Cities and Urban Life

Relevance of organization in urban planning

Rajendra P Sharma

rpsharma@mailcity.com

.

G&S (2013): “Large cities provide unrivalled

work opportunities and cultural cultural experiences and yet…many find them

lonely and

unfriendly places.”

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tLNOH8ulN5g/Tx8J1Lmw2cI/AAAAAAAAAE0/iILvFyVZe8s/s1600/megacities.jpg

To better “zoom in” please visit:

.Urban life is at once intensely social and hopelessly anonymous

Unlike those of rural, agrarian societies (across time and space), urban

dwellers frequently interact with strangers, or vague

acquaintancesacquaintances

.

G&S (2013): “In acity or town, think about the number of times

you interact everyday with people you

do not know…”

Urbanization and urbanism are synonymous with modernity, and as such were as hotly

debated by the classical social theorists as they are today.

A useful way of evaluating urban theories is to assess the way they handle the ‘four Cs of

urban experience’:

1- culture (the built environment, belief systems, cultural production)

2- consumption (of public and private goods and services)2- consumption (of public and private goods and services)

3- conflict (over resources and development plans)

4- community (the social life and make-up of populations)

A&G (2013):

The “metropolis” in classical social theory

• ‘metropolis’ (n) = mother city (Latin) � applies to all ‘central hub’ cities of

sizes variant according to the time in history (unlike the term ‘mega city’, or

‘megalopolis’ , which is widely used for cities strictly over 10 million)

still • Hence the “metropolis sociology” of theorists writing centuries ago is still

relevant despite the huge differences in size; the metropolis

still performs similar functions

Metropolis = mētēr (mother) + polis (city)

Ferdinand Tonnies (1887):Gemeinschaft and gesselschaft

• Study of effects of urbanization on social bonds and relations, and

community solidarity

Gemeinschaft“Community bonds”

• gemeinschaft= the pre-modern, rural/agrarian way of life; strong community

ties

• very personal and often lifelong relationships between neighbors/community• very personal and often lifelong relationships between neighbors/community

members

• “Sense of duty and commitment” between them

Tonnies grew up in rural Germany, and moved to the city as a young adult

Gesselschaft“Associational bonds”

• The modern, metropolitan way of life

• People bonding through “association”; which was often “short-lived,

transitory and instrumental” (A&G 2013)

• Ties based on short-term circumstance rather than the deep, holistic bonds

of the rural way of lifeof the rural way of life

• Modern urbanites could not depend on each other in the same way as rural

folk; and relationships are means-t0-ends rather than pure and holistic

.• Metropolitan individuals develop a

“blasé attitude”

• they are disinterested and bored despite what –in cities like Berlin,

London and Paris - was the pinnacle (^point) of human advancement

• Individuals “distance themselves from each other • Individuals “distance themselves from each other

emotionally and physically”; leading to what could be seen as

coldness, unfriendliness or impersonality

.

• City life is much more “fast-paced”

• G&S(2013): “Competition prevails • G&S(2013): “Competition prevails

over cooperation and social relationships appear flimsy and brittle”

Relevance of organization in urban planning

• Local clubs

• Religious groups

• Metropolis unit

• Non-Govt. organization• Non-Govt. organization

• User group and any organized group

Individual participation is almost impossible !!

Hence there is relevance of organization in urban planning !!

Organization involve in UP in Nepal

Municipal corporation

Government line ministry

I/NGOs, semi-govt. organization, clubs

User groupsUser groups

Bilateral agencies

Multi lateral organization

UN agencies

Thank youThank you