tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8270793179032814466.post5099447293045968730..comments2024-02-12T22:50:15.027-07:00Comments on Wide Urban World: How do we compare cities? OR, Does this logo make sense?Michael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8270793179032814466.post-13417508203801713932011-02-23T09:59:03.320-07:002011-02-23T09:59:03.320-07:00I was definitely not trying to disprove the releva...I was definitely not trying to disprove the relevance of urban comparison (ancient and modern. On the contrary! Your opening up of discussion is most appreciated.<br /><br />What I mean by 'common denominators' (may be a Dutchism) is a fundamental elementary part of space which is present in (or even defines) every layout of urban space. Talking about urban form this could be something as simple as a line, but unless we would inform that line to reflect something of the complexes that it forms, there's is little to be learned from comparison of such complexes. To achieve proper comparative interpretation the generic empirical properties of the element need to be combined with a generic type of meaning, allowing for particularities to emerge from the complexes they are in and/or their formation histories. I hope this clarifies it a bit.Benjamin N. Vishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16386171565047882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8270793179032814466.post-25885394108795331742011-02-22T11:36:13.921-07:002011-02-22T11:36:13.921-07:00@Benjamin- I agree that these issues of comparison...@Benjamin- I agree that these issues of comparison are much more complicated, and we need to consider context. I was trying to make a pretty low-level point that comparison is important for urban studies, and that such comparison should not be limited to the modern world. I'm not clear on what you mean by "common denominators."Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8270793179032814466.post-34801678583907405302011-02-22T08:39:44.990-07:002011-02-22T08:39:44.990-07:00It is easily agreed that it seems easier to compar...It is easily agreed that it seems easier to compare parts of the city than the whole of the city. However, singling out parts of the city runs the risk of overlooking their context. And whether the context is formed of its neighbouring units, a street, neighbouhood or the complete city, there is always the question of where the 'comparative totality' should end. In isolation what kind of comparison of parts are viable to make? For a truly informative type of comparison, finding generic common grounds is a necessity. Just how generic can it become before it sheds all information or how specific can it become before comparison doesn't really tell you anything?<br /><br />At the same time, in this example, the definition of monumentality becomes important. Is a monument the same thing as a monumental building or the monumentality of a place? And although this question may be apparent, so, to me, is the question what a street or a park is. <br /><br />I guess any approximation of most of these urban (I prefer simply talking about the built environment in these case) elements actually depend on their context of surrounding elements, which begs the question what may act as common denominators? If elements can be defined following common denominators within the whole, it would make their classification a contextual one, while allowing for comparison.Benjamin N. Vishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16386171565047882852noreply@blogger.com