A Portrait of North American Urban Historians

The Survey

With the assistance of Avigail Oren, the UHA’s webmaster, the survey was set up on Survey Monkey for three weeks, from March 8 to 31, 2017. In so far as it is possible to judge, it was well-received and indeed a success. It included a mixture of closed- and open-ended questions. Commonly, people are willing to check some boxes but skip others, and especially questions that require more thought. In this case, however, of the 298 members who responded the great majority answered almost all of the closed-ended questions. For that reason, response rates for these are not reported. Many people also offered comments for the open-ended questions, and their varying numbers are noted, as appropriate. These comments yielded some of the more interesting results.

There is no way of telling whether those who responded are typical even of the UHA membership. They surely include a disproportionate number of those who feel committed to the Association, as indicated by the fact that, at one time or another, 20 percent had served on its board of directors. Counterbalancing that, 55 percent had been members for less than five years. This group included an uncertain number who are members by virtue of having attended the Chicago conference in October 2016. This was the best-attended UHA conference to date, attracting many people who had previously had little or no contact with the association, and all registrants received a year’s free membership. On balance, then, there is reason to believe that those who responded are a plausible cross-section of members, and that the survey results provide a meaningful portrait of North American urban historians.

Who Are We?

As a member of the Association, I would feel strange referring to my peers as “they,” even though the survey results show that—being a British-born geographer based in Canada—I am something an outlier. Let me just say that I self-identify as an urban historian of North America, and that this justifies use of the first person plural.

In some ways, we are a mixture, in many others not so much. Our age profile is younger than some may suppose: our median age group is forty to forty-nine, with exactly a third of us in our thirties and one in ten below thirty. At the other end of the range, 12 percent of us are above sixty-five. If nothing else, this indicates that a significant number of people retain an active interest in urban history into retirement.

In other respects, we are not as well-balanced. We are a mainly male (58%) and distinctly white (78%) organization, with Hispanic/Latino (8%) and African American (6%) minorities. We are—no surprise here—very North American: 88 percent were born in the United States, and 93 percent live there, while Canadians, next in line, trail far behind, at 3 percent on each count. And we are, overwhelmingly, academics of one sort or another: 64 percent are university faculty (57% with tenure), 20 percent students, and many others are emeriti/retired. A few (2.5%) checked off the option “public historian” while a sprinkling described themselves as administrators, in government, or as independent writers/scholars. Overwhelmingly, then, the survey results pertain to urban history as it is, or has been, practiced in colleges and universities.

It should also come as no surprise that we are historians: 76 percent listed history as their highest degree. Interestingly, however, 7 percent named architecture or architectural history as their main qualification, and a similar proportion indicated American Studies. In contrast, Urban Studies, Geography, and Economics lagged at about 1 percent apiece. The low ranking of Geography is noteworthy for an urban association, but not surprising. By comparison with universities in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, this discipline has a low profile in the United States and, as a subdiscipline, historical geography has failed to thrive. The low ranking of economics is intriguing for a different reason: there is no shortage of economists at North American universities, and their discipline has a high profile. Their scarcity in the association hints at a significant disciplinary gulf, one that affects urban studies more generally.

With these disciplinary backgrounds, it is no wonder that 57 percent of respondents are also members of the American Historical Association, with the same proportion in the Organization of American Historians. More surprising is that only a third—exactly 33 percent—are members of SACRPH (the Society for American City and Regional Planning History). Many regard this as a sister organization. That is why, ever since the UHA began to hold its own meetings in 2002, the two organizations have arranged for their biennial fall conferences to alternate. Much smaller numbers of respondents reported membership in the International Planning History Society (7%) or the European Association for Urban History (4.5%). This pattern of associational linkages suggests that the majority of members identify strongly as historians of America.

