Three main tasks:

1. Read texts carefully and come to class ready to discuss and engage.
2. Sign up for at least 2 Presentations (and upload reading guides to the google site several days before the session's date).
3. Write three short essays.
4. Short presentation on the final day of class (see below)

The Details:

1. The Readings (see syllabus).

2. Short Presentations & Writing of a Critical "Reading Guide" (in groups of 2-3 students per session)

(a) Early in the semester: Form presentation groups for each week. (Ideally each week should have two volunteers; however, depending on class size, several sessions may have 1-3 volunteers). Each student should select 2 sessions (though you are welcome to do a third). Write your name on the next to the weeks you select on the google site . Please review the syllabus and identify several weeks of interest, and talk to classmates about forming teams for a particular week. [Note: you are welcome to suggest additional or alternative readings for your session.. Just be sure to do this at least 1-2 weeks ahead of time, allowing time for the instructor to upload the readings to Canvas and/or eBooks.

(b) By TUESDAY of your week: Write and upload a critical "reading guide" to the google site.
(Suggested length: 8 - 12 paragraphs; graphics and links encouraged). The students in each group should write a single, integrated text. Be concise: do NOT simply summarize the readings, but instead provide insights, frameworks and distinctions that will be useful to your classmates as they read the texts. [This will require you to do your reading AHEAD of time, so plan accordingly.] You may include links to other sites where useful. Of course, do cite sources (and acknowledge use of quotes and ideas) where appropriate.

(c) Friday's Class: Start the class with a brief presentation (15-25 minutes) that illustrates the key themes, controversies, big questions of the week's readings. Creativity and engagement encouraged. [Note: this presentation may highlight elements from your emailed "reading guide," but your presentation should NOT simply be a retelling of your "reading guide." The classroom has digital monitor.

3. Short Essays
Throughout the semester, students will write several short essays that will be closely linked to the readings. Use double-spaced pages, and include a bibliography.   Be concise, analytical, precise and reflective. Guidelines on correct citations.

Essay One (Foundational Readings)
due: Oct 13 (revised date)

Answer one of the following questions.  (Suggested length: 5-6 pages). Where appropriate, cite course readings.   You are encouraged to examine connections and leitmotifs across the readings.  However, you need not analyze ALL readings from the first weeks of class.  Instead, you may find it useful to focus on several selected readings.

1. From Berlin to Chicago: We began by reading the German school, followed by the Chicago School. You might see continuities from the German School to the Chicago School. You might also see differences, reinterpretations, shifts in focus, or even no similarities at all. In your essay, select several representative essays from each school and contrast their respective views of cities and urbanization.  To focus your essay, select several aspects for comparison (examples include -- but are not limited to: the main questions posed; their underlying assumptions and biases; their emphasis on city-as-experience versus city-as-process; their methodological and theoretical approaches to the city; their units/scale of analysis, e.g., examining the city as a whole vs. the internal structure/neighborhoods of the city; etc).   Note:  remember to interpret the concept of "school" loosely and not monolithically: there is, understandably, a range of approaches found within each school.

2. City Love / City Fear:  The authors' stances towards urbanism and city life express a wide range of perspectives: great promises and excitement of urban life, but also great dangers and despair.  Some express a nostalgia for the rural "world we have lost," while others reveal a modernist zeal for all things new and a hope that cities offer new possibilities for human development.  (Lewis Mumford seems to alternately express both hope and doom, and he is likely not the only one expressing deep ambivalence.)  And one wonders if an author’s stance is based on the benefits and downsides of big, dense cities per se or based on other social processes associated with rapid urbanization (e.g., industrialization, mass consumerism, Modernism, modern capitalism, etc.). In your essay, select several texts and explore the strands of pro- and anti-urbanism in the texts.  What are their reasons for their divergent views of city life?

3. Tracing urban planning's worldview back to urban sociology? A generation or several ago, it was common for students in US urban planning graduate programs to read texts from the Chicago School. Examine the influence of the Chicago school (and/or German school) on urban planning. Can you identify assumptions, biases, priorities or uses of terminology in urban planning that have a direct lineage back to these sociological writings on cities? For example, what might the connection be between the early mapping of social segmentation (e.g., the Burgess concentric zone model) and 20th century zoning practices? Or between social science models of urban expansion and succession and planning policies to address urban growth, redevelopment and gentrification? Overall, can you see links between tools of analysis and tools of implementation/design/planning? (Note: it is an open question of whether the Chicago and German schools actually had a strong influence on planning -- or if their influence is overstated. Perhaps urban planners, in search of an intellectual history and theoretical grounding for their young field, looked around and conveniently found the Chicago School. I encourage you to both search for connections between early urban sociology and the rise of urban planning and also critically question this direct lineage.)

