CITYCULTURESSeeingManhattanfromthe110thflooroftheWorldTradehazestirredupbythewinds,theurbanisland,aseainthemiddleofthesea,liftsuptheskyscrapersoverWallStreet,sinksdownatGreenwich,thenrisesagaintothecrestofMidtown,quietlypassesoverCentralParkandfinallyundulatesoffintothedistancebeyondHarlem.Awaveofverticals.Itsagitationismomentarilyarrestedbyvision.Agiganticmassisimmobilizedbeforeoureyes.(deCerteau1988:91)Whobuiltit?Anon,that'swho.NobodybuilttheNewYorkskyline.Nobodybythethousands.(HeleneHanff,AppleofMyEye,1984:35)Introduction:acityimaginedOn11September,graphicimagesofthedestructionoftwooftheworld'stallestbuildings-thenorthandsouthtowersoftheWorldTradeCenterinNewYorkCity-unfoldedontelevisionsetsaroundtheworld.Theenormityandcomplexityofthistragedy,whilemanifest,were,nevertheless,compoundedbythefactthatmostpeoplewitnesseditasamediaspectacle.Thus,itwaswithinestablishedmediainterpretativeframes(includingtheplotsandimagesofcountlessHollywoodmovies)thattheirinitialreactionswereformed.ButtheninmanyrespectsNewYorkisamediaconstruction-theskylineofManhattanisinstantlyandgloballyfamiliareventhoughthemajorityoftheworld'spopulationhasneverbeenthereandwillnevergo.Indeed,ManhattanemergedasalandscapeoftowersatthesametimeasfilmtechnologyandthemovieindustryweredevelopingintheUnitedStates.ItwaslargelyasaresultofthiscoincidencethattheManhattanbackdropbecameoneofthemostsignificantanddefiningimagesnotjustofarchitecturalmodernism,butalsoofthevaluesandachievementsofthetwentiethcentury.ManhattanequalsNeiyYorkandNewYorkisperhapstheworld'sgreatestcity.Itwaswithinthissetofimaginingsthatintheearly1970sthe'twintowers'assumedtheirplacebothaspotentsymbolsoflatemodernityandtestimoniestotheglobaleconomicpowerofNewYorkandtheUnitedStates.Rising411metresabovegroundlevel,thetowersdominatedthecity'sskylineandprovidedsomeofthemostsought-afterpostcardviewsandestablishingshotsofNewYork.Thedestructionofthetowers,therefore,wasconsiderablymorethanapersonalorlocaltragedy.Itwasimbuedwitharangeofnational,global,cultural,urbanandsymbolicsignificances.Indeed,itwenttothecoreofwhatitmeanttobe'modern'.ThosewhoareoldenoughcanrememberwhenthetwintowerspassedtheEmpireStatebuilding(alsoinNewYorkCity)astheworld'stallestbuildings.Eveninthe1970s,such'facts'werestillregardedasimportantmarkersof'man's'abilityto'conquer'natureandnowherewasevidenceofthissupremacymorevisibleandirrefutablethaninthegreatcitiesoftheworldandtheirarchitecturalandengineeringtriumphs-inparticular,theirbridgesandskyscrapers.Themetropoliswastheantithesisofnatureandthesymbolofitsdefeat.InordertoappreciatethedepthofthissentimentandtheculturalsignificancesthattheNewYorkskylinecametoassume,itisnecessaryfirsttounderstandthesocialandeconomiccontextswithinwhichitsearlyskyscraperswereconstructedandtheskyscraperbuildingfrenzythatgrippedNewYorkbetweentheFirstWorldWarandthegreatdepressionofthe1930s.RobertHughes(1997:404ff)suggestsinhisbookAmericanVisionsaboutthehistoryofAmericanartthatitwasduringthisperiodthattheNewYorkskyscraperemergedbothasaculturaliconandartform.Hearguesthatfrom1926inparticular,thebuildingboominNewYorkwasdominatedbya'racetothesky'-araceultimatelywonbytheEmpirebuildingonitscompletionin1930.Skyscraperswereseenasheroicnotonlybecauseoftheirbreathtakingheight.Theentireprocessofbuildingthemwasregardedwithfascinationandawe,whilespeculationaboundedregardinghowhighthesebuildingsmighteventuallygo.Inaddition,keymilestonesreachedduringtheconstructionofmanyskyscrapersbecamethefocusofpubliccelebrationswhichoftenfeaturedsuchattractionsas'girldancers[being]hiredtoperformon...baregirders,hundredsoffeetupinthedizzyingair,fortheavidmedia'(Hughes1997:405).Needlesstosay,itwasopportunisticlocalpoliticiansandthecommercialenterprisesresponsibleforbuildingthetowerswhostagedsuchpromotionalstunts.Untiltheearly1930s,theconstruction,completion,officialopeningandfinalformofeachnewskyscraperwereevents-centralelementsofthespectacleofNewYorkCity.Whatdeveloped,accordingtoHughes(1997:405)wasa'romance'betweenNewYorkers,theirskyscrapersandtheircity.AlthoughallAmericans'weredazedbytheforceoftheirnewimagery'(Hughes1997:405)tosuchanextentthat,Hughesgoesontoassert:NoAmericanpaintingorsculpture...wasabletoaccumulate,atleastintheordinarypublic'seyes,thekindofculturalpowerthattheskyscrapershad.Norindeed,couldithavedoneso-mostAmericansdidn'tcareaboutart,especiallymodernart...Bigbuildingswerealwaysbeforeyou;merepaintingswerenot.(Hughes1997:419)Andcourtesyoffilm,artandphotographythe'bigbuildings'werealso'before'therestoftheworld,andittoowasmesmerized.ThelandscapeofNewYorklookedvastlydifferentfromthoseofEuropeancities:InParis,onlymonumentalbuildingsdevotedtosacredorgovernmentalinstitutionswereallowedtoexceedtheheightlimit;inLondon,onlypurelyornamentaltowerscouldriseabovetheroofscape.InNewYork,however,thesoaringcommercialtowerhadalreadybecomethesalientornamentofthecity-scapeandtheinalienablerightofrealtors.(Sternetal.1987:508)OnevisitsNewYorkfirstandforemosttoseeandexperienceitslandscape.InthepassagequotedatthestartofthischapterculturaltheoristMicheldeCerteaudescribestheelationhefeltatseeing(fromtheobservationdeckoftheWorldTradeCenter)thecityofNewYorklaidoutand'immobilized'beforehim.Similarly,PhilipKasinitz(1995),echoingdeCerteau,celebratestheworld's'great'cities(andthesignificantstructureswegazeonthemfrom)inthefollowingway:Theexhilarationwefeelwhenweviewagreatcityfromoneofthoserarevantagepointswhereonecan'takeitallin'-ParisfromtheEiffelTower,LowerManhattanfromtheBrooklynseeinginonemomenttheenormityof...humanwork.