In biology, there are seven accepted characteristics of living things. These characteristics are used to determine whether a thing is living or non-living. Likewise, I think we can apply this logic to urban development. In my last post, I suggested that many of the large-scale developments that are meant to emulate an actual city are little more than a 'decorated corpse'. This time I hope to flush out how we can tell whether a development is a 'living' city or just a decorated corpse. I would like to use a list of characteristics somewhat like the example in biology, although I hope not to get bogged down in the analogy. Cities are, of course, not living organisms. They do not literally consume 'nutrients' and then excrete waste, though consumption and waste disposal are important parts of city planning. The point here is not to work hard on making a literal analogy with a living organism, but to figure out what the markers are that indicate that a city is healthy, unhealthy, or downright dead. There may be a better analogy than a living organism anyway, such as animal herds or insect hives. I'll leave fine-tuning the analogy to a future post. For now, we'll simply leave it as the 'living city'.
(As a side note, I would like to acknowledge the Center for the Living City, which does great work in advancing the understanding of cities and which, like myself, takes the term from Jane Jacobs. They do not, however, endorse my particular viewpoint or this blog.)
The first thing we must ask when trying to determine what characteristics we should look for is: What do we mean by 'living city' or 'healthy city'? Since we're not talking about an actual living organism, what determines whether the city, or some portion of it, is alive or dead? Healthy or unhealthy? To answer that, I think we have to ask what the city is for. Why do we have them? One might tread the path of history to define what a city is for, but I rather think that if the reason for the city isn't currently valid, then it isn't a valid reason for the city's (present tense) existence. So the question is: What is the city for. What does it do that other forms of human settlement can't? And let's be clear: I'm not only talking about the biggest cities. When I talk about cities, I'm also talking about the small ones. As long as the place is thought of as a city by the people who inhabit its sphere of influence, I think we can consider it a city. Not every development is a city, for sure, but I'm not interested in a hard line that defines cities vs other types of human development. At least not for the purposes of this discussion.