4. David Harvey and the restlessness of capitalist urban landscapes: “Part of the dynamic of capitalist accumulation is the necessity to build whole landscapes only to tear them down and build anew in the future” (Harvey, Spaces of Capital, 76). “The built environment internalizes within it the contradictory relations inherent in the accumulation of capital” (ibid, 82). “The inner contradictions of capitalism are expressed through the restless formation and re-formation of geographic landscapes. This is the tune to which the historical geography of capitalism must dance without cease” (ibid, 333).
In these and other passages, Harvey repeatedly speaks about the restlessness and contradictions — the ceaseless building-up and tearing down, of creating and destroying value, of placemaking and place-abandoning — not only of capitalism, but also of urbanization. (This contrasts with a view of urbanization as moving steadily towards an optimal steady state/equilibrium of land use.) In your essay, explore why and how Harvey comes to this conclusion about the volatile nature of urbanization. Then select one or more stakeholders/actors/interest groups in the city (e.g., architects, city planners, real estate agents, developers, mayors, city council, neighborhood residents, immigrants, etc.) and explore the implications for this group.

Essay Two (covering readings from Sep 20 - Oct 25)
due: Nov 24 [revised date]

Answer one of the following questions.   Cite all sources and put all borrowed text in quotes. (see above link about citation guidelines.)

1. Why the Marxist Foundation for Several Urban Theorists? Several authors of course readings have employed or adapted Marxist analysis.  What do you make of this Marxist thread to many of these urban theory writings?  (And is the common thread an emphasis on the dynamics of accumulation? capital-labor conflicts? Hegelian dialectics? relationship to the means of production? an emphasis on systemic contradictions and crises? Structural explanations of exploitation and inequality? etc.) Discuss the analytical power and drawbacks that arise from using Marxist ideas to construct urban theory.  (Use one or more of the course authors as examples.) Also, if the popularity of asserting overtly Marxist-based political-economic agendas has waned since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the transition of China away from traditional communism), how has the credibility and veracity of a Marxist-based urban theory changed (if at all)?  (Optional: What are compelling non-Marxist theoretical foundations for progressive, emancipatory thinking? That is, what are the prospects of a systematic, rigorous theoretical critique of contemporary urbanism that are NOT rooted in Marx’s political economy?)

2. The Influence of Lefebvre: Henri Lefebvre (1901 – 1991) introduces a distinctive approach to understanding "space" (e.g., the production of space, rather than merely the interpretation or the imagination of space; multiple rather than a singular view of space; etc.) that has influenced subsequent thinking in geography, urban sociology and related fields.    In your essay, examine the ways that the writings of other urban theorists (such as Manuel Castells or David Harvey or others) pick up on (or react to) Lefebvre's ideas.  Are you more surprised by the broad reach or limited impact of his ideas (on either theory or practice)?

3.  Spatial Fix/Space of Flows: David Harvey introduces the idea of the "spatial fix."  Manuel Castells introduces the contrasting concepts of "the space of places" and "the space of flows."  Begin by concisely summarizing each of these two arguments.  Then explore the possible connections and overlaps between the two arguments.  Perhaps the two are wholly unrelated, and this comparison is forced and misplaced. Is there a way to integrate Castells' and Harvey's concepts? If so, how? If not, why not?

4. Does social theory error on the side of being aspatial or fetishizing space (or something else)?  One observes two seemingly contrary arguments in the writings of Harvey and Castells (among other texts): the authors assert the importance of space in society (and criticize those who neglect the role of space in shaping political and economic processes). But the authors also push back against what they see as assigning too much independent agency to space (e.g., Castells on Lefebvre?). (Is this why some authors are dismissive of "urban studies" as a stand-alone field?) In your essay, select one or several authors and examine this tension. Does it represent a contradiction, a paradox, and/or the appropriate efforts to define the complex role of space in social theory?

5. Abstraction, Modernism and Spatial Representation:

abstraction, n. 1. The act of withdrawing; withdrawal, separation or removal; in modern usage euphem. secret or dishonest removal; pilfering, purloining. ... 3. The act or process of separating in thought, of considering a thing independently of its associations; or a substance independently of its attributes; or an attribute or quality independently of the substance to which it belongs. 4. The result of abstracting: the idea of something which has no independent existence; a thing which exists only in idea; something visionary. 5. A state of withdrawal or seclusion from worldly things or things of sense. 6. The state of mental withdrawal; inattention to things present; absence of mind. 7. In the fine arts, the practice or state of freedom from representational qualities; a work of art with these characteristics. [OED]

Many of the course writings (e.g., Holston, J. Scott, Mitchell, Robinson, etc.) have addressed (either explicitly or implicitly) the process of abstraction in viewing, conceptualizing, mapping, representing, governing, regulating or designing urban (or regional or national) spaces. Referring to several course readings as examples, discuss the motivations, tools and consequences (either positive and/or negative) of abstraction in dealing with (urban) space. (Where appropriate, differentiate between such terms as "abstraction," "representation," "standardization," "modernism," etc.)

