the new urban century

In the 16th century, two percent of the world's population (500 million) lived in cities. Over the course of the four centuries that have passed since, that percentage has increased by over 30,000 percent. This means that more than 50% of the global population in the 20th century has been urbanized. Not only has the global desire to live outside of the proverbial "city" diminished over the past few centuries, the means to do so are as fleeting as the residence who, for economic reasons, are forced to retreat to the urban sprawl. But cities haven't changed, have they? Aren't they still the same dirty places that breed crime with pollution to create civil unrest? In a sense... yes. Health is still a major issue. Congestion is still an issue. All of the issues that have notoriouly plagues the urban landscape since the first city still plague the cities of today. And yet, cities have never been more overpopulated. They have never been more popular. And for good reason - the benefits of living in cities (the convenience of everything, the tight-knit community, the numerous opportunities for self-improvement and advancements in the working world) will always, to the majority of the global population, outweigh the negatives. But... is this urbanization a good thing? What about the health problems that plague the slums? What about rural communities? What happens when the city is all that there is?

I recently came across two interesting, and opposing, takes on the urbanization of both the nation, and the global community.

In the first article I read, written by John Blake of CNN, the reporter establishes the process of "new urbanizing," quoting experts who claim that everything about "old" cities, and the "old city" way of life - has to go. Gone are "sprawling interstates, suburban living, long car commutes." The new urban century is "sidewalks, bike paths and parks." In essence, this sounds perfect. A more green community, catered towards the young urban professional who bikes to work, drinks from a reusable plastic water bottle made entirely of recycled materials, the individual who wouldn't be caught dead owning a car, let alone driving one. This is the new urban utopia - the ideal, thriving downtown district that branches out to high rise apartments and deep-buried shopping malls and public transportation. (But let's not forget that public transportation is scheduled to make a shift to high occupancy light rails - it's the future, after all).

However, while the new American vision for city living is, ideally, focused on people, and not automobiles and pollution... it's still a vision. The problem with the "new urban century"... with any vision of urbanization, lies within the solutions that the promoters claim to have found. The focus on people is a step in the right direction, to be sure. However, the facts still stand - skyscrapers will keep reaching to the sky, and consumer life will still sink (literally) into the ground. That is, until the cities spread outward - continuing to construct the massive living community for the middle-class American - the suburbs. While the vision of future cities focuses on people, in terms of transportation and bike lanes and pedestrian-focused street plans - all fantastic ideas - it still fails to take into account the one major issue that all cities face: space. No matter what the "goal" is, said goal will always be encumbered by the fact that cities spread - growing away from the crime-ridden, heavily polluted, poverty-stricken "inner-cities, " the very inner-cities that the same urban professionals who fuel the wheels of this new people-focused urbanization pretend don't exist. Thus, the suburbs are born - a wonderful mix of blue sky and steel, grass and pavement, power plants and solar panels.

But what about those inner-cities? What about the countless individuals who inhabit them? Do we give up on the inner-city and allow it to collapse on itself in order to make room for the "new" city? And what about the individuals that fear the outward spreading of the "city way of life?"

The second source I came across dealt with this very issue. Professors and students at UC Berkeley held an event that focused on urbanization and the deteriorating health of the inner city. In short, the fact is - this problem of poor-hygiene and sub-par health conditions hasn't gone away, and will not go away anytime soon. While the panel regarding the health concerns of inner cities can easily acknowledge these problems, and come up with theoretical solutions - the fact still stands that these problems are going to remain problems until the theoretical becomes the real. This... well, this can be a long while out. And for those that are worried about the spread of cities - the fact that cities are literally built upon the ashes of what was once nature, those concerns are just as valid. It's a new century to be sure...

As for my self, I fall under the countless individuals who live the suburban "dream," and think nothing of it. I like my lifestyle. I like my commute. I like my nature. But isn't this the problem? Isn't complacency with the "middle" the root of the conversation? I believe it is. Those that are "in" the city want to be IN the city. Those that are "away" from the city want to be far AWAY from the city. The two polar groups don't want this middle-community - they don't want to travel any farther than a bike lane will allow, and they don't want to travel any closer than a trip in a truck will suffice. To the extremists, there is no need for the regulated suburban neighborhood - the perfectly fine, livable middle ground. But for myself, and the numerous other suburbanites, we are just fine. The problem, as I see it, will inevitably arise when "just fine" encroaches on one group more than another. I would love to see the vision for new urban communities become a reality, just so long as there is still room for suburban life and rural life. Once that problem, along with the problem of the deteriorating inner-city, is diminished, then, I feel, we will truly have an urban century worth writing, talking, and dreaming about.

