Three hundred years ago a handful of town dwellers lived in a few scattered locations along the Atlantic coastline of what is now the United States. In the early years of this century, over 50 percent of the population of the United States still lived in rural areas. Today, however, the United States is a nation of urban dwellers. Almost 80 percent of the national population lives either within the formal boundaries of cities or in the huge suburban rings (clusters of communities socially and economically connected to the cities) which surround them. More than two hundred of these metropolitan regions now make up the everyday setting of American life.
The influence of cities in modern America is extensive. Thanks in part to urban-based national news media, in a country in which only two people in 100 now live on farms, the power of cities to influence life far beyond their borders is very great. From urban centers, through suburban communities, into the smallest and most distant rural villages flow many social and economic values, ways of making a living, clothing styles and manners, and a modem technological spirit. As a result, many of the once sharp distinctions that could be made between rural and urban ways of life no longer exist. The geography may differ between city and country, and social and political attitudes may still vary, but the forms of living and working are remarkably similar.
How did this come about and what does it mean for the quality of American life today?
The original North American colonies were regarded by the mother countries of Britain, Holland and France primarily as sources of raw material from field, forest, ocean and mine, and as potential markets for finished goods manufactured in Europe. While this approach required rural and wilderness settlement, it was necessary, at the same time, to establish small towns in the colonies as administrative centers to control the emerging trans-Atlantic trade. These towns were gathering places for artisans and shopkeepers who served the agricultural hinterlands. In the large and frightening wilderness, the towns provided security and also served as social centers.
Eventually, with increasing numbers of European settlers arriving in the New World, coastal cities – the largest of which were Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston, South Carolina – came into being, and their economic and social influence stretched into extensive rural backlands. At the same time, as port cities, they rapidly grew to be flourishing centers of international commerce, trading with Europe and the Caribbean.
By 1660, Boston contained about 3,000 people. One of its inhabitants described it as a “... metropolis ... [with] two handsome churches, a market place and a statehouse. The town is full of good shops well furnished with all kinds of merchandise – artisans and tradesmen of all sorts.”
New York (then called New Amsterdam) was founded in 1625 by the Dutch West India Company, which exported furs, timber and wheat. Captured by the British in 1664, New Amsterdam was renamed New York. Because of its favorable geography, it soon became an important trading port. By 1775, its population was about 25,000.
William Penn, who planned the city of Philadelphia, believed that a well-ordered city was necessary to economic growth and moral health. He wanted to build a “green country town” which would not be sharply cut off from the surrounding forest and farmlands. Inside the town were markets, residential housing, small factories, churches, public buildings, recreational areas and parks. Fanning areas would be on the periphery but close enough to be accessible to the city dwellers.
Penn’s ideas were widely copied in bis day. An echo of them can be heard in contemporary planned communities which preserve parks and open spaces within a town’s boundaries.
Most American towns of this early period featured open spaces alternating with built-up areas. Much free land was available, and, as fewer than 10 percent of the people lived in the towns, few opposed their growth. By the middle of the 18th century, however, many people opposed this growth because the towns had begun to seem too large and crowded. In 1753, the newspapers printed a debate which seems very similar to the arguments of today. The positive view of cities was expressed by a writer who argued that the economic specialization of cities led to increased wealth for both city and farm dwellers:
“... different handicrafts ought to be done by different persons, that (such) work might be done to perfection, which would be a considerable profit to the country...and to those who are proficient in the handicrafts. [Specialization] would cause an extraordinary market for provisions of all kinds ...”]
The contrary view of cities was expressed in an argument, dating back to antiquity, and reflecting a strong belief in the virtues of an agrarian life in the United States, which portrays cities as places which undermine self-sufficiency and encourage meaningless social activity and moral decay:
“... Every town not employed in useful manufacture...is a dead weight upon the public ... When families collect themselves into townships they will always endeavor to support themselves by barter and exchange which can by no means augment the riches of the public... Another consequence of the clustering into towns is luxury – a great and mighty evil, carrying all into ... inevitable ruin.”
By 1750, the larger cities were dominated by a wide range of commercial and craft activities. A corresponding range of social groups developed: from an economically and socially dominant merchant and administrative class to a middle class of artisans, shopkeepers, farmers and smaller traders. On the edge of society, groups of the poor and dispossessed scrambled for an economic foothold, and were sometimes dependent upon charity.
