The City And The Cosmopolitan Canopy: An Analysis

Just like it is easy to judge others for what wrong doings they’ve done, it’s easy for us to look at our cities and notice the flaws they have. Transportation and other infrastructures are often first to take the blame for the failure of our cities here in the U.S. Gently winding freeways that cut through impoverished neighborhoods, and bus stops with only a stick with a sign that says “Bus Stop” on it are good examples of ways that our current infrastructure can take the blame. What happens when we look at our cities from another perspective; the positive one. What have we done as residents and politicians to better our cities and help them flourish instead of decay?
The problem has been recognized and more than just planners and lawmakers are noticing the ways that our cities aren’t functioning. One way that our city here in Grand Rapids has struggled with for years is the
idea of a neighborhood and community development. A great example of a way that residents of Grand Rapids and the church have taken up the responsibility on themselves is the organization New City Neighbors. We visited New City Neighbors during April of this semester. It was interesting to learn about their organization and I have never seen anything quite like it. They provide employment to the youth in their neighborhood. Not only do they provide employment, but the opportunity to make money, while learning valuable work-related skills that will give inexperienced young people a head start when they are ready to apply for jobs and colleges. By reaching out into the community, the New City Neighbors organization is able to sustain an urban farm in their neighborhood, as well as maintain a bakery and will soon be adding a cafe that is staffed with youth from the neighborhood and overseen by full-time employees that, coincidentally, also live in the neighborhood.
Outside of Grand Rapids, sociologists and other professions are analysing cities and pointing out the ways that they are succeeding. Edward Glaeser calls the importance of social interaction of urban dwellers to the attention of his audience in Triumph of a City. Glaeser’s main argument is that cities are greener (more environmentally friendly) than one might think. It is often said that the carbon emissions person by person, are much lower in Manhattan, NY than those who live in suburbs and rural areas throughout the nation. Glaeser puts forth an emphasis on social interaction in addition to the effects our cities are having on the environment. He argues that “face-to-face contact leads to more trust, generosity, and cooperation than any other sort of interaction,” Triumph of the City (p.35). In class it was discussed how suburban communities can seem cold and residents don’t feel that they are part of the community at all. Suburbs were also assumed that residents would drive home from work, drive straight into their garages and never set foot in their front yards, streets, or front porch areas. These are all places where interaction with neighbors is most likely to occur. Glaeser has a good argument. Suburban residents are consistently less happy with the place they live than residents that live near traditional, core city neighborhoods. With the arguments about the importance of social interactions introduced by Glaeser, and the assumptions about suburban life in the U.S. it is an easy conclusion, then, that to be happier in a community one needs to have face-to face social interaction that would be much more common in a mixed-use, highly dense neighborhood like a borough of New York or a neighborhood in Grand Rapids. There are efforts in the Grand Rapids area, and all around the nation to bring back the neighborhoods close to the central business district of major and minor cities.
However, it would be foolish to say, revitalization doesn’t come without consequences such as gentrification, residential displacement, and property value increases.

3.) The Triumph of the City and The Cosmopolitan Canopy are very different books, written by authors from different disciplinary backgrounds.
However, the case could be made that the two books have complementary arguments-- how so? Feel free to introduce the books then discuss how they might have a
synergy.

The Cosmopolitan Canopy describes the center city in Philadelphia, PA as seen by Elijah Anderson.
The main observations that Anderson points out to his audience, is the synergy between the racial and ethnical groups, and the social norms that occur between them. Anderson observes the cooperative interactions as well as the social challenges that each individual encounters daily, to complete the Cosmopolitan Canopy that is Philadelphia.
Triumph of the City has a positive focus towards the too frequently dismissed efficiency of the city. Glaeser sheds light on the ways that our cities are more environmentally friendly than they might give off. Cities are far more resourceful when it comes to infrastructure, transportation, land use, social interaction, and the overall well-being of
humanity.
These two books are very different by nature. Anderson writes from the perspective of a social analyst; a sociologist. While Glaeser writes from a perspective of economics and efficiency. Even though their ideas do not originate from the same place, their final thoughts on the city are quite similar. They both argue that the city is a healthy environment for people and not a harmful one, as U.S. citizens have been taught to think for so long. Initial thoughts of the city might be garbage in the streets, fumes filling the air, people in their own worlds bustling from one location to another and homeless people lining the sidewalks. These things can be found in most urban centers, however, it is argued by both Anderson and Glaeser that these things aren’t so bad. They aren’t bad at all; they are actually good. The fumes in the air downtown account for 30 people on a public bus, instead of just 5 people that create amount of fumes 40 miles away in the suburbs by their individual cars. The carbon footprint overall goes up in urban centers, however, the average footprint per person goes extensively down as the density goes up. Running into people on the sidewalk is a good thing. We have been tricked into thinking it is awkward and should be avoided. As awkward as it may be, it is social interaction. As humans, it is argued that we need human interaction to thrive as a society. Social interactions in suburbs are largely made in enraging traffic jams out in the suburbs where no one can judge you for cursing them out from the comfort of your own vehicle; rather than a more generous and kind, “Oh, I’m sorry”, “Oh it’s no problem,” interaction on a busy sidewalk. We have created the city and we should take our own advise and not stray too far from what we already know-- cities work, and density is good. Glaeser and Anderson argue the sooner we go back to the basics, the better off our society will be financially and socially.