This is confirmed by the journals that we read. Each respondent was asked to list the five journals that they consulted most frequently, in ranked order, and 208 people listed five. Overwhelmingly, the two journals that they ranked first were the Journal of Urban History and the Journal of American History, these being listed first by fifty-two and forty-four people, respectively. The American Historical Review (thirteen), Environmental History (seven), and Labor: Working Class Histories of the Americas (five) made up the remainder of the Top 5, top-ranked journals. The most significant elements in these rankings are the silences. Three leading English-language journals that are dedicated to publishing urban-historical research, Urban History, the Journal of Planning History, and Planning Perspectives, failed to make the Top 5. The latter two made later appearances in the lists of second, third, fourth, and fifth most-consulted journals, but Urban History did not. ² Clearly, many of those who responded to the survey have only a limited interest in cities in general, a fact which may also speak to the way they think about the cities they study.

What Places and Topics Do We Study?

As North American scholars, we mostly study North America (79%), specifically the United States (78%), and/or Canada (5%), or Mexico (3%). Small minorities describe their main areas of interest to be European (6%) or global (4%). But in practice, the great majority of us study specific cities, or at most groups of cities, rather than all urban centers in a nation. When asked what city or cities they study, a handful of respondents reported “all,” “general,” or “various,” while another handful mentioned specific regions. Two indicated “rust belt”; one wrote “smaller southern cities,” another “northeastern cities.” One—a delightful outlier—reported an interest in “Moscow [plus] others lately linked to football clubs I study.” (It is unlikely that the reference was to American football.)

Apart from those few who report an interest in whole classes of urban centers, respondents listed just one place, or occasionally up to four places as being the focus of their research. In terms of places mentioned, there was an even balance. In all, members named fifty-five U.S. cities as being of interest to them, and another fifty-five places elsewhere. But in terms of the frequency with which they were mentioned, the dominance of a handful of large U.S. cities is very striking. More than two-fifths of all those who named specific cities indicated that their prime focus was on New York (22%) or Chicago (20%). Los Angeles (8%) together with Detroit, Philadelphia, and San Francisco (4% each) were also-rans. The leading non-U.S. cities—Mexico City, Toronto, and London—were mentioned by fewer than 2 percent. Moscow, Montreal, and Milan, along with Buenos Aires, Kolkata, Tokyo, Rome, Lagos, Santiago, and Istanbul, as well as Vancouver, Vienna, and Vilnius, were also named once, as well as a few others. But the overwhelming emphasis on U.S. cities was very obvious.

Even more striking is the fact that urban historians, like urbanists in general, are most enamored of the major metropolitan centers. If anything, this is especially true beyond the U.S. border: there, Vilnius is very much the outlier. In Canada, apart from Hamilton, named by yours truly, the only places to be mentioned were the MTV trio. Indeed, on some topics, it is a challenge to find research beyond the borders of Toronto, the city that other Canadians love to hate.

The most richly detailed portrait of big-city bias is of course provided by the United States. There are brave souls who study places such as Grand Rapids (Michigan), Akron (Ohio), Worcester (Massachusetts), Fort Worth (Texas), and Salinas (California), each of which received one vote, but these are very much the exception. One of the things revealed by the naming of smaller places is a regional bias. On this evidence, the most studied state is the most populous, California. Apart from its two largest urban centers and Salinas, the cities of Monterey, San Jose (twice), and San Diego also received mentions. By contrast, the South is still somewhat neglected: the Durham–Raleigh-Chapel Hill triangle was named, but even Atlanta was mentioned by only 2 percent of those who listed specific cities, tying for ninth place with New Orleans. Except as a rust belt, the Midwest, too, draws less attention than its urban population would suggest. Once upon a time, movie moguls asked “will it play in Peoria?” while, in Canada, market researchers wanted to know what would sell in Peterborough, Ontario. Today, like most urbanists, urban historians are not likely to have an answer.

Our topical interests also show elements of bias. Respondents were allowed to describe their topical interests any way they chose, which was probably a mistake because they came up with a wide range of phrases which could be classified very variously. Devising categories in retrospect, the leading group (14%) fell into the broad category of planning and urban design. This is not surprising, given the prominence of the built environment, and of public action in relation to that environment, in most people’s understanding of cities. It is likely that many of those who are also members of SACRPH would fall into this group. A close second in ranking (12%) were those interested in race or ethnicity, also very understandable given the prominence of these issues in the United States, both past and present. Not far behind were those interested in urban governance and politics (10%) and housing (7.5%). Of course, these categories are not mutually exclusive: segregation, for example, is a racialized issue expressed in the built environment via a housing market that is shaped by, and in turn shapes, urban governance. Even so, the high ranking of some issues and the relative neglect of others, including the urban economy and natural environment, indicate the priorities of UHA members.