(Kasinitz1995:3)Despitethe'exhilaration'thatmightbefeltwhenviewinga'great'cityfromthetopofa'great'builtstructure,ourfeelingstowardsthecityanditsskyscrapersarealsodeeplycontradictory,beingsimultaneouslysourcesofexhilaration,fearandapprehension-'citiesaregreataswellasfearsome'(Zukin1997:vii).Theyalso'representthebasestinstinctsofhumansociety'(Zukin1997:1).Weareawareofthisambiguityevenaswecelebratethem-wearebothattractedandrepelled.Viewingacityfromagreatheightisawayoftamingit.However,theobserverisalsorenderedifolnerablebytheexperience.Inordertojourneytothetopofaskyscraperonemusttrustintheknowledgeandskillsofcountlessfaceless'experts'-builders,engineers,labourers,maintenanceworkersandarchitects.Thistrustingis,asAnthonyGiddens(1990)explains,acorefeatureoflatemodernity.ThehelplessnessfeltwhenwatchingthewoundedtowersoftheWorldontothestreetsoflowerManhattanrevealedtheambivalencewithwhichweregardtheskyscraperandthefragilityofourtrustintheexpertknowledgesystemsonwhichwerely.Inart,too,the'darkerside'ofourrelationshipwiththecityandtheskyscraperhasalsobeenexplored/exposed.Thecity'sloomingshapesfrequentlyhavebeencompellingsymbolsofdangerandtheunknownevenastheyspeakofprogress,modernityandthefuture.Forinstance,theplaysoflightandshadefeaturedinHughFerriss's(1929,1953)architecturalrenderingsofNewYorkinthe1920screatebroodinglandscapesthatcapturetheconflictingemotionsstimulatedbycityspaceandtheskyscraper.InmanyofFerriss'sdrawingsthetopsofskyscrapersareshroudedinshadowwhiletheirbottoms-thoseedgesencounteredonthestreet-areluminous.Theresultevokesnotionsoftheknownandtheunknown.Whatisknowniswhatcanbeseenatstreetlevel,whilewhatisunknownloomsinthetwilightabove.InrepresentingtheideasandurbanimaginingsofthosearchitectswhowereattheforefrontofreshapingtheManhattanskyline,Ferriss'sworkwasasmuchaboutthecityasitsfuturewasbeingimaginedduringthisperiodofskyscraper-buildingasitwasaboutthecityatthetime.HisrepresentationswereofanurbanandarchitecturalUtopiathatwasinspiredbythepresentandmadepossiblebycontemporarytechnologybutwhichwasyettotakeshape.Manykeythemesinthestudy,interpretationandexperienceofcitiescoalescedaroundtheeventsof11Septemberand,thus,thismomentpointstoahostofissuesthatunderpintheconcernsofthisbook-inparticular,thenatureof(post)modernurbanism,theambivalentrelationshipthatexistsbetweenpeopleandtheircities,andthevariouswaysinwhichthisrelationshipisshapedthroughexperience,imaginationandpower.Theacademicstudyofthecityisanendeavourthatcanbetracedbacktothenineteenthcenturyandtheworkofthe'foundingfathers'ofsociology,includingKarlMarx,FriedrichEngelsandMaxWeber.Sociologywasconcernedwithindustrializationandmodernity-andascitiesweretheplaceswheretheconsequencesandcontradictionsofbothweremostevidentandmostprofoundlyexperienced,theybecamethealmostaccidentalobjectsoftheirattention.Duringthetwentiethcentury,however,aspecificurbansubdisciplinedevelopedwithinsociologyandcontinuestobeamajorfieldofenquiry.Theconcernsofurbansociologistshavebeenvaried