The Process of Urbanization

U RBANIZATION is a process of population concentration. It proceeds in two ways: the multiplication of points of concentration and the increase in size of individual concentrations. It may occasionally or in some areas stop or actually recede, but the tendency is inherent in society for it to proceed until it is inhibited by adverse conditions. Whether or not a saturation point, an "urban maturity," followed by stabilization or subsidence of the process, can or will be reached is not known. There is some evidence that points toward such a development, but the contingent and derivative nature or urbanization makes this a difficult question to answer. The restriction of the definition of urbanization to terms of population concentration may at first seem too limited, but an investigation of the possibilities of broader or different definition will show that this is the only one which does not lead to ambiguity and other forms of intellectual distress. Its concreteness and simplicity further recommend it; it gives us something definite to lay hold of. Logically and etymologically, it is unassailable. The societal point of view demands it, since it comprehends the totality of the process both in time and in space. It eliminates or throws into different categories other processes which, though associated with urbanization, may have opposing effects upon it. The concomitants of urbanization are not to be ignored; they are simply to be distinguished from it. Consistent with the definition of urbanization, cities may be defined as points of concentration. There is no need at this juncture to fix lower limits to the size and density which qualify a concentration as a city. There is no clear-cut level of concentration at which a city suddenly springs into being. It is convenient from time to time arbitrarily to name certain levels beyond which concentrations are designated as cities. This is necessary in analyzing data and identifying characteristics of various size groups, but it does not alter the validity of the original concept. In defending the strictness and simplicity of the definitions offered here, it is in order to examine some other definitions and explain why they have been rejected. There are two classes of definition which are deemed unacceptable. The first regards urbanization as a process of radiation whereby ideas and practices spread out from the urban center into surrounding areas. This is an objectionable definition because it makes the city the cause of urbanization rather than the result or the product of urbanization. It does not explain the appearance and growth of cities. It posits the pre-existence of cities. It says, "In the beginning, there were cities." Not that cities do not radiate powerful influences. Indeed they do. But calling this radiation urbanization introduces the element of ambiguity mentioned earlier in this discussion. If the process by which people congregate in cities (and surely it cannot be said that this is Iot urbanization) and the process by which influences go out from the city are both called urbanization, we have a hybrid definition, a definition on two levels, in two senses. It wNill be necessary always to specify the sense in which it is being used. To use it in both senses at once is to be abstruse. The two types of phenomena are related. They act upon each other. But unless we dissect them apart, we cannot understand the nature of their association. The second class of definition is more objectionable than the first, and more peculiar. It defines urbanization as the increase in intensity of problems or traits or characteristics that are essentially urban. Again, we have the confusion of cause and effect, the pre-supposition of cities before urbanization, which gives the definition only a strictly contemporary application. The chief objection to it, however, lies in the necessity of admitting its corollary, that as problems are solved, as traits disappear, as characteristics change, deurbanization sets in. This cannot be true unless we are able to discover some problems, traits and characteristics which are so essentially urban that they never diminish or disappear as cities increase, only as they decrease. The one trait which can be demonstrated to have a complete and consistent positive association with urban * Documentation of the material presented here has been omitted, but will be included in the completed study of urbanization of which this discussion is to be a part.