We will be collecting comments under this post for Lectures 3 + 4.
Lectures:
Last week we explored how the 'seed' of the city, basic dwelling, habitation, and habituation to an environment over a long term more permanent lifestyle could lead to the amalgamation of its inhabitants, the beginnings and importance of a more permanent culture, and the start of a built environment.
This week we will be expanding our view as early civilizations tried to make sense of and apply a systemic approach not only to what they saw in the sky above them, but also to organizing their own inhabitation on the ground.
On the left, a map of Ptolemaic Celestial understanding of the heavens, on the right, and early 'T and O' style map of the western world
Notes on Comments:
Like last week once you have posted your comments for the lecture, tune back in to discuss and comment on your fellow classmate's work - this is how we improve out writing! Continue commenting on the discussion, ask additional questions, email links etc.
Additional comments, questions, and discussion go towards class participation which is another component of your grade. Last week we had some great examples of this when people started asking, and responding to questions from each other.
To get this ball rolling, here's some enticement for discussion + thought:
In a world that is now global, has the significance of the city and its importance to a specific country changed...or are we totally dependent on each other for our future- economically and politically ?
All Comments are due by Friday January 22ndth by 9pm EST.
Be sure to sign your posts!!!
Helpful Note:
Please identify in your post if you are:
Lectures:
Last week we explored how the 'seed' of the city, basic dwelling, habitation, and habituation to an environment over a long term more permanent lifestyle could lead to the amalgamation of its inhabitants, the beginnings and importance of a more permanent culture, and the start of a built environment.
This week we will be expanding our view as early civilizations tried to make sense of and apply a systemic approach not only to what they saw in the sky above them, but also to organizing their own inhabitation on the ground.
On the left, a map of Ptolemaic Celestial understanding of the heavens, on the right, and early 'T and O' style map of the western world
Notes on Comments:
Like last week once you have posted your comments for the lecture, tune back in to discuss and comment on your fellow classmate's work - this is how we improve out writing! Continue commenting on the discussion, ask additional questions, email links etc.
Additional comments, questions, and discussion go towards class participation which is another component of your grade. Last week we had some great examples of this when people started asking, and responding to questions from each other.
To get this ball rolling, here's some enticement for discussion + thought:
In a world that is now global, has the significance of the city and its importance to a specific country changed...or are we totally dependent on each other for our future- economically and politically ?
All Comments are due by Friday January 22ndth by 9pm EST.
Be sure to sign your posts!!!
Helpful Note:
Please identify in your post if you are:
- Responding to Lecture 3
- Responding to Lecture 4
- Responding to the blog question (in italics above)
- Responding to a fellow student's comments (be sure to identify the person you are responding or asking a question of)
33 comments:
Joe R
Responding to Lecture 3
For thousands of years, it was fact that earth was the center of the universe with only the heavens above. This notion was conceived through imagination solely as there was no scientific evidence or experimentation to prove otherwise. In terms of cities and society, the notion of a higher power ruling over everything on earth was preached by numerous religions especially the Catholic Church. Entire cities formed around this notion and evolved as the church evolved. Cities and their structures were built for the sole reason or honoring the heavens and gods. Once scientific evidence and experimentation were conducted by individuals such as Galileo to prove otherwise, it rivaled the church and altered society as a whole. Individuals began to question the foundations of society and looked towards expanding their horizons in terms of discovering new information about life and the earth. In terms of cities, although religion and the notion of a higher being always had a powerful influence over society, cities began to transform and were no longer centered around sacred structures to honor the heavens and gods.
Joe R
Responding to Lecture 4
The development of a centralized nationalized state transformed the city of the past into the city of today in a number of ways. Cities of the past were self-reliant and usually separated themselves from other cities, communities and outside forces. When large states brought numerous cities together under one nationalized state, it brought the cities and communities together both socially and economically. Now cities all over would be connected through social as well as economic interactions specifically trade and the trade routes that trade followed between cities. This development led to the further development of roads and new communities and even cities along those roads. The economy tied in directly with the notion of a nationalized state and individuals no longer relied on their own methods of producing as much but rather began trading products between one another and even between entire cities which led to an increased rational capital-using economy. There was also a destruction of distance because over time cities began to lose their distinct separations. Cities no longer secluded themselves from the world but rather welcomed other communities in turn gradually breaking down their own walls. The destruction of cities walls led to the destruction of where cities started and ended and therefore a destruction of distance overall.