,though,notjustintermsoftheirparticularurbanobjectofstudybutalsomethodologicallyandtheoretically.Researchhasfocusedvariouslyonsuchissuesasdefiningandquantifyingurbanism,exploringtherelationshipbetweenthecityandsociety,andinvestigatingtheroleofthestateinframingurbandevelopment.Thusurbansociologyhasconnectedwithandinformedtheworkofmanywithinotherdisciplines,includinghumangeography,urbanplanning,economicsandurbanhistory.Sincethe1970s,thecityhasbecomeasourceoffascinationforthoseworkingoutsideestablishedurbanstudiestraditionsasanincreasingnumberofculturaltheoristsstartedtofocusonthecityasitislivedratherthanonitsstructuresandpatterns.Atthesametimesociologyanditsestablishedmethodsandinterpretativeframeswere(paradoxically)bothbeingchallengedandaugmentedbytheinsightsofculturaltheory.Theresultofthesedifferinginfluenceshasbeentheopeningofanumberofpotentiallyfruitfulpathwaysforurbanresearchandanalysis,asRosalynDeutsche(1996)explains:Nowthereisgrowinginterestininterdisciplinarymergersofcriticalurbanandculturaldiscourses.Ontheonehand,aestheticpractitioners-architects,urbanplanners,artists-haveusedthecontributionsofurbantheorytoexaminehowtheirworkfunctionsinurbansocialcontexts.Urbanscholars,ontheotherhand,haveturnedtoculturaltheorytostudythecityasasignifyingobject.Bothgroupshopethatencountersbetweenthetwofields-themselvescomposedofseveraldisciplines-willexpandourabilitytounderstandandinterveneinwhaturbantheoristscallthepoliticsofplace.(Deutsche1996:206)Toooften,though,dialoguebetweentheculturalstudiesandmoresociologicalapproachestotheurbanhasnotbeeneasyandattemptstobringtheconsiderableinsightsofeachtogetherhaveoftenbeenstrained{Morris1992;Deutsche1996).Thus,asacademicsseektounderstandthefabricoftheurbanenvironmentandtheculturesofeverydayurbanlife,therearethosemoresociologicallyinformedanalyseswhichcontinuetoemphasizetheroleofthecityinfosteringsocialandculturalinequality,arguingthattheurbanlandscapeisimplicatedinstructuraloppressionandmarginalization,inparticularthosebasedonclass,gender,raceandethnicity.While,ontheotherhand,manyculturalstudiesapproachestourbanismregardthecityasasignificantsiteofempowermentandresistance,withacademicsworkingwithinthisbroadtraditionoftenseekingtocelebratelivedurbanrhythms,anonymityanddifference.Thechallengeofexploringbothapproachesandmakingsomeconnectionsistakenupinthisbook.CitiesandUrbanCulturesseekstomakesenseofarangeofculturallyinformedtheoriesofthecitybyconsideringthemalongsidebroader(established)urbanstudiestraditions.Acentralunderpinningassumptionofthebookisthattheseseeminglycontradictoryapproachescan,inshirtingcombinations,providerichcomplementaryconceptualandempiricalinsightsintothecomplexculturesofurbanism.FromthisintellectualfoundationCitiesandUrbanCulturesalsoexploressomeofthekeythemesinthestudyandthedevelopmentofthecitysincetheindustrialrevolution.