
multiple bureaucracies. Nor could cheap and cosmetic reforms tackle the underlying
problems of
deindustrialization,
shifting global production and disappearing jobs.
With riots, flight and decay in inner-city neighborhoods, American cities seemed to
face dismal prospects in the 1980s, despite the nation’s ever-increasing urbanization. This
apparent paradox is explained by how Americans choose to live—
near
cities rather than
in them. Cities remain centers for commerce, culture, sports, media and education. Yet,
their populations risk polarization between the very poor and the rich, with
middle
classes
in enclaves or suburbs. Hence, urban institutions realized the utility of branches
outside their traditional venues—stores, multiplex cinemas, work
campuses
and new
stadiums have become as much a part of the suburban landscape as of American
downtowns. Second and third generation suburbanites might experience everyday life in
edge cities
or amidst clusters of malls, schools and work without ever going “to the city.”
Yet other trends also balance this centripetal consolidation. First, urban growth
continues to take new and creative forms as cities bring together new lifestyles and
developments in transportation, tourism and services. Houston and
Dallas
have oil and
computers,
Miami, FL
is a capital for Latin America,
Atlanta, GA
hosts strong media
and commercial centers and
Seattle
offers aircraft and computers. The search for new
opportunities also has renewed the potential of older cities, like New York’s Silicon
Alley or Philadelphia’s attempt to concentrate sophisticated medical services.
Second, the changing needs of older cities have demanded new directions in urban use
and value. Planners have created new urban public places and have re-thought urban life
in more suburban terms with individualized homes and more green space. Downtowns,
for example, may become specialized centers for culture, entertainment and meetings
among metropolitan residents, the hub of many smaller urban complexes. Recycling
historic buildings through preservation or even entire neighborhoods as urban service
centers also has created new urban foci, like Inner Harbor of
Baltimore, MD
. Other
cities have turned factories (Ghirardelli Square in
San Francisco, CA
), train stations
(Cincinnati),
post offices
(Washington, DC),
markets
and other monuments of past
urban life into new multipurpose attractions, although all stress consumption.
Residentially
gentrification
brings new people and investment into fixing up older urban
neighborhoods, from Philadelphia’s Society Hill to Nob Hill in San Francisco. These
rocesses, again, have created conflicts with those dispossessed by rising property values
or objecting to the destruction of living history in favor of a mythic/consumerist
appropriation of the past. Still, conflict is neither new or avoidable in cities, even as
people search for more just and incorporative development.
Finally since the 1970s, old and new cities have grown from both young, transient
American populations and new immigration from East and Southeast Asia, Latin
America and other nations. Koreatowns, African markets and
Latino
barrios have grown
or emerged anew in cities across the US. Twenty-somethings have created new spaces in
Boston
. Atlanta, GA and Los Angeles. Legal and illegal immigrants find safety and
familiarity in numbers, shared customs and
language,
although exploitation has been
evident within groups as well as in conflicts between them. Tensions between Koreans,
Entries A-Z 233