Responding to Lecture 3
I agree with the point of view that Joe R said. Before any experiments or scientific evidences, people treated all those higher power from nature which they could not understand at that time as a control power from another creatures. In different religions, they called those guys with the power, Gods. An interesting point I realized in the lecture is “the sun’s disappearance was that a huge great black blanket had been placed over the earth thus blocking the earth from the sun’s exposure”. This remind me that when I was little, the reason I heard about the moon’s disappearance is because of a bite from a God’s dog. Before Galileo published The Starry Messenger, people already noticed the shape differences of the moon during different time, but they just counted that as a part of myths. Talking about the myths, I just realized that all the description about the structures in those storied, all followed the structures of the buildings, cities, and societies we live in the real world. For example, in Buddhism, people do not only believe there’s a heaven above the sky, but also believe there’s eighteen-level hell under the ground. Moreover, all those powerful guy in the stories are all man. Different levels of the hell seems like the different floor of a building. When we created our cities and societies, did we follow by those structures in those stories or did the stories follow the real life?
Woojae H.
Responding to Lecture 3
People have been living nomadic life for a long time until they started forming cities starting to farm around where they live and developing technology in order to increase the amount of crops they can farm. After that, people started to form cities; however, they still did not have the right tools to get to know about the universe. They were very "religious" that they saw themselves right under heaven and the Earth was the center of the universe. This gives me the feeling of how they were because they really looked up the "gods" and even thought there was a "blanket" over the Earth. Shiwen's comment about moon disappearing due to the bite of god's dog sounds similar to that of blanket over the earth. It is rather naive but also very innocent and pure that I respect their view. I can imagine how disappointed people were when Galileo Galilei discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. People have been living with the conception of thinking that cities mimic heaven and they were right under where gods live. However, the truth turned out differently that people were disappointed because of the radical change in their perception of the world. Now, a city is not a miniature of the heavens, it is formed so people live with each other helping each other in needs and people can make their living at a fixed location making their lives.
Daniel C.
Responding to lecture 3
Early cities functioned as independent entities from other cities (especially nomadic tribes). They produced their own food and clothing and the like. They responded only to nature, following the laws of their gods. Also, because information technology was in its infancy there was a sense that not too much else existed in terms of realizing how many other advanced communities there were outside their own walls. That connects back to the finite idea of the universe in which cities had what they needed and knew of only a few other communities in the area. As globalization began to take hold, it manipulated the way in which we view our city in relation to others. Galileo's discovery of a possible infinite universe in which the sun, not the earth, is at the center translated to an understanding that we too are not at the center of the civilized world. Instead we rely on other cities now more and more for production and economic reasons too. We are but one start of millions, making a new globalized city.
Lecture 4 begins to speak about how walls and clear delineation of the city and the rest of the world resembled Aristotle’s perception of the universe. The city is isolated and contained in fear of outside attacks, so the citizens very rarely leave the city in their lifetime. This isolation is compared to the isolation people felt when they thought that Earth was the most important thing in the universe, and they were contained inside looking out.
As the perception of the universe expanded and changed, the structure of cities also changed. At the same time that the Earth was placed within a complex solar system within a more complex galaxy, cities were placed within larger territories which interacted with other large territories. Countries were like solar systems and the whole world was like the galaxy, and people were beginning to understand that no city is alone or should act alone anymore.
Shiwen H brought up a very interesting point. The myths about Earth and its place in the universe could have had a profound effect on how actual buildings were designed. The most notable example I can think of is Gothic architecture. This type of architecture was intensely dramatic and detailed, with religious sculptures designed into the buildings. The grand design was meant as an ode to the Gods above, reaching higher to the heavens.
I came to a different conclusion about modern architecture, though. I think the modern design is more utilitarian than ever before, since modern society is more focused on the world around us than any religious background. Society is more focused on the world around us, so architecture is more practical. Instead of building tall buildings meant only to honor God, architects have built skyscrapers with many floors that can hold people and help with the daily operations in a city.
Woojae H.