Culturally, the colonies were outposts of Britain. The colonial cities were visited by touring actors and musicians and enriched by the development of schools, libraries and lecture halls. All of this increased the differences between city and country life and contributed to the importance of the American city as an initiator of social change. In terms of administration, the development of towns created a dense web of social, economic and governmental structures and regulations. However, the forms of municipal government varied greatly from place to place. In New England, the town meeting prevailed. This was a gathering of all citizens to discuss common concerns, and was an outgrowth of Protestant leader John Calvin’s ideas about providing for representative government in a religious community. This form of community government continues today in the small towns of the Northeast. Councilmen were first elected to govern New York City in 1684. In contrast, the city of Charles Town (now called Charleston), in South Carolina, had no local representatives, but was governed by the State Assembly.
The War of Independence (1775–1783) was largely brought about by the grievances of city dwellers. Strict limitations imposed by the British on manufacture and trade, and the British Parliament’s repeated levying of taxes without prior consultation with the colonists were widely perceived as unjust and punitive measures. Furthermore, one hundred years of inter-city trade had forged a sense of nationhood. The famous Boston Tea Party, during which colonists destroyed tea imported on British ships rather than pay taxes on it, expressed the colonists’ frustration and their growing sense of national unity.
The war secured political independence for the United States, but economically, the new nation was still dependent upon the trading patterns that had developed over a century. The country supplied raw material and imported finished goods. This situation lasted until the War of 1812 (with England), during which great suffering occurred as a result of the British blockade of American ports. Even those Americans who had earlier resisted the development of a larger manufacturing sector and the growth of cities now changed their minds.
Thomas Jefferson, president of the United States from 1801 to 1809, had written in 1800 that, “I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man.” However, after 1812, he wrote, “We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturist.” Economic growth and independence, were necessary to guarantee political liberty however undesirable the growth of manufacturing cities might be.
Some of Jefferson’s contemporaries had even earlier chosen to view the cities from the positive rather than the negative perspective and to turn their practical intelligence to the improvement of city life. Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia was one of these:
“I began now to turn my thoughts to public affairs, beginning with small matters – our city had the disgrace of suffering its streets to remain long unpaved so that it was difficult to cross them. By talking and writing on the subject, I was at length instrumental in getting the street paved with stones – all the inhabitants of the city were delighted.”
At the time of the War of 1812, less than one in 10 Americans lived in cities. By the end of World War I (1914–1918), one in two did. In 1812, American cities had experienced little of the overcrowding and decay of European cities of that time. Within a few decades, however, the very rapid growth of urban population gave American cities all of the unpleasant qualities long associated with older cities everywhere.
This growth can be traced to four causes: rapid industrialization, with its ever-increasing demand for workers; the relentless construction of roads and railways making easier the movement of goods and people from, to and through the urban manufacturing centers, a steady stream – at times a flood – of immigrants fleeing war, persecution and poverty in their countries of origin and concentrating in America’s major ports of entry, and farm workers displaced by machinery or discouraged by low wages, making their way to a supposed brighter future in the cities.
Boston’s population increased from 43,000 in 1820 to 250,000 in 1870. New York’s population went from 124,000 in 1820 to 942,000 in 1870; Philadelphia’s population rose from 64,000 to 674,000 in the same period, and Chicago’s population climbed from 0 to 299,000. During the same period, the ratio of urban dwellers in the much expanded national population rose from eight percent to 25 percent. This was also the period of westward migration, which settled the territory from Chicago to California. By the end of the 19th century, the United States was dotted with large and small cities. These were bound together in a continent-wide web of social and economic relations made possible by the building of road and rail systems. From the 1820s to the 1880s, changes occurred so rapidly that city governments struggled to cope with them.
By 1830, New York had gained a reputation, which it still holds, as a place of great motion and constant activity. The city was considered to be the showcase of American modernism. At the same time, New York experienced archaic sanitation, typhoid and dysentery epidemics, contaminated water, severe poverty, insufficient housing and schools, and an overwhelming influx of immigrants. Juvenile crime was so widespread that in 1849 New York’s police chief devoted his entire annual report to the subject. Garbage filled the streets and, until the 1860s, bands of pigs were typically let loose to roam as scavengers in all the larger cities.