"I don't believe there's a challenge anywhere in the world that's more important to people everywhere than finding solutions to the problems of our cities. But where do we begin... how do we start answering this great challenge? Well, we're convinced we must start answering the public need. And the need is for starting from scratch on virgin land and building a special kind of new community that will always be in a state of becoming. It will never cease to be a living blueprint of the future, where people actually live a life they can't find anywhere else in the world."

- Walt Disney, on EPCOT

redemption

I have always been interested in stories about individuals who "find themselves" as a result of drudging through difficult situations. To go into the wilderness and come out a better individual. To be deep in whatever hell [you] may be trapped in, and return the wiser and stronger. To be redeemed, or restored, is a gift that I think we all strive for in some form or fashion. No matter what, no matter how we've "fallen," or even how far we may fall, most of us, if not all, can relate to struggle, hardship, and setback. For whatever reason, it's the downfalls in life that are so relevant, a universal common ground. That's why the proverbial "underdog" is so popular. That's why Christians shout, "We shall overcome." Because, in the end, we all have something to overcome. The where and how "we" overcome that something... that's the stuff that makes for a great story.

Every Bruce Banner has his unbearable anger. Every Peter Parker has his Mary Jane. Every hero has his downfall - but that's what makes heroes so great, isn't it? Who wants his/her hero to be perfect? Sure, we want them to be "better" than us - to give us something to look up to, and to aspire to, but do we want them to be perfect? I would venture to say that no, we don't. We don't want someone who is so removed from the realities of life. We want our heroes to be individuals we can relate to. We want our heroes to go through the same struggles we go through. We want our heroes to face their downfalls head-on, and to come out on top. It's not the power that we admire. It's not the differences that make a hero a HERO. It's the common struggle, the sameness, that aspect that allows us to say, "I've been there too, he (or she) is just like me."

The truth of the matter is, we all have our own "wilderness." We have all had to wander. We've all had to fight. And if we haven't, we will. Above all, it's the hope of overcoming that keeps even the worst of struggles from getting us down. Hope... now that is a powerful thing.

I recently came across two incredible stories that illustrate how powerful redemption can be. The lives of Kenneth Hartman and Stan "Tookie" Williams, two individuals who were marred by the decisions that overcame them and overcame the consequences of their decisions, serve as perfect examples of the archetypal "wilderness story."

(You can find all of my bookmarks regarding these individuals @ delicious.com/lutz24)

Kenneth Hartman has served 30 continuous years in the California prison system for killing a man when he was 19 years old. He spent the beginning part of his life-sentence proving that he deserved to be behind bars - doing drugs, brutalizing his enemies, getting thrown into solitary confinement, and other nefarious deeds. Remarkably, he turned his life around. After entering a relationship, while still behind bars, he began to realize that there is more than what he was aspiring to. An incredible tale, Hartman dropped all of his debauchery, took classes, got transferred to new prisons, got married to his girlfriend, had a child (through conjugal visits), he published articles, he helped create an Honors System for prisoners willing to uphold strict rules, and authored books. His story proves that even the most horrendous men, the men that society strives to forget, can invest themselves in daily life, turn their stories around, and come out on top.

The second story that I came across is that of Stanley Williams, or, how he is better known, "Tookie." Stan "Tookie" Williams, along with friends from South Central Los Angeles, California, founded the notorious street gang, the "Crips." He was convicted of four murders, over the course of initial robberies - a convenience store worker, and two Los Angeles motel owners and their daughter - and was sentenced to death in 1981. He spent the majority of his life, from 1981 to 2005 (the year that he was executed) in the California state prison system. Over the course of his life-sentence, he aimed to redeem himself, and wrote a series of children's books disavowing gang violence. He was nominated five times for a Nobel Prize for peace and four times for a Nobel Prize for literature.

Two men who were beaten down by the decisions they had made. Two men who decided to turn their lives around, to come out of the wilderness that much more the better. Two men who were redeemed.

"It's kind of fun to do the impossible. "
- Walt Disney