Responding to Lecture 4
The cities from the past were delineated by constructed walls to protect the citizens within from other people in other cities. Businesses were mostly between people from the same city between cities were seldom according to the lecture, and people did not leave the realm because they were not very safe outside the realm. The lecture does not cover about whether people from those time period were accustomed to using capitals to trade goods. However, I assume that trading good with other goods were common at those times.
The first change that contributed to transformation of cities of the past to those of our times according to the lecture is the development of the centralized national state. Formation of nations I suppose created nationalism that exist these days. People these days love their nations by names such as the United States of America of South Korea. If there were feeling of unity among people living in the same realm, there is a feeling of unity between sports teams such as football, basketball, and baseball. Those two look similar that it makes me think that it is natural for people to have a feeling of being united. Despite the fact that formation of nations made people have nationalism, more importantly, in my opinion, formation of nations contributed to a lot of changes. It contributed to the appearance of currency exchanges between nations, traditions that differ in every countries, and different languages being spoken by people from each nations. Speaking different languages also influences people to form certain cultural boundaries.
I assume that formation of nations were supported by the third change that was mentioned in the lecture which is the technological destruction of distance. In my opinion, as technology developed, people started to travel to other places quicker taking less time making cities larger and larger meaning that people started to perceive the world smaller. Also, I assume that perhaps people started to be able to import and export goods at great distances that made the world smaller. I think that the development of transportation had significant impacts on making the world global.
The last change mentioned in the lecture is people starting to use capitals to trade each other. I assume that capital using culture allowed people to trade goods easier and faster. Also, it allowed people to store wealth. Perhaps certain goods cannot last long time stored such as crops. They could trade the remaining goods to capitals and they can save wealth. Most importantly, transition of the economy from traditional household to capital using economy allowed the economy flow faster letting the world develop easier.
Steffanie M.
Responding to lecture four
At the end of the lecture we, the reader, are left with three reasons how/why the ancient city(pre-industrial) into the modern(post industrial revolution) city type. Of the arguments listed, I find the transition from the localized craftsman/home goods economy into the factory based wage economy to be the strongest. It was during this change in economics that factories and the mass influx of workers they employed vastly changed the landscape of cities. The evidence of how these cities were changed are well documented and in many cases the city master plans from this time period have survived to current day and so we are provided with historical documentation showing how these cities changed.
The technological destruction of distance, to me this means the reduction of time needed to physically move goods and services and how that effect has affected those goods and services. In ancient times, only high value luxury items that didn't spoil would be transported any great distance. Time and cost started to become to great for anything else. This in turn limited the potential of urban population density and forced the city to dedicate a certain amount of it's land and labor resources to the task of meeting agricultural needs, as well as imposed certain design requirements onto a city. Even here in Philadelphia, which was developed on the cusp of the industrial revolution, we see the remains of pre-industrial demands such as Broad and Market St. These roads, and their counter parts in cities such as Boston, New York, Gloucester, are hold overs from the need to bring in fresh goods, mostly fish, from the dockets and to quickly transport them to market before they spoiled. In the technological advances in the post industrial (modern) era and cities allows for goods to be transported much farther in shorter times reducing spoilage, this allows a city to reduce the amount of labor and land it allocates to meeting agricultural needs by simply importing those goods. This importation of goods also allows a city's population density grow beyond what locally produced goods would be able to sustain. This change in locally grown/transported good to imported/transported goods also changes the needs and design of a city.
Responding to the Lecture 3 - History of Cities Mirrors the Heaven
The lecture’s main argument is to substantiate the ancient religious architecture of cities. The author of the notes clearly illustrates the architectural inspiration of ancient buildings in a chronological manner. Importantly, the presented evidence seems thoughtful and candid regarding the ancient religious architecture of cities. I totally agree with the author on the state of science in the old age. The skill of critical thinking during those days was non-existence and pseudo-science was the order of the day. The prehistoric man was a primitive being, and he believed in vague evidence because the body of science was not yet instituted. I also agree on the fact that early scholars such Aristotle and his peers were philosophers and not scientists. The team’s arguments and ideas about the universe were excessively wrong. This article is a magnum opus, although with some confusing statements or arguments. For instance, the author argues that the cities of the ancient man were miniature models of the universe. At the same time, the author claims the earliest man knew nothing about the world previously. Critically, these statements are in conflict regarding their meaning. Nonetheless, it is clear that the models of cities have evolved significantly over time with the most primitive being inspired by the notions of the existence of a supernatural being.