What Frames Our Thinking?

Digging deeper, we can ask what types of questions appear to guide North American urban historians. Of course, the most direct way of answering that question would be to survey the research that we publish in books and articles. That would be a worthwhile if time-consuming task which, to a limited extent, has been undertaken by others. ³ But the survey also has some light to throw on that question.

As noted earlier, there is a marked North American emphasis, not only in the places studied but also in the professional associations to which UHA members belong. There are two dimensions to this. The majority of historians are trained, and hired, for their regional (and usually national) expertise. They see their research on cities as contributing to the history of colonial America, say, of western settlement, or of twentieth-century Canada. Their teaching contribution may be construed more narrowly, as speaking to the rise of consumer culture or the character of race relations in a particular place and time. Of course, there are exceptions to these generalizations, but in most cases, the making of linkages and of drawing parallels with cities in other countries is not viewed by their departments as essential, or perhaps even important.

Coupled with this geographical focus many respondents are evidently concerned with thematic issues that are not unique to cities. This is strongly indicated by the fact that only 50 percent of respondent think of themselves primarily as urban historians. The main, stated alternative subfields were social or cultural history (7% each). Others noted that their intellectual priorities lie in the fields of politics, architecture, the economy, or gender issue (3% each). Overall, these are striking numbers that bear emphasis: barely half of the UHA’s members identify above all as urban historians.

In light of that response, it is not surprising that a large minority (45%) indicated that they do not believe that there is anything distinctively urban about cities. This may give a slightly misleading impression. If respondents included a significant number of newcomers from the Chicago conference, and if many in that group turned out to be sojourners whose main interests lie elsewhere, then the long-term proportion of convinced urbanists may be rather higher than 55 percent. But that is a lot of ifs. Clearly, many people who practice urban history are agnostic, and perhaps not especially interested, in a question that has intermittently vexed urban studies for generations.

Those who answered in the affirmative were asked to indicate in a few words how they would characterize this distinctively urban element. Given the time and space available, what they wrote is more in the nature of an elevator pitch than a considered judgment. There can be a virtue to that: arguably, what we see are people’s first thoughts, their reflexive assumptions, rather than what they think they should be saying after mature reflection. Their comments are perhaps the most interesting outcome of the survey. To help make sense of their sometimes cryptic replies, however, it is useful to take a brief digression to consider what others have said on this issue, and which writers the survey respondents have been most influenced by.

Urbanists have periodically tried to distinguish forces, events, and issues that happen in cities from those that define them—that cities may be said to have caused. ⁴ They have then agonized and debated over what these distinctively urban elements might be. This is not the place to survey all that has been said, and still less to weigh it, but it is worth noting the dominant themes and writers. Interestingly—and this is perhaps an irrelevant aside—even though England was the first urban nation, the writers who have framed the main English-language debates on this question are overwhelmingly American.

Three broad themes have been dominant: social, economic, and cultural. The classic statement about the social effects of urban living—so classic that most references to it describe it as classic—is that of the Chicago sociologist, Louis Wirth. The anonymous social experience of urban living, he argued, is shaped by the size, density, and heterogeneity of urban populations. It is an argument with all sorts of ramifications for the urban community, including the dynamics of social groups. It has been referenced and debated innumerable times, and some authors, notably Claude Fischer, have made a serious effort to assess it. ⁵

The economic significance of cities has attracted just as much attention. An early statement about the value of industrial clustering was articulated by Alfred Marshall, while a wider argument about the effects of industrial cities on economic growth was then framed by the economic historian, Eric Lampard. More recently, influential writers have built on these ideas: Jane Jacobs, best known for her detailed observations about the social life of cities, also had important things to say about how cities promote innovation; more recently, the geographer Michael Storper and economist Edward Glaeser have documented and surveyed the economic effects of urban concentration, while the geographer David Harvey has sought ambitiously to articulate the significance of cities for the evolution of capitalism. ⁶

