnishes the contrasting element to the artificiality of the city, a refuge, where mind and body are restored to a normal condition, and we are enabled to take up the burden of life in our crowded streets and endless stretches of buildings with renewed vigor and hopefulness." pg101

In our last class we talked about The Plan of Chicago and the urban parks and playground movement. The question of whether parks are a necessity to urban life was put to the test. Some disagreed and believed that it is not so significant that its absence would create disorder or affect residents so drastically as mentioned in the above quote. However, I argued that I believe it is essential to have some sort of refuge whether it is artificial, man-made, or natural. Of course it is difficult to come to a consensus because we do possess these sites and are unaware of how living without them would truly change or affect our views.

So why do I agree with the above quote? As an environmental studies minor this topic has been a huge debate in my environmental courses. Parks, playgrounds, open fields, or any space that reminds us of a comfortable natural surrounding tends to have a positive affect on us. I believe that these places remind us of being somewhere else away from our worries, work, and the fast paced clock that we live by. I know we have all walked on the streets of downtown Chicago. Look back to a day when we took a tour as a class. Do you remember the crowded sidewalks, countless promoters trying to get your attention, the struggle to get to the other side of a street before the light changes, and people pushing beside you on foot, bikes, or skates? It's definitely a rush that you must be ready and understanding to. Now try to look back to those very few areas that were just an open space filled with people sitting, talking, reading, sleeping...relaxing. These place are not hidden, instead they are right in the middle of that fast paced commotion I just described. However, the mood is completely different. It is inviting, warm, and looks enjoyable. I tried to imagine the city without those few locations. If I only saw the tall metal, brick, or stone buildings surrounded with crowded streets and sidewalks that offer NO place for a breath from that rush I think my whole attitude towards the city would change. Everyone needs a place, that isn't their home, where they can take a break from the city life. Even if you never decide that you will use those parks or open spaces you at least have that option to take on that opportunity.  :)

Urbanism As A Way Of Life- Sheeba Mays

   Wirth described urbanism as a way of life that consist of many characteristics. Those characteristics were: a large and dense area with permanent settlements of heterogeneous groups. Do I believe that this still holds true today? I think it depends on everyone's personal perception of urbanism. I do agree that urban life is dense and is settled with a large group of heterogeneous residents. However, when I think of the city I do not see a large area. Instead I only think of the downtown area or the core commercial/work area for a particular location. In those specific spaces it is heavily dense and packed with residents,workers, tourists, and commuters. Therefore, I do agree with most of his characteristics in terms of density and settlements of heterogeneous groups. 
I can definitely argue that there are some essential features within city living that Wirth has left out.
    
     The first feature that I believe is very essential to note is the  fast pace environment in the city. With the dense population and a variety of people flowing in the city streets things can get very crowded and overwhelming for someone who is not use to that type of organized chaos. The environment is fast pace because of the congestion and the fact that there are so many people with their own agendas. For example: people on their way to work in cars, trains, buses or even just tourists trying to find a specific restaurant or architectural monument can all make the environment seem rushed. 
      The second and last essential feature that Wirth didn't mention is the spatial structure of cities. City spatial structure is almost always different than that of suburbia's spatial structure. What I mean by spatial structure is the level of changes in culture, environment, and social-class within a neighborhood or even a block. The example we used in class was Chicago city blocks vs. Naperville blocks. When in Naperville you can walk a few blocks or even drive a few miles from your location and still see almost the same environment. However, in the city you can walk a block and be in a completely different environment. The cultures, social-class, and physical settings can change drastically just in a few steps. 


    I really enjoyed this reading because it got me thinking about the differences of city and suburban life. Because I have experience being a resident in both locations it is great to actually be able to sit down and compare the two lifestyles. Though I did not agree with everything Wirth had to say I was able to see that there are many different viewpoints of urbanism as a way of life.