Responding to the Lecture 4 - History of the Cities -The Centralized City
It was after the Renaissance period that the historical man started seeing the universe in the right manner. The contributions of Shakespeare, Copernicus and Galileo on a heliocentric universe were significant scientific discoveries that helped in shaping historical cities. The thesis of this lecture revolves around the implications of the newly discovered knowledge about the world and how that knowledge was used to determine the location of a city. I wholly agree with the author on the importance of literacy in the society. Complex administrative processes and legal systems that are characteristic of modern cities would be impossible without literacy. Additionally, it is agreeable that historical cities such as Mesopotamia were shaped by the availability of fertile soils and water supply. Notably, antique cities are very different from the cities of today and most historical cities were gated and situated in strategic positions. Conversely, today’s cities have no clear delineated edges.
Responding to Joe R on Lecture 3
The respondent’s take on lecture 3 is very insightful. You elucidates the facts of the lecture in a captivating and charming manner. Nevertheless, the argument is a summary of the lecture rather that a critique. Assignment instructions clearly demand the student to critique the lecture notes, not to summarize them. Furthermore, the respondent does not agree, disagree nor debates the position held by the lecture. In summary, the meticulousness of the respondent’s content is the only thing that is recommendable in the exposition
Responding to Joe R on Lecture 4
Again, no critical or argumentative debate is evident in your response to lecture 4.You summarizes the argument of the lecture. Nonetheless, the respondent’s account of the development of a national state is appropriate. Also, you clearly explains how the cities of the past are different from modern cities. While ancient cities were secluded from the outside world, cities of today are increasingly welcoming because visitors always come with something like investments or foreign exchange. All in all, the respondent’s second account is objective and fact-based.
Responding to lecture 4 +Craig W
Craig W’s responding to lecture 4 is very interesting, especially paragraph 2. I have a kind of similar idea, but looks like still a little bit different. In ancient, for West countries, religion was equal to government and it is the center of the city, just like the sun is the center of the universe that we live. For example, the cities in Italy seems like followed this rule when they were built. Churches used to be the center of the cities. The development of technology and the transformation of the economy should be the most important thing that changed the past city into the city of today. In the history of China, the most popular place in the city was always the market of the city. People had to go there to buy necessities. At the same time, the economy of the city was encouraged. Different cities are good at producing different products. People always want to good quality. Then, the trade among cities started. To bring better way to trade, people started to build the road. Cities became closer after we have cars. Now, we have globalization effect. The whole world looks like a flat place. People can talk to each other from opposite of the global without standing in front of each other. That’s amazing.
Responding to lecture 3:
The story of Galileo and and Copernicus revealing the true nature of the universe can be seen almost as a coming-of-age story for humans as a whole. Earlier in humanity, much like a child, humans believed that the universe revolved around them. They believed the night sky was actually a blanket that had little holes in it to let some sunlight in. Only after we mature, individually and as a species, do we gain a sense of perspective.
This change is paralleled by the nature of our cities. Before these discoveries, the church, much like the Earth, was the centerpiece around which the stars and planets, or people, where meant to orbit. The magnetic pull of the church, religion, was the force that drew people in. During the Age of Reason and the ensuing Age of Enlightenment, cities would begin to take on a more natural, less church-oriented form. This is how we get a city like Philadelphia which is (1) built upon a democratic grid-based system, but is (2) centered upon a government building, not a church.
Phil S.
Responding to lecture 3:
The story of Galileo and and Copernicus revealing the true nature of the universe can be seen almost as a coming-of-age story for humans as a whole. Earlier in humanity, much like a child, humans believed that the universe revolved around them. They believed the night sky was actually a blanket that had little holes in it to let some sunlight in. Only after we mature, individually and as a species, do we gain a sense of perspective.
