In 1945 Chauncey Harris and Edward Ullman created the multiple nuclei model, which suggests that cities are locationally fixed growth machines, deeply grounded in capitalism. It also states that cities develop around a central business district. Recently a new theory regarding city growth has emerged called the postmodern city theory. This theory states that there is no singular or dominant approach to understanding contemporary city development. In the article, Los Angeles and the Chicago School: An Invitation to a Debate, Michael Dear makes sense of postmodern urban cities and gives us evidence to argue for or against the existence of an L.A. School of Urbanism.

Some agree that it is time to depart from the Chicago School being the paradigmatic model for all cities. However, this idea hasn’t been accepted by all. In class I wanted to get a better sense as to why the L.A. School of Urbanism is still under debate and why are we using Chicago as a template for all cities. It seems we would gain a better understanding of urban life and function if there were schools that studied the city they were situated in. My question generated some discussion, however, even after our discussion I don’t fully understand why people are skeptical of the L.A. School of Urbanism. We know that the Chicago School of Urbanism was created out of convenience to the researchers. After the Chicago fire, Chicago was reconstructed into a market place and city of entertainment. The researchers went into their “backyard” and used the data they collected from Chicago as a template for all cities in the United States.

The Chicago School limits the versatility and complexity of city experiences in different cities to a singular unit. During our discussion, one of my classmates stated that this is problematic, because rural cities don’t function the same way urban cities like Chicago or postmodern cities like Los Angeles do.  I agree with this statement, because although the convenient nature of the Chicago school gives sociologist a starting point for other urban cities it wouldn’t give reason as to why Iowa City has such a drug abuse issue; nor does it give you a starting point to understand a hybrid city like Los Angeles. Specifically, Dear states that adopting L.A. as a world city template needs to be avoided since it’s urban landscapes aren’t original (page 28). Even though it’s landscapes aren’t original, I think it would be interesting to think study how American urbanities of L.A. function and navigate the city as it is a hybrid of international places like São Paulo and American cities. This could be the reason why Los Angeles is home to 1 million immigrants- they want to move to America to achieve the American dream but they want to live in a place that reminds them of home. By recognizing schools that study the specifics of individual cities we will be able to understand the complexities and experiences of each individual cities to create a more defined and inclusive idea of what it means to be a city.