In Urbanism as a Way of Life, Louis Wirth discusses the characteristics of the city as well as the role these characteristics contribute in the formation of an urban lifestyle. These three characteristics are high density, large size, and heterogeneous. I believe that Wirth's thoughts regarding the urban lifestyle are incredibly interesting and even call to mind much of Simmel's work that was published early in the twentieth century regarding very similar topics pertaining to urbanism.
Appropriately enough, Wirth even references Simmel at times, usually in relation to his thoughts on the differences between the frequency, depth, and significance of communications that individuals engage in depending on whether they are in a rural or urban setting. Specifically, Wirth agrees with Simmel's belief that social connections forged in cities, while more frequent, are more utilitarian in nature rather than centered around emotional closeness between individuals, resulting in a higher quantity of relationships, but of primarily lower quality.
Overall, I agree with Wirth, but not completely. While I do agree that cities are often large and densely populated, the idea of cities needing to be heterogeneous is plagued by a problem in that any grouping of people could be classified as heterogeneous if one were crafty enough in their justification. Another predicament one is faced with as a result of calling cities heterogeneous is that while they undoubtedly are so on a macro level, they often aren't on a micro level; when reduced to the level of neighborhoods, many areas are highly segregated, which Wirth does seem to acknowledge thankfully.
I think the 1938 publication year also provided Wirth with a different context than my own, in that there are more ways in which people seem to be able to form strong bonds with one another in an urban setting today. When one considers that Urbanism as a Way of Life was published roughly three decades before the civil rights movement and the concurrent and often synonymous "hippie movement," it makes sense that Wirth would hold such a perspective, as it was these movements that were responsible for providing new avenues for tight-knit social bond formation. The city's ability to foster unity have carried on throughout the years, with the city now being known as a location where subcultures may thrive with ease. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I used to frequently visit the city to see bands perform live, often seeing many of the same people at shows, resulting in very close friendships forming with regulars.
It should also be mentioned that while I was a frequent patron of various music venues in Chicago, I was also born and raised in the suburbs. This has become quite common over the years; many individuals who are not native to a city often commute to the city for work or simply for entertainment purposes. The suburbs and the suburban commuter are not mentioned in Wirth's piece, but this is understandable due to the fact that the suburbs had still not experienced the rise in prominence that occurred in post-World War II America. Populations within a city's walls are also lacking the permanence Wirth spoke of in that it seems to have become increasingly popular for suburbanites to live in the city for a period of time, only to settle down back in the suburbs later.
Despite my very mild criticisms of Wirth's criteria of what makes a city, the man does seem to have hit the mark. I believe the reason why Wirth's didn't create more requirements was due in part to the fact that every city is going to be unique in its own way and he probably felt that a more barebones definition carried a higher chance of being considered accurate several years down the road, and he was right!