This change is paralleled by the nature of our cities. Before these discoveries, the church, much like the Earth, was the centerpiece around which the stars and planets, or people, where meant to orbit. The magnetic pull of the church, religion, was the force that drew people in. During the Age of Reason and the ensuing Age of Enlightenment, cities would begin to take on a more natural, less church-oriented form. This is how we get a city like Philadelphia which is (1) built upon a democratic grid-based system, but is (2) centered upon a government building, not a church.
Aleandra R.
Responding to Lecture 3
In Lecture 2 we began to discuss the idea of nomadic societies gaining literacy and the overall effect this would have. Without literacy they could really only focus on survival. With literacy, they began to gain intelligence and also question everything around them. Man originally viewed themselves as the center of the universe; they thought that everything revolved around them. I believe that during this time they really hated the thought of questioning things, it was just easier for them to go with their first idea. Then again they believed in certain ideas that turned out to be untrue, so what if our society thinks we know more than we actually do? Lecture 3 talked about the people thinking that a huge black blanket was draped over the planet when it's dark outside. I've heard many 'crazy' theories about our planet and the universe, but what if some of them aren't so crazy? Galileo was thrown into jail because he thought evidence strongly favored heliocentrism: the idea that the Earth and other planets revolved around the sun. His idea was 'crazy' at the time, but we now know it to be true with supporting scientific evidence. Our solar system and the galaxy are so vast that we really can't be sure of anything we 'know' to be true. Some scientific facts are really only created by man, and relative to other ways we've found to explain the Earth. You can see that as our view of the world around us changes, cities do as well. Thousands of years from now we might find that everything we believe to be true is not, and that will give us a whole new understanding of life.
Aleandra R.
Responding to Daniel C. on Lecture 3
I really liked what Daniel C. said about early societies simply responding to nature, and following the laws of their gods. This is a perfect way to describe how I view early civilizations. They had no knowledge on how to analyze the universe, so they responded to the nature around them and formed their views this way. Nowadays, I think we take a more analytical approach to the universe. Many more people spend time/energy trying to 'figure the universe out'.
Responding to Lecture 3
In this article a city is defined as a mirror of the heavens. The author of the notes calls early man's world as a place, "Devoid of scientific experimentation, imagination and imagery are our best resources for explaining the unknown." This led to a world steeped in religious experience and bred egocentric societies early on. Advances in technology have allowed us to look not only outside ourselves but our world as well. The heavens now have names, distances, and locations that are reflected by the spectrum of unique cities that are around the world today. An example of this is the city of Tokyo. After the 40's Tokyo was split into 23 "tokubetsu-ku", these wards make up what is known as the city of Tokyo but also maintain a presence closer to cities.
Here's an article I found with some interesting cities that reflect how diverse "the heavens" have become:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19590_the-6-weirdest-cities-people-actually-live-in.html
Aleandra R.
Responding to Lecture 4
The earliest forms of cities were modeled after the early view of the universe in a sense. Cities were almost always completely isolated from each other, and people remained inside the boundaries of the city. Tall walls and other methods of isolation were used to show a boundary around a city. In a way, the tall walls represent peoples' early views of the universe. Like I previously stated in my Lecture 3 response, people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything else revolved around it. In a sense the model of the early city was the same. Each city was isolated from other cities, and they really had no sense of how big the world actually is. The walls kind of mirror their thinking on how people closed their minds off to expanding and discovering more. If we compare these old cities to present day, we can see the change in peoples' thinking. We really don't build 'walls' around our cities anymore, though we might have some type of boundary or entrance/exit. Early societies were difficult to infiltrate because the boundaries were built for protection and isolation. Our present day cities are hard to define because there's no clear lines to show where the city starts and ends. Some of our cities today merge together and it's easy to go from one city to the next. Today we're a lot more open with accepting new ideas and progressing as a society.
Aleandra R.
Responding to Steffanie M.
Stephanie brought up a good point regarding the change of cities from pre-industrial revolution cities vs. post-industrial cities. Before the industrial revolution, people had a very close minded view of the universe around them; this also reflected in the model of their cities. As time went on, people like Galileo came up with ideas that would change peoples' thinking forever. I believe that people began to open their mind to these ideas slowly, but it wasn't until after the industrial revolution that things really changed. The industrial revolution allowed people to mass produce items that they needed, and daily activities became so much easier. Cities began to flourish and were not just a place where people lived. Cities began to incorporate other aspects that we relate to today, instead of just existing for protection and shelter.