And then there are the cultural arguments. Depending how “culture” is defined, it can embrace the social and even the economic dimensions of human life. One of the broadest and most influential statements along these lines was made by Lewis Mumford. In The City in History, he interpreted the course of human history in terms of the growth cities and of their impact on social structures, cultural practices, and economic life too. Within a narrower frame of reference, Arthur Schlesinger framed an argument about the broad role of American cities in the late nineteenth century. Narrower still, Gunter Barth interpreted the emergence in that period of cultural institutions such as professional sports teams and the local newspaper as a response to the search for community in urban settings. ⁷

Most of these accounts accentuate the positive: the diversity, dynamism, and innovation of the city, a place of economic opportunity and growth. Glaeser, in particular, plays up these triumphal aspects. But there has always been a darker side, one to which Mumford was well attuned. Most recently, Bob Beauregard has elaborated on some of these negative elements, balancing out the positive. ⁸ In sum, then, even this very brief survey indicates a range of important arguments that are available to inform research on a wide range of topics, potentially in any urban setting.

Have the ideas of these writers framed the thinking of North American urban historians? Yes, but, directly at any rate, only to a limited degree. When asked which authors had most influenced their research, none of the above writers were among the first four mentioned. These four were Thomas Sugrue, William Cronon, Michael Katz, and Kenneth Jackson. Harvey, who tied with Arnold Hirsh and Dolores Hayden for fifth place, was the top-ranked nonhistorian. ⁹ It may be, as Robert Lewis has suggested, that many urban historians do see the city as the “driver” of historical change but that they absorb this way of thinking from those who work embodies it, rather than those who have spelled out the argument in systematic ways. ¹⁰ This ranking is surely a tribute to the quality of the work of particular historians, and also to their personal role as supervisors and mentors. The lower ranking of more theoretically inclined writers is explained in part by the fact that a number have been dead for some years, coupled with the disciplinary background of most respondents. For different reasons, Wirth, Mumford, Jacobs, and even Harvey have not been in a position to act as research supervisors or mentors!

The influence of those classic writers came through more clearly when respondents were asked to characterize the urban variable. Altogether, 118 people offered their thoughts. To be sure, several noted that although the question is “good” and “worthwhile” it is also “difficult.” One was candid: “not sure.” A couple of others suggested that the question could usefully be explored more fully in other settings, for example, in “a good plenary.” No doubt.

But most of the 118 gave plausible, and in many respects classic, responses. Some offered the sort of very broad answer that could indeed define our field: “looking beyond the city as a stage, to considering it as an active element in the historical process”; “the urban context features networks, contingencies and serendipity not found in non-urban contexts”; “[cities] have clusters of homes and people, businesses, and other things that collide in an interesting way.” Several had a geographical emphasis: “the physical structure of cities create[s] opportunities for the compression and overlap of many elements that would be isolated in non-urban places.” And many noted the importance of physical concentration: “the social, economic, and political complications of intense density.”

There were differences of emphasis. A couple were Mumfordian: “the effects of urban concentration on the course of history”; “concentration of people in space creates political and cultural dynamics uniquely urban.” One was assertively Lampardian: “the role that cities play in generating economic growth.” But this was rare. More common was the omission of economic considerations, as here: “the geographic concentration of people and resources and the social, cultural, political and administrative dynamics that flow from concentration.” Of course, this does not mean that those who responded are unaware of, or indifferent to, the economic dimension, merely that it was not usually the first thing that sprang to mind.

The strongest theme, however, was broadly sociological: “a confluence of physical characteristics and types of social relationships that is different from the non-urban.” Quite a number included variations on the pairing of density and diversity (or heterogeneity), as in “urban means density and diversity to me.” Two typed “way of life.” Wirth is dead; long live Wirth!

And then there were a couple who apparently looked as much to the future as to the past. They spoke of how some elements of the urban experience may be becoming blurred or ubiquitous as “the connections between cities, and between cities and the rest of the planet, is a historical phenomenon that is growing rapidly today.” This is reminiscent of the argument about “planetary urbanization,” made most forcefully by Neil Brenner: that although urban places may once have been distinctive the diffusion of urban elements across the global landscape has made such arguments moot. ¹¹ But it is not surprising that this view was rarely mentioned. Urban historians live in the present and may wonder about the future but their bread and butter is the past.