6. The Local and the Global:
As with many dichotomies (such as the rural-urban or the informal-formal), the global-local framework provides an initially useful distinction but eventually may do as much to inhibit as to help us understand the relationship between globalization and local communities.  This dichotomy is related to a second dichotomy: the "global city" versus "non-global city" distinction, which could alternately be helpful or arbitrary and confusing. (And in this bifurcated framing of “city” and “world,” one might also ask what happens to the political-geographic scales that lie in-between, such as the region, the province and the nation-state?)
In your essay, compare how different class readings embrace, problematize, reframe or reject the local-global distinction. Which approaches do you find most or least helpful in analyzing contemporary urbanization, and why?

7. Nature and Urban Theory
Some might read this course’s syllabus and be puzzled by the week on nature, arguing that there is no need to discuss “nature” in an urban theory class. After all, nature is arguably the non-urban, the “other,” the anti-urban. At most, nature is the “pre-urban”: land and biota waiting in reserve to be eventually transformed into the urban. The built and unbuilt environments are fundamentally divergent: nature follows one set of rules, and urban society another. (And urban planning could be viewed as the rational, systematic, melioristic conversion of wilderness/nature/open space into the built environment.)
One theme of the readings of October 25 is an argument for reconceptualizing the city-nature connection. Select several readings and compare the various ways to theorize the relationship between the built environment and the natural environment (e.g., conceptualizing nature and society as mutually exclusive; assuming that the urban can be understood without needing to bother with nature; instead arguing that urban theory is incomplete and biased if it ignores nature; the "city" and the "countryside" as essentially two labels on a single integrated system; as a parasitic or symbiotic relationship; nature as merely a social construction (constructed in the imagination of urban residents); cities as simply the latest iteration in the long evolutionary development process of life on Earth; etc.). What are implications (positive and negative) of these differing approaches?

Essay Three
due: Dec 17 (extended one day)

Answer one of the following questions. Where appropriate, cite course readings (and other relevant readings).  see these citation guidelines. [note: question wording updated Dec 6]

1. Is Urban Theory just about the City?
Throughout this course, we have loosely used several terms interchangeably:  urban, place, space, city, and metropolis, among others.  However, these terms are not synonymous, especially today, when the city may no longer be the predominant or even most important form of spatial development. Has urban theory focused too heavily on the city — its residents, lifestyles, and experiences — based on traditional notions of early modern central cities from a limited set of countries? Does this focus neglect other human settlement patterns such as suburbs, rural areas, peri-urban areas, border areas, and hybrid spaces not yet defined? How (well or poorly) has urban theory adapted and kept pace with the emergence of many new forms of human settlements? What are the implications of discussing “urban theory” as opposed to, for example, a "theory of cities," a “theory of place,” or a “theory of space”? 

2. Urban Theory in the Age of the Internet, Smart City Tech and AI: 
We often speak of the socio-spatial dialectic (that society shapes cities, which turn around and shape society). We might also speak of a technological-spatial dialectic (that technology — including infrastructure, transportation modes and building technologies — shape our cities; and cities in turn shape technologies — since cities are the innovation, production and consumption centers of technologies). We might take this relationship a step further and speculate that an era’s technology shapes the way we visualize and theorize urbanization (e.g., a century ago, we turned to metaphors and models of mechanization, mass production, etc. to describe cities; now we turn to metaphors and models of computers, neural networks, cyborgs, etc.).
For this essay, reflect on how our thinking about cities and urbanization is changing in this era. Is an emergent urban theory arising in response to concepts like smart cities, urban informatics, cyborg urbanism, the “Internet of Things”, creating “a new operating system for cities,” ubiquitous computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning, etc.? Do “classic readings” on urban theory (that we read in the early weeks of the semester) still provide a viable theoretical foundation to understand Internet/AI/smart city urbanism, or do we need to invent a fundamentally new urban theory to make sense of it all?

3. Urban Politics vs. Urban Economics:
On November 1, we discussed urban politics, racism, segregation, growth machine and urban regime theory. On November 15, we examined urban economics, specifically focusing on the power of free markets and innovation to drive economic development and growth in cities. Though one often hears that politics and economics are intricately and unavoidably interrelated (and combined under “political economy”), one likely comes away from these two sessions having encountered two very divergent views of the city (e.g., what makes cities thrive or struggle; what leads to fair or unfair social outcomes; what drives urbanization; what is an appropriate balance of power between public and private actors; the role of elites; individual vs. collective agency; the role of conflict, competition and cooperation in cities; etc.). In your essay, contrast the views of cities and urbanization in the two sets of readings. Can you find common ground, or do they represent two wholly divergent worldviews?