Responding to Craig W's Comment-
"I came to a different conclusion about modern architecture, though. I think the modern design is more utilitarian than ever before, since modern society is more focused on the world around us than any religious background..."
Modern architecture is very much defined by utilitarianism. Although I think modern architecture has other elements present alongside increased utilitarianism. The mindful behavior that architecture has started to incorporate has helped to redefine how we interact with the spaces around, beneath, and above our cities. Modern architecture is also reflective of the information we have been discovering about the deterioration of our planet and universe.
Responding to Lecture 3
Part of the goal of architectural and city design is to emulate natural systems in the built world; to achieve harmony with the environment. Man, since the dawn of antiquity, has held a profound respect for nature, going so far as to worship the natural world as a deity. While the wondrous awe man has received from witnessing the sheer power of the earth and the stars must have influenced his desire to mimic what he saw, nature's existence alone surely influenced man's attempts to bring order to the chaos he found himself in. It is just that- the desire for order- that spurred man to layer his environment similarly to the preexisting natural in which he dwelled. Though man's view of the universe and the history of world was extremely narrow and shortsighted, there still existed an understanding of the magnitude of scale surrounding man being vastly larger than an individual person could influence. Thus there was reassurance in the natural hierarchy, providing enough reason alone for man to emulate it. That is why, based upon the perspective that the earth was the center of the universe and man the center of life on it, the first cities were constructed in a circular model with the most elite spiritual figures residing in the center.
Responding to Lecture 4
The major changes in the form of cities throughout history up until the current, globalized contemporary era are comparable to other changes in human lifestyle, particularly the transition from a nomadic state to a permanent, agricultural civilization. Just like how the need to be self sufficient and constantly following food sources kept nomadic peoples on the move, the need to produce goods and foodstuffs as well as protect itself kept early cities rather isolated. Due to the nationalized state of our civilizations as well as the destruction of distance thanks to advanced communications technologies and transportation, our cities on longer need to be isolated, as different cities even thousands of miles away can exchange goods and services. The lecture compared early cities to organisms and contemporary cities to organs. I compare early cities to entire networks of classes and industries, while today cities are simply nodes or servers if you will in a global network of communication and exchange of ideas and goods.
Responding to Daniel C.
I agree with the comment that we are currently forming a new, globalized city. That is what I meant when I stated that cities are no longer their own network but a node in a global network. We literally can communicate instantly with people in almost any other place on earth, and we have the capability to travel anywhere on earth within 24 hours. That makes the notion of a city near obsolescence. While they still exist because of an established core of jobs and structures, the sense of tight knit municipal dependence is no longer necessary. People even go so far as to commute to other countries regularly, shattering the notion that one must live near where they work that dominated modern history up until fairly recently.
Responding to Lecture 3
Now that we as a civilization have scientific backing to the fact that we are in fact not the center of the universe, it really has greatly changed our perceptions of things and how we go about doing things. Like it was said in the article, when we did think we were the center of the universe, we structured our cities to reflect that but this is not the case anymore.It seems to be, in my opinion at least, that the more we find out how wrong we were originally about being the center of the universe, the more we as a population try to globalize our lifestyles. I think by globalizing our cities specifically, it makes us feel like we are more useful and centralized than we are in the universe. By being constantly connected, our cities are getting bigger and bigger and being more essential to our way of life. In my opinion, this seems to be humanity's way of responding to the evolution of our realization that we are a lot smaller in this universe than we had originally thought.
Responding to Lecture 4
There are three changes that caused the transformation of the city and they are:
1. The development of the centralized nation state
2. The transformation of the economy from a traditional household to a rational capital-using basis
3. The technological destruction of distace.
These three changes changed the city of the past into the modern day city because they broke down the traditional structure of a city and introduced new thoughts that make humans rethink how they want to do things and how things should be done. The introduction of a centralized nation state broke down the pre-concepted ideas that each city was its own universe and encouraged collaboration under one bigger ruling figure. This could be a good idea because it reduces a lot of the dangers that would wait outside of a single city and it would foster a peaceful relationship between multiple cities. I think the most prominent change is the dstruction of distance by technology. Technology continues to shrink our world, and because of that we are able to connect with each other more. So, with that being said, the connection turns into relationships where one city, for example, may be a great city for doing one thing and another city is great for another skill. Because of technology, these cities can connect easier and build a relationship to help each other out. This creates trading deals, exports, imports,etc. Anything that a city cannot do, they have the technology to find a city that can. So the modern-day city is less self sufficient than the cities of the past.