Prospects

If the prospects for cities are open to debate so, too, are those for urban history. The survey offers some clues about this, and also cause for hope. Information was collected about the age profile of members and also about how long they had been members. When cross-tabulated against gender, race, and belief that there is something distinctive about the urban scene, these point tentatively to trends in the near future.

The gender composition of the association, and by extension the subfield, is changing. Three-quarters of those aged over sixty-five are male, but just under half of those below thirty. Among those in between the ratio ranges narrowly around three-fifths. If the field is able to retain its younger people then it will become more representative of the population. This is even more true with respect to race. The proportion of people who identify themselves as white declines steadily from 87 percent among those aged fifty to sixty-four to only 56 percent among those under thirty. The only exception to this pattern is apparent among those sixty-five and above, where the ratio is “only” 78 percent. In demographic terms, then, there is clearly considerable potential for change.

The pattern in terms of belief is less clear. The highest proportions of those who think that there is such a thing as a distinctively urban element to cities is highest among the youngest and the oldest groups, at 55 percent and 56 percent, respectively. Those in between, and especially in their forties, are slightly more skeptical. Perhaps this reflects an intellectual midlife crisis of faith, one that age restores.

For the association, a telling tabulation sets faith in “the urban” against duration of membership. Not surprisingly, such faith is highest among those who have been members for ten or more years, intermediate among those who have been members for between five and ten years, and lowest among the newest recruits to the Association. The proportions are 63 percent, 53 percent and 41 percent, respectively. Correlation, of course, is not causation. From the bare statistics, there is no way of knowing whether people have stayed longer in the association because they share the true faith or whether they have acquired belief through association with colleagues. The first has probably been the stronger influence. But either way the association, and by extension the subdiscipline, might usefully pay attention.

Concluding Discussion

It is something of a cliché that the music we hear, and the friends we have, in our teens have a greater impact than those we encounter later. With a lag of only a few years, much the same argument is surely true for intellectual influences upon academics. Reflecting on my career as an urban-historical scholar, I would say that the writers who had the greatest influence on me were David Harvey, Lewis Mumford, and Louis Wirth, all of whom I had encountered by age twenty-three. If this experience is typical, urban historians should pay great attention to the training we give to our students, including the writers and ideas to whom we introduce them. Done well, this will nurture the nascent gender and racial diversity in the subdiscipline. It can also encourage discussion and reflection about the distinctive qualities of the urban experience, a difficult and engaging issue that should help to keep recruits loyal to our field.

At the same time, there are gaps and emphases that it would surely be good to correct. The survey has confirmed that the urban economy, which after all is what makes cities thrive, is a neglected topic. So, too, are the smaller urban centers in which most people live. These are surely regrettable biases. The relative neglect of smaller places will be the hardest to address: publishers are well aware that the audience for studies of New York are orders of magnitude greater than that for Poughkeepsie. Selling the economy should be lot easier, including those elements, such as the land market, that have quintessentially urban aspects. ¹²

The survey also reveals other types of geographical bias. Members of the Association are overwhelmingly based in the United States and focused on U.S. cities. There is nothing wrong with that, not least because those cities are themselves very diverse in character, history, and size. But what the survey hints at, but unfortunately did not ask directly, is that many respondents—from whatever country—focus their energies on just one or two cities. If that is true, then it is to be regretted. There is much to be said for local and international comparison, however informal. It can clarify the distinctive features of the place or places that are of prime interest. At the same time, it encourages reflection about what is common to the urban experience everywhere. This in turn can enrich theories about “the urban,” enlarging our conversation with other disciplines.

Lecture over. The survey reinforces other indications that urban history is a vibrant subfield in North America. Attendance at its most recent conference was at an all-time high. Its next conference is being held in Columbia, South Carolina, one of the many neglected smaller urban centers, and preliminary indications are that it will be well-attended. Many members of the UHA were willing to respond to a time-consuming online survey. The results show that the subfield is attracting more women and racial minorities. Taken together, these are strong foundations on which to build.