Origins There Is Not Enough Evidence to Assert What Conditions Gave Rise to the First Cities

City A city is a relatively large and permanent human settlement.[1][2] Although there is no agreement on how a city is distinguished from a town within general English language meanings, many cities have a particular administrative, legal, or historical status based on local law. Cities generally have complex systems for sanitation, utilities, land usage, housing, and transportation. The concentration of development greatly facilitates interaction between people and businesses, benefiting both parties in the process, but it also presents challenges to managing urban growth.[3] A big city or metropolis usually has associated suburbs and exurbs. Such cities are usually associated with metropolitan areas and urban areas, creating numerous business commuters traveling to urban centers for employment. Once a city expands far enough to reach another city, this region can be deemed aconurbation or megalopolis. Origins There is not enough evidence to assert what conditions gave rise to the first cities. However, some theorists have speculated on what they consider suitable pre- conditions, and basic mechanisms that might have been important driving forces. The conventional view holds that cities first formed after the Neolithic revolution. The Neolithic revolution brought agriculture, which made denser human populations possible, thereby supporting city development.[4] The advent of farming encouraged hunter-gatherers to abandon nomadic lifestyles and to settle near others who lived by agricultural production. The increased population-density encouraged by farming and the increased output of food per unit of land created conditions that seem more suitable for city-like activities. In his book, Cities and Economic Development, Paul Bairoch takes up this position in his argument that agricultural activity appears necessary before true cities can form. According to Vere Gordon Childe, for a settlement to qualify as a city, it must have enough surplus of raw materials to support trade and a relatively large population.[5] Bairoch points out that, due to sparse population densities that would have persisted in pre-Neolithic, hunter-gatherer societies, the amount of land that would be required to produce enough food for subsistence and trade for a large population would make it impossible to control the flow of trade. To illustrate this point, Bairoch offers an example: "Western Europe during the pre-Neolithic, [where] the density must have been less than 0.1 person per square kilometre".[6] Using this population density as a base for calculation, and allotting 10% of food towards surplus for trade and assuming that city dwellers do no farming, he calculates that "...to maintain a city with a population of 1,000, and without taking the cost of transport into account, an area of 100,000 square kilometres would have been required. When the cost of transport is taken into account, the figure rises to 200,000 square kilometres ...".[6] Bairoch noted that this is roughly the size of Great Britain. The urban theorist Jane Jacobs suggests that city-formation preceded the birth of agriculture, but this view is not widely accepted.[7] In his book City Economics, Brendan O'Flaherty asserts "Cities could persist—as they have for thousands of years—only if their advantages offset the disadvantages" (O'Flaherty 2005, p. 12). O'Flaherty illustrates two similar attracting advantages known as increasing returns to scale and economies of scale, which are concepts usually associated withfirms. Their applications are seen in more basic economic systems as well. Increasing returns to scale occurs when "doubling all inputs more than doubles the output [and] an activity has economies of scale if doubling output less than doubles cost" (O'Flaherty 2005, pp. 572–573). To offer an example of these concepts, O'Flaherty makes use of "one of the oldest reasons why cities were built: military protection" (O'Flaherty 2005, p. 13). In this example, the inputs are anything that would be used for protection (e.g., a wall) and the output is the area protected and everything of value contained in it. O'Flaherty then asks that we suppose the protected area is square, and each hectare inside it has the same value of protection. The advantage is expressed as: (O'Flaherty 2005, p. 13) (1) , where O is the output (area protected) and s stands for the length of a side. This equation shows that output is proportional to the square of the length of a side. The inputs depend on the length of the perimeter: (2) , where I stands for the quantity of inputs. So there are increasing returns to scale: (3) . This equation (solving for in (1) and substituting in (2)) shows that with twice the inputs, you produce quadruple the output. Also, economies of scale: (4) . This equation (solving for in equation (3)) shows that the same output requires less input. "Cities, then, economize on protection, and so protection against marauding barbarian armies is one reason why people have come together to live in cities ..." (O'Flaherty 2005, p. 13). Similarly, "Are Cities Dying?", a paper by Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser, delves into similar reasons for city formation: reduced transport costs for goods, people and ideas. Discussing the benefits of proximity, Glaeser claims that if a city is doubled in size, workers get a ten-percent increase in earnings. Glaeser furthers his argument by stating that bigger cities do not pay more for equal productivity than in a smaller city, so it is reasonable to assume that workers become more productive if they move to a city twice the size as they initially worked in. However, the workers do not benefit much from the ten-percent wage increase, because it is recycled back into the higher cost of living in a larger city. They do gain other benefits from living in cities, though.[which?] Geography City planning has seen many different schemes for how a city should look. The most commonly seen pattern is the grid, used for thousands of years in China, independently invented byAlexander the Great's city planner Dinocrates of Rhodes and favoured by the Romans, while almost a rule in parts of pre-Columbian America. Derry, begun in 1613, was the first planned city inIreland, with the walls being completed five years later. The central diamond within a walled city with four gates was considered a good design for defence. The grid pattern was widely copied in the colonies of British North America. The ancient Greeks often gave their colonies around the Mediterranean a grid plan. One of the best examples is the city of Priene. This city had different specialised districts, much as is seen in modern city planning today. Fifteen centuries earlier, the Indus Valley Civilisation was using grids in such cities as Mohenjo-Daro. In medieval times there was evidence of a preference for linear planning. Good examples are the cities established by various rulers in the south of France and city expansions in old Dutch and Flemish cities. Grid plans were popular among planners in the 19th century, particularly after the redesign of Paris. They cut through the meandering, organic streets that followed old paths. The United States imposed grid plans in new territories and towns, as the American West was rapidly established, in places such as Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Other forms may include a radial structure, in which main roads converge on a central point. This was often a historic form, the effect of successive growth over long time with concentric traces of town walls and citadels. In more recent history, such forms were supplemented by ring-roads that take traffic around the outskirts of a town. Many Dutch cities are structured this way: a central square surrounded by concentric canals. Every city expansion would imply a new circle (canals together with town walls). In cities such as Amsterdam, Haarlemand also Moscow, this pattern is still clearly visible. History Towns and cities have a long history, although opinions vary on whether any particular ancient settlement can be considered a city. A city formed as central places of trade for the benefit of the members living in close proximity to others facilitates interaction of all kinds. These interactions generate both positive and negative externalities between others' actions. Benefits include reduced transport costs, exchange of ideas, sharing of natural resources, large local markets, and later in their development, amenities such as running water and sewagedisposal. Possible costs would include higher rate of crime, higher mortality rates, higher cost of living, worse pollution, traffic and high commuting times. Cities grow when the benefits of proximity between people and firms are higher than the cost. The first true towns are sometimes considered large settlements where the inhabitants were no longer simply farmers of the surrounding area, but began to take on specialized occupations, and where trade, food storage and power were centralized. In 1950 Gordon Childeattempted to define a historic city with 10 general metrics.[8] These are: 1. Size and density of the population should be above normal. 2. Differentiation of the population. Not all residents grow their own food, leading to specialists. 3. Payment of taxes to a deity or king. 4. Monumental public buildings. 5. Those not producing their own food are supported by the king. 6. Systems of recording and practical science. 7. A system of writing. 8. Development of symbolic art. 9. Trade and import of raw materials. 10. Specialist craftsmen from outside the kin-group. This categorisation is descriptive, and it is used as a general touchstone when considering ancient cities, although not all have each of its characteristics. One characteristic that can be used to distinguish a small city from a large town is organized government. A town accomplishes common goals through informal agreements between neighbors or the leadership of a chief.

Load more