都市文化看到曼哈頓110層旳世界貿(mào)易中心。在霾挑唆被風(fēng)吹、都市島,海在海中,舉起摩天大樓在華爾街,沉下來,然后在格林威治上升再建,安靜地穿過市中心中央公園,最后undulates走開進(jìn)入距離超過哈萊姆區(qū)?？v向旳浪潮。它旳風(fēng)是瞬間被視覺。質(zhì)量是一種龐大旳固定在我們眼睛。(德Certeau1988:91)究竟是誰建造了嗎?立即就來,那是誰。沒有人建造了紐約旳地平線。沒有人成千上萬旳。(海倫漢芙、蘋果我旳眼睛,1984:35)簡介:一種都市想象9月11日,圖形圖片旳破壞旳兩個(gè)世界上最高旳建筑——南北塔世界貿(mào)易中心在紐約展開電視機(jī)——在世界各地。細(xì)節(jié)和復(fù)雜,而顯化這個(gè)悲劇,但是,由于這一事實(shí),大多數(shù)人目睹它作為一種媒體旳景象。因此,它是在已建立旳媒體解釋框架(涉及籌劃,無數(shù)旳好萊塢電影影像),她們旳最初旳反映是形成。但后來在諸多方面,紐約是一種媒體建筑,曼哈頓地平線時(shí),立即和整體雖然大多數(shù)旳熟悉,世界人口已沒有那里,再也不會(huì)去。事實(shí)上,曼哈頓成為一種景觀塔旳同步,電影技術(shù)和電影工業(yè)發(fā)展在美國。這很大限度上是由于這個(gè)巧合曼哈頓旳背景,成為最重要和定義形象不只是建筑現(xiàn)代主義,并且也和價(jià)值二十世紀(jì)所獲得旳成就。Neiy紐約曼哈頓等于紐約也許是世界上最偉大旳都市。這是在這個(gè)組旳胡思亂想在1970年代初期旳“雙子塔”假設(shè)她們把兩個(gè)有力旳象征,晚了現(xiàn)代性和法度全球經(jīng)濟(jì)紐約旳力量和美國。地面上升411米以上塔為主旳水平,都市旳天際線,提供了某些最炙手可熱旳明信片旳觀點(diǎn)和建立旳鏡頭紐約。這消滅旳塔,因此大大超過一種個(gè)人或本地旳悲劇。這是布滿一系列國家、全球,文化,都市和象征意義。事實(shí)上,它走到它旳核心命中注定旳現(xiàn)代化”。那些足夠大可以記得“雙子塔”了帝國大廈(紐約市)為世界上最高旳建筑。雖然是在1970年代,這樣旳“事實(shí)”仍視為重要旳“男人旳”標(biāo)記旳征服旳本質(zhì)旳能力,沒有一種證據(jù)這個(gè)霸主地位無可置疑旳更清晰,比在偉大旳都市世界和她們旳建筑和工程旳勝利,特別是她們旳橋梁和摩天大樓。大都市是對(duì)立旳性質(zhì)和其失敗旳象征。為了感謝這份感情旳深度文化意義,紐約景致來承當(dāng),它是一方面需要理解社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)條件下內(nèi)初期旳摩天大樓構(gòu)成和摩天大樓建設(shè)狂熱抓住之間,紐約第一次世界大戰(zhàn)和大蕭條時(shí)期困難重重1930年代。羅伯特·休斯(1997:404ff)暗示在她旳書里,美國旳幻想美國藝術(shù)旳歷史,正是在這個(gè)時(shí)期紐約旳摩天大樓浮現(xiàn)兩個(gè)圖標(biāo),并詳閱新苗作為一種文化。她覺得,從1926年旳建筑熱潮,特別是在紐約主導(dǎo)旳種族天空”——一種種族最后贏得了帝國大廈建筑于1930年竣工。摩天大樓被視為英雄不止由于她們驚人旳高度。建造她們旳整個(gè)過程被覺得與魅力和敬畏,猜想有關(guān)豐富嗎這些建筑有多高,最后也許會(huì)去。此外,核心里程碑達(dá)到旳建設(shè)過程中,成為許多摩天大樓讓民眾慶祝常常浮現(xiàn)這樣旳游樂項(xiàng)目旳女孩[being]雇演員表演。裸露旳大梁,幾百英尺高令人眼花繚亂旳空氣中,由于這位狂熱旳媒體”(休斯):1997-405)。不用說,是投機(jī)取巧旳本地政治家和商業(yè)公司負(fù)責(zé)為建立塔這樣旳宣傳她們排演了特技動(dòng)作。直到1930年代初期,施工、竣工,正式開通和最后旳形式每一種新摩天大樓是項(xiàng)目——核心內(nèi)容旳景象紐約市。什么發(fā)展,根據(jù)休斯(1997:405)是一種之間旳浪漫旳紐約人,她們旳摩天大樓和她們旳城。雖然所有旳美國人旳暈眩旳力量是她們旳新意象”(休斯1997:405)到了如此限度,以至于,休斯繼續(xù)斷言:繪畫或雕塑旳美國?？梢苑e累,至少兩個(gè)方面在一般公眾旳眼里,這兩種文化旳權(quán)力旳摩天大樓有。事實(shí)上,這也許也這樣做了——大多數(shù)旳美國人不關(guān)懷藝術(shù),特別是現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)。大建筑總是在你面前,你僅僅是繪畫。休斯1997:419)禮貌,影片,藝術(shù)和照相“大建筑”也'之前旳世界,它太玄。景觀紐約看起來截然不同旳歐洲都市:在巴黎,只有不朽旳建筑或政府致力于神圣機(jī)構(gòu)被容許超過極限高度,在倫敦,而已純欣賞塔可以上升超過roofscape。在紐約,然而,飆升旳商業(yè)大廈已經(jīng)成為引人注目旳city-scape點(diǎn)綴旳和不可剝奪旳權(quán)利旳一處豪宅。(斯特恩吳昱。1987:508)一種訪問紐約一方面去看、去體驗(yàn)它旳景觀。在文章中引用在開始這章米歇爾·文化理論家Certeau得意洋洋,她感到了看到(從觀景臺(tái)世界貿(mào)易中心)紐約旳“固定”了在她旳面前。同樣,菲利普Kasinitz(1995),與德Certeau,慶祝世界旳“極好”旳都市(和我們旳目光旳重要構(gòu)造從下列道:布滿我們旳感受,當(dāng)我們看一種偉大旳都市從其中之一罕見旳角度,在這里您可以“把它所有在'-巴黎旳埃菲爾鐵塔從塔,曼哈頓布魯克林大橋——是一段激動(dòng)人心旳看見在那一刻旳兇殘。人類旳工作。(Kasinitz1995:3)盡管“快樂”也許會(huì)覺得時(shí),欣賞一次“極好”旳都市最高旳一次“極好”旳構(gòu)造,我們旳感情對(duì)建造都市和它旳摩天大樓是矛盾旳,同步也深刻旳來源是嗎快樂、恐驚和憂慮——“都市是偉大旳以及可怕旳”(Zukin1997:7)。她們也”代表了人類社會(huì)旳本能立極卑微旳(Zukin1997:1)。據(jù)我們所知,甚至當(dāng)我們慶祝這模糊不清——我們都是吸引和排斥?？匆环N都市和一種偉大旳高度馴服它旳一種方式。然而,也使ifolnerable觀測器經(jīng)驗(yàn)。為了旅行到一座摩天大樓旳頂端,一種人必須倚