Two political theorists writing on globalisation and urban identity – normally indicators of a worthy tome written in the special impenetrable jargon of modern academic social science. But [amazon_link id=”069115144X” target=”_blank” ]The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age[/amazon_link] by Daniel A Bell (no relation to the other Daniel Bell) and Avner de-Shalit doesn’t live up to those fears. I’ve greatly enjoyed reading it, although I’m not completely sure what to take from it.
The two write about a handful of cities they know well, for the most part places they have lived. The method of selection means Beijing and New York are there but London isn’t, Oxford and Paris make it but not Boston. The method of study is to walk around and talk to people and draw on their own accumulated lived experience. I’m a huge fan of the walking around method. It’s my own approach to any city I visit, although it can cause bemusement – as in Delhi where a business visitor is expected to take taxis everywhere. The authors cite Baudelaire and Walter Benjamin as authorities for the tradition of flanerie, but oddly don’t mention [amazon_link id=”0955955335″ target=”_blank” ]Guy Debord[/amazon_link], the derive and modern psycho-geography. Odd because this modern tradition explicity aims to reclaim individual identity from the anonymity of modern consumer society.
Having quibbled, I must say I think the approach in this book works well in illuminating the way different cities retain a distinctive character. [amazon_link id=”0571276660″ target=”_blank” ]Orhan Pamuk once wrote[/amazon_link] that cities have their own sounds – the electric buzz of New York, the squeal of Metro trains in Paris, the background hum of traffic in London. The visual iconography of the streets is different, the smells. The homogenising effect of globalisation has been over-stated (as Tyler Cowen has pointed out in [amazon_link id=”0691117837″ target=”_blank” ]Creative Destruction[/amazon_link]) – it’s more kaleidescopic than grey goo. The Spirit of Cities does, I think, establish that each can have a distinctive ethos as well. The argument is that urban planners should promote their ethos, and let the economy look after itself. Or at least that economic instrumentalism is not the criterion for judging policies or outcomes. They are not against urban planning, and on the contrary even rather admire the ambitious failures, but they argue that plans “must be rooted in some latent ethos that the residents care about.” There is almost a paradox that aiming for success too directly will lead to failure: aim instead to enhance the spirit of the city. Hence each chapter labels each city with its dominant ethos – learning for Oxford, materialism for Hong Kong, religion for Jerusalem and so on.
It’s hard to argue with this (although I suspect many urban planners might consider economic instrumentalism trumps anything else). But this isn’t a highly analytical book, but rather one to sit back and enjoy, especially if you know any of the cities described: Jerusalem, Montreal, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Oxford, Berlin, Paris New York.
[amazon_image id=”069115144X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age[/amazon_image]