Phil S.
Responding to Lecture 4:
The transition from independant, isolated cities to our globalized, inter-connected network was aided greatly through the creation of nation-states. Bringing many cities and villages not only fosters innovation and the dispersal of knowledge, but it also helps cities share goods amongst one another and ensures that a city will have allies in the case of an attack. Within this realm of security, the traits that we associate with modern cities are able to evolve.
The transition from the household economy to the currency-based economy represents a drastic change in the way we work, live, and interact with other people around us. It made citizens reliant on certain specialists to obtain goods and services, and it meant that, families where more likely to purchase certain goods at a market than to produce them themselves. Additionally, it meant that the government could levy a currency-based tax on its constituents, which then could be used to finance certain projects throughout the city.
The technological destruction of distance refers to the ways in which transportation technology can drastically reduce the time it takes to travel between two distances. Again, this plays into the dispersal of goods, culture, and technology, and it would also aid in moving military troops within a nation-state.
Responding to Lecture 4
These three changes mark key developments that allowed cities to expand and grow. A centralized national state encouraged literacy. Through literacy a centralized nation could engage in more complex administration, legal systems, and more rigorous thought processes. Also, by transforming the economy into a co-dependent system, cities have been able to amass resources and forge an economy capable of supporting larger population densities. Lastly, the technological destruction of distance helped to remove the isolationism and xenophobia that distance meant to early cities. By finding ways to cut travel times, reduce risks, and create affordable services, the city began to find itself connected and engaging past neighbors.
Lecture 3
When the early people used to believe that they existed as the center of finite universe much like they treated their own cities. Each colonization was its own and did everything on its own with no communication with other cities around it. This made the living in it see the city as the center of there existence and all the other cities around them as separate much like the planets. In today's view on a city works very different in that we communicate with cities that are next to us and only continue to exist because we do so. One city alone does not make all the goods that are necessary for survival, meaning that we have to trade with other cities and form globalization. This goes back to what we know about the universe because we know our existence is present due to sun that we orbit around. Like this cities rely on other cities, states, and countries to survive and get the necessary goods we need for that survival of man. Therefor the difference between the past ad present cities is globalization and the gathering of knowledge which lead to our understanding of the universe.
Lecture 4
The development of the centralized national state transformed cities in a large way. It formed huge globalization between much larger amount of cities instead of just one. With this change one city did not have to create all the good necessary for survival within there own city. They could now trade with nearby cities or even one that were 100's of miles away. A centralized national state now had the power to distribute goods needed for survival of all cities from one place that focused on making one thing.
Transformation of the economy from one traditional household to a rational capitol using one made all the good we know of today possible. Without capitalism globalization wouldn't be as strong because people wouldn't be buying good from other places, instead they would be trying to manufacture it themselves. This creates this back and forth of people selling, buying, and distributing.
The technological destruction of distance made capitalism that much easier. Like said before cities know longer hand to make all there own goods because now whatever they needed they could simply have shipped to them in a matter of days. It increased the speed of the whole trading process making it that much easier to do.
In response to Joe R's comment I think he is very on point when he talks about religion was a basis for why evolution of a city came to be, but I think it also had something to do with the fact that people knew at the time that they would survive better as a group and knew the more skilled people they brought into the better off they would be.