The immigrants came from practically every country and area of the world, though the majority of the earlier wave (1830–1870) were from northern and western Europe and most of the later wave (1880–1920) came from eastern and southern Europe. These immigrants crowded into the cities, often living together in distinct communities, or ethnic neighborhoods demarcated by language, religious and cultural differences. Many of these enclaves – less well-defined and less separated from the surrounding culture – still exist today.
Most city governments were characterized by a spirit of laissez-faire (let people do as they please). City government leaders saw their role as one of maintaining civil order, not as engaging in city planning. Generally, as compared with many other industrial countries, this attitude toward planning is still the rule. The American emphasis on individual freedom argues against central regulation and management.
Between 1880 and 1920, many urban problems found at least temporary solutions. Movement to bring about social, economic and political reform arose in all the large cities. Collectively, these reform activities came to be known as the Progressive Movement. The same creative impulses that were transforming industrial production were turned to the social problems of the new cities.
Public health programs were started and groups were founded to offer help to the poor. Public school systems were enlarged and strict qualification standards for teachers were set. Government reform was brought about partially by a system of promotion for public employees based upon merit rather than upon political favoritism.
Housing quality laws were passed. Agencies were created to teach language and job skills to millions of immigrants. In addition, there were many technical innovations that improved the quality of city life. These included the electric light and the electrification of machinery, water and sewage systems, the trolley car and subway, and the elevator and skyscraper.
By the 1920s, it seemed that the American city was finally gaining the ability to solve its many problems.
By about 1918, half of the United States population lived in cities and metropolitan areas; by 1990, almost 80 percent lived in such places. Strong economic and social currents encourage the continued concentration of the urban population which otherwise might disperse into more sparsely settled areas. The creation of large metropolitan markets for goods, services and jobs acts as a magnet for further growth. In addition, as farming has become more mechanized over the last half century, increasing numbers of unneeded farm workers have followed those who earlier sought better lives in urban areas. There are many activities which can only thrive in central locations with large populations. These include manufacturing, business and government administration, large-scale cultural and retail activities, and a whole host of service occupations.
Despite this, many central city areas have experienced a decrease in population since the mid-1960s, as suburbs grew. This loss is not the result of people’s returning to live on farms or in villages. It is a product of Americans’ increasing prosperity and of their desire to own a piece of land.
The growth of American cities between 1860 and 1960 has always been viewed in the United States with feelings of both pride and dismay. The city is a product of the machine age; it is a creation of the industrialization which produced much of the country’s wealth and strength. Much that is best and most innovative in education, culture, and political and social thought results from the intellectual exchange and excitement which city life makes possible. On the other hand, poverty, overcrowding, social conflict and criminal violence are also much more common in cities than in rural areas. Demands for social services which go beyond the ability of the cities to provide have, over time, created problems which make living in the cities less attractive.
The response of many city dwellers has been to relocate from the city center to less heavily populated areas at the edge of the city. These areas, known as “suburbs,” have combined elements of both urban and rural living, and have blurred the dividing line between city and countryside. Many business and manufacturing firms have moved to these suburbs, attracted by lower taxes, low land prices, and the growing labor pool and retail markets there.
Older distinctions between city and suburb, central business district and suburban shopping area, and even city slum and single home residential district are not very useful today. This is because these places are no longer relatively independent. The suburban rings around all central cities must be regarded as part of the urban structure. Central cities and their suburbs together form metropolitan regions and must be considered economic and social wholes. Highways have been constructed to make travel from city to suburb easier, and the provision of social services has been extended, so that living in a suburb is nearly as convenient as living in a city, and yet the problems of overcrowding and crime are much less serious.
Meeting the needs of these expanding outer rings of metropolitan areas requires more complex systems of urban government. A variety of urban governmental forms, often distinguished by whether they are headed by an elected individual (mayor), a hired manager or a council of elected officials, is being tried to determine which is most effective at meeting modem urban/suburban needs.