4. The “City as the Unit of Analysis” vs. “The City as a Container or Stage”:
One is likely to observe, after plowing through a stack of books and journal articles labeled with the keyword “urban theory,” that there is no singular, uniform approach to the topic. Consider this seminar’s syllabus, containing a rather heterogeneous and often disparate collection of readings that interpret the theme of “the urban” in quite different ways. One could construct an elaborate and comprehensive set of typologies of urban theory to organize and differentiate these readings (based on disciplinary approaches, political ideologies, city functions, geographic forms, central questions, etc.). For this essay question, focus on one specific distinction, what I will tentatively label as (1) the “City as the Unit of Analysis” vs. (2) “the City as a Container or Stage.” The first approach is to treat the city as a system or phenomenon to be understood (e.g., its history, form, internal structure, function). The city itself is the focus of the author’s interests, the explicit unit of analysis. By contrast, the second approach uses the city as a context (or backdrop) for exploring broader social phenomena such as race, immigration, inequality, gender, violence, economic development, culture, or politics. The city, in this view, serves as an intermediary or a setting within which these social dynamics play out, where arguably the city itself is less important than the social outcomes. (Perhaps the former is a more narrow approach to "theories of the urban," while the latter is a broader engagement with "social theories in the urban context"?)
If you find this distinction useful, review the course syllabus, identify specific readings and/or authors that fit into the first or second category, and explain your reasoning for assigning them to one category or the other. Explore the implications of each of these two approaches (for how we approach urban theory). Finally, reflect on either the utility or limitations/flaws of this distinction, and if appropriate, feel free to offer an amendment or alternative to this distinction.

5. Imagining an New Syllabus for Urban Theory:
There is, understandably, no standardized reading list in urban theory, and designing a graduate seminar involves many choices and trade-offs, including: classic readings vs. contemporary readings; a focus on urban theory vs. planning theory; disciplines to draw upon (e.g., geography, sociology, political science, urban history, anthropology, architecture, etc.); the political/ideological stances taken by the authors; the geography and demography of authors and subject matters; the emphasis on specific topics within urbanism (e.g., housing, poverty, economic development, urban form, transportation, etc.) or a broader focus on theories and concepts of urbanization; and relatedly, a focus on middle-range theory vs. more abstract general theory; etc.

Your task:
(a) Develop a hypothetical syllabus for a new/revised urban theory course that you would be particularly interested in taking and/or teaching, and most importantly, (b) explain, in narrative form, the reasoning behind your selections. (This narrative explanation should be the core of your task.)

There are several approaches/formats you might take, including:
(1) Organize your selection of topics and readings based on fundamentally revising this semester’s URP700 syllabus, such as creating three categories: (a) current topics & readings you would retain; (b) current topics & readings you would drop; (c) new topics & readings you would add (either to complement existing readings and/or to create wholly new topics/sessions).
(2). Develop a wholly new syllabus from scratch.
Remember to provide a narrative discussion that explains the reasoning and overall logic of your choices.

Note: You do NOT need to include all the typical minutiae of regular syllabus (unless you find that useful): e.g., an extensive list of optional readings; dates for each session; assignments; grading policy; etc.). Instead, focus on the larger themes, subject matter and core questions that drive the course.

Friday, Dec 6 • Final Session: one-page handout and short presentation

This last session will provide an opportunity to reflect on your encounters with urban theory (its texts, ideas and authors) and to identify the key themes and debates of urban theory. Format is flexible: you can combine text, keywords, questions, illustrations, diagrams, cartoons, maps, poems, songs, timelines, etc. Be ready to discuss and compare each student's contribution. Creativity and insightfulness  welcomed. You might provide a conceptual map of urban theory. I welcome a range of approaches:  typologies of theories; critiques; a focus on the dominant ideas; a focus on silences and biases in conventional planning theory; a focus on the past, present and/or future of planning theory; the challenges of linking theory and practice; etc.

• You are to prepare two items:

(a) Each student is to come to the session with a one-page handout (bring copies for everyone, please, so 12 copies) that articulates your understanding/conceptualization of urban theory. Format is flexible: you can combine text, keywords, questions, illustrations, diagrams, timelines, etc. Be ready to discuss and compare each student's contribution. Creativity and insightfulness  welcomed. You might provide a conceptual map of urban theory. 

(b) a brief, 3-5 minute oral presentation that concisely highlights your central points.

For examples of past years, see the Canvas Module file