Lecture 3: Out of the many lessons that man has learned from nature, I believe the greatest lesson is the understanding of respect to nature. It is out of this thought process that people have come together in order to form sustainable practices and develop new ideas. In order to live within this world we must have a great respect for the planet that we live on because the resources that we are provided for are not limitless. The idea formed by Aristotle suggest man being at the center of the universe which is a unique perspective and defiantly one that would have made the most sense upon early discoveries and understandings of the magical being that nature is. With this idea man is explained as being the reason for the universes existence, for if man did not exist would the universe go on? Obviously we have found that we are not the center, however taken from this we are able to understand that the sun and nature determine how our lives turn out. This is the center of life and the only reason we are able to exist thus we understand the importance of nature and the affects that it has on our lives. In doing so this idea of respecting nature comes back into the picture especially with instances such as hurricanes and tornadoes where man is subject to natures terrifying power. With this understanding man’s ideas were able to grow and accept unpractical practices, thus Copernicus and Galileo were able to arrive at different conclusions then Aristotle and so our knowledge was able to grow. Thus cities were able to expand, cultures grew, and knowledge of the world we live in led to many new discoveries.
I think that the technological destruction of distance has been one of the most significant factors in the change in the way cities are structured. Looking back at ancient cities, they were designed around centrality. The most elite people in society lived in the center of the city, the average people lived on the outskirts, and the city was usually walled in, protecting it from dangers on the outside but also defining the city's space and boundaries. Look at an ancient city like Rome, for example. It was built within the confines of a wall, keeping intruders out and citizens safe. The only way into the city was through gates, each gate being the beginning of a road that led to another village or city. In this type of design, with gates, walls, and defined boundaries, it is understood that people aren't going to leave the city. The city is capable of being self sustainable, and everything that a citizen of that city may need can be found inside those walls. There is no reason to leave, and so those boundaries are appropriate. As time goes on, however, the form of the city begins to take the same shape as the discovery of space and the universe. Boundaries are less apparent. Look at the formation of cities in America. The east coast of the United States is more or less a conglomeration of large cities. Though each of these cities does have their own distinct character, it is not often apparent where each city ends and the next begins. These cities are all part of a larger whole. People longer stay in one city, because each depends on each other economically and socially. Things like advancement in transportation have helped make this happen. For example, a person might work in Philadelphia but live in New York, and make a daily commute on the acela train. What once could've been days on foot is now less than an hour by train. People can more freely and easily move from one city to the other, so there is no need to delineate boundaries anymore. Cities now depend on one another. Just as we discovered with the help of the telescope that the universe is so much more than planet earth, we also discovered that the city can be much more than the centralized location cut off from the surrounding world and can expand to experience what lies beyond its extents.
Lecture 4:
As we begin to build an understanding of the evolution of ancient cities and how we arrived at the point we are in today, a great understanding of a change in power and ideals is constantly seen. The development of early cities helped bring culture together and created a confine that could house many different people and allow them to explore their creativity. As people indulged in their imaginations new innovations and concepts were formed that allowed people to understand and grow as a single culture. The comparison between old cities and organisms really stood out to me because within these organisms people worked to sustain and unify one society, one organism. In doing so they worked together to ensure that their city was sustained. This separated the growth of city relationships though because they did not really trust outsiders and thus their ideas and imaginations were limited to what they could find within their functioning organism. The development of a centralized national state helped unite these cities across one unified level in which each city was gaining something and giving something to another. This allowed for ideas to flow more fluidly and to a much greater extent, so we were able to grow. This can be compared to lecture 3 where Aristotle came up with the principle that man was at the center of everything but with Copernicus and Galileo a new understanding of world order was found. In this comparison Aristotle is much like that of ancient cities where it was one ideal for all. This is much different than Copernicus and Galileo because they promoted new ideas and allowed for man to prosper and grow much like modern cities do.
I agree with Richie S’s view of the importance of transportation being the growing point of a city to be entirely true. In order for us to sustain our lives in Philadelphia we must rely on outside help to bring foods and other necessities that we cannot provide in our city. In doing so we are faced with the importance of transportation and its impact on us, if we do not get certain foods from certain areas businesses in our city could die and with them a chain reaction of destruction could be sent spiraling out of control. Thus if we did not have the power of transportation we could not be the United States of America, states may be split like European countries and all may be governed by individual parties. In doing this we would break down the organism that is the entirety of our united nation being replaced instead by separated cities of power. Problems would break out amongst nations and we as a culture would most likely not survive, remember the Civil War? That is a perfect example of how transportation directly affects the rise to power of nations, because battles and the overall outcome of the war occurred because the north was able to gather supplies and cut off the south industries. The lack of northern industrialization in the south ultimately ruined their efforts.
Post a Comment