Also as a result of the expansion of these suburban rings, many metropolitan areas have grown so large in recent decades that they have overlapped, and have begun to merge. This new urban network has been called “megalopolis” by French geographer Jean Gottman. He identified the largest of these as occupying an area on the Atlantic seaboard from north of Boston, through New York, south to Washington, D.C. – “Bosnywash.” This megalopolis contains more than one-sixth of the entire United States population. It is bound together by many economic and social relationships. It is estimated that by the year 2000, 80 percent of Americans will live in 28 or so of these megalopolises.
As many of America’s urban dwellers have moved to the suburban rings in search of greater privacy, cleaner air and less social conflict, a pattern of urban living has emerged which is in sharp contrast to that in cities in other industrialized countries. Elsewhere in the world because of the advantages which city life can offer, city centers – or inner cities – are regarded as the most desirable living space and are occupied by the most affluent groups. In the United States, many in the wealthy and the middle class have moved to the periphery. As a result, cities have lost tax money that these groups paid to provide needed services. The lessening of services further encourages those who can afford to move outside the city limits to do so, and the city centers are perceived as among the least desirable areas to live.
This does not mean that those areas are unoccupied. It means that, because of the low rents, newly arrived groups, the members of which are the least educated, least skilled, poorest and least adapted to urban life, move first into the most undesirable living space near the center of the city. Who are these groups?
An important source of urban population growth, especially since 1945, has been the migration to cities of black Americans and Hispanics. Many of these newcomers had been farm workers whose livelihood was lost through the mechanization of farms. They followed the trail of earlier migrants to the city, expecting to find semiskilled factory and service jobs.
Unfortunately, their migration occurred when economic changes were causing a loss of such jobs, many to other countries. The consequence is that all the larger American cities have experienced an increase of relatively unskilled, poor people for whom jobs are not readily available. However, as these people gain skills, get jobs and become more affluent, they, in turn, move outward and their places are taken by a less affluent and more rootless population.
These are only general tendencies and there are many exceptions. For example, during the past two decades cities such as New York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco have accomplished major “urban renewal” projects, rebuilding and renovating huge tracts of the central city area, and thus once again attracting businesses and more affluent groups to settle there. In many cities young middle class business and professional families have returned to deteriorating neighborhoods and restored the economic and cultural vitality of the areas. Though it probably represents only a minority trend, this is a hopeful sign for the American cities.
It is only to be expected that the enormous century-long growth of cities should have left many unsolved problems. Most of these problems were not foreseen. Probably they could not have been. Many are the consequences of successes of one sort or another. The noise and congestion of automobile traffic, for example, is a result of almost universal car ownership. Cars fill many city streets which were intended for horse and foot traffic.
The federal government has been deeply involved in the fate of the cities since the economic depression of the 1930s. Before that, the role of Washington had simply been to coordinate local efforts. In recent years, the federal government has assisted city governments in coping with the increased costs of services, the loss of tax revenues and the poverty of many residents. In general, ups and downs of the national economy can have a profound effect on city life, and the cities need help to lessen the impact of those ups and downs. In 1965, a Department of Housing and Urban Development was created in the federal government to manage programs concerned with community development and housing needs.
City administrators have tried in recent years to strengthen their abilities to organize the delivery of services. Mayors in many cities have been given wider powers to cope with the magnitude of the problems with which they are faced. One reform effort is the attempt to create metropolitan-wide governments.
Mass production and distribution of necessary goods are best accomplished when many people live together in a community. In this sense, the city is a product of industrialization and trade – the foundations of the modem American economy. Americans live in cities from economic necessity and a desire to enjoy the social and cultural advantages cities offer. At the same time they yearn to own a separate piece of land, to be closer to nature and to be free of the limitations imposed by living too close to others. This dichotomy has been made more difficult by America’s extremely rapid change from a rural to an urban society and by the multinational nature of the American society, in which members of many different ethnic groups find themselves living very close to one another – and trying to tolerate and accept one another’s different ways of living – in the huge cities of the United States.
The social problems that are products of the rapid growth of urban populations will be alleviated as more and more creative approaches to urban living are found. Urban planning and renewal with a central consideration for human well-being – an unaffordable luxury in the early stages of industrialization – have become the standard in America’s post-industrial phase. The outlook for America’s cities and for the quality of life for the nearly 80 percent of the American people who live in urban settings is hopeful.