--This is a portrait of Frederick Law Olmsted by John Singer Sargent. Olmsted was, without question, the most important landscape designer of the 19th century and perhaps the most influential designer of American spaces.
--This could be seen as a counter-part or book-end to our first reading of the term, Cole's "Notes on American Scenery," reflecting changed attitudes toward the landscape and the relationship between city and country. In what ways are they similar or different?
--Olmsted offers a vision of the shift from a rural to an urban civilization; how does he defend or privilege urban life over rural?
--Olmsted spends a great deal of time discussing city walking; what is his vision of walking in the city? How does it compare with visions of city walking in other texts we've studied this term? How or why is the park promenade offered as a superior alternative?
--This is the latest text for our class, representing the end of the romantic era and suggesting the ways in which the city park is very much the hold over from romanticism. In what ways are the founding ideals of the park movement and the vision of city planning offered here still relevant or important to American life?
The founding ideals of the park movement and the vision of city planning offered here are still relevant and important to American life, because it's what all of our lives are based on. There are very few people who experience strictly city life, or strictly country life. Almost all cities today include parks and gardens with sculpted landscapes. It's not organic nature, but it's manmade nature within an urban setting. Someone living in the city of Chicago can walk to a park and see trees, flowers, fountains and walk in a natural setting. Then there are the people who live in the country and may not have experience with city life. They still have things that are reminischent of city life though. They probably have internet and television, and they probably travel to a somewhat distinct and populated city for school or shopping. Life today is very much urbanized, but we still try and incoporate the beauty of nature into our cities.
ReplyDeleteEven today people think of parks as a romantic and free place to go. You can always see couples on dates walking around or having a picnic. There are children playing, people laughing, dogs running around, kites being flown. Parks are a place to escape from city life to and I think they're just as important today as they were when the park movement started, and I think they will always be a big part of our culture in the future.
I have to agree with what Devon said right above me, parks bring a type of country/rural aspect to cities that in turn rural communities do not posess much of a city aspect. A park is a place that allows a person in the city to "Escape" the city life without actually having to deal with all of the downsides to living in the country. And in this essay many downsides were mentioned. In many ways Olmsted was most certainly defending city living.
ReplyDeleteFirst he mentions how privileged one is to live in the city as opposed to the country, due to the aspect that I mentioned above about park allowing one to have the best of both worlds. Also, he mentions that the city has many more opportunities as opposed to the country living because there are more means of travel and also less labor and more comfortability. He mentioned how people sit out on their porches in the city and watch their children playing, there is a sense of peace about that. Though he mentions that there is more disease and crime in the city than in the country he still seems to veer more towards the city living. Also he mentions that recreations are more attainable in the city than that of the country and considering the close living headquarters, of course their is more of a "friendly" atmosphere but it is also said that in the city you can see a person many, many times, yet know nothing about them. The only reason that I believe Olmsted is leaning more towards the idea of city living in this essay is because of his fascination with parks and how much time he spent speaking about them. He really seemed to focus on the idea that parks bring just enough country to the city to keep people comfortable, it is enough of a "get-a-way" that the people in the city need, such as lunch in the park after working hard all day or a date or a Sunday walk. The park really seems to be a reason that he loves city living.
Olmsted privileges urban life over rural by associating urban life with progress. He says that the idea of living on one's own in the country and surviving off the land (hunting your food, building things, etc...) is an outdated model of living. People live more sophisticated lives now, they enjoy delicacies and have servants. According to Olmsted, the only people who really move to the country are the poor and apparently they are prone to returning to the city as soon as they acquire any sort of money. He also backs his argument by using England as a form of pseudo-evidence, noting the way that people moved out of the rural areas and into the cities over a course of fifty years. I don't particularly know if I agree with this notion or not, but my gut is that his assertions for the period are correct. My parents live in the country and they have amenities like high speed internet and satellite television. Rural life had to have been much more isolated in the 1870's and I would imagine that anyone with the means to do so would try and leave for greener pastures (figuratively speaking, of course). He also says that people fleeing the country for the city is good for the farmers who remain, allowing them more room to grow crops. I know nothing about farming, so this may or may not be the case. This view, however, is in line with his notion of progress. People living in the city are progressive, by leaving the city those who remain in the country will become progressive too by way of better farming (with the help of improved farming technology). I kind of feel like this is the type of essay a real estate developer would write.
ReplyDeleteI just found it so interesting that Frederick Law Olmsted starts his description of glorious city living by mentioning the way that coal miners look at San Fransisco as a land of paradise. For Olmsted to describe the city as a paradise is a complete reversal of the way we have normally seen paradise described in the Romantic Era and really establishes that the Romantic Era has ended. In a way, it’s like the urbanization of America replaced the literary interest in finding man’s existence among nature with an interest in man’s existence separated from nature. Even the envy of the miners evokes the idea that wealth is to be found in the city; however instead of finding God or a perfect state, people want the opportunity to belong in the city. The activities that fill Olmstead’s speech mark someone as being a member of the city and fixate on the progress that can be found in all areas of the city life. Whether through education, the work force, or theatrical entertainment, Olmstead implies that the progress found in each of these areas is good for everyone as individuals and as part of a community. For some reason, this seems like the beginnings of consumer society: being able to afford these activities indicates the privilege and allows people to assert their social standing as members of the city and city life. Of course, Olmsted’s view isn’t limited to American cities. Instead of romanticizing the perfection of nature, Olmsted romanticizes the unlimited nature of the human potential by idealizing the interactions that are possible between people in the city. The shift from nature’s external perfection often described in the Romantic Era to the perfect internal possibility presented in Olmsted’s speech seems illogical when compared to statistics, which suggest that population size and crime are positively correlated. It actually makes me very wary of the sincerity in Olmsted’s speech, and like Daniel above me, makes me feel like there were some ulterior motivations behind it.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, I sort of came in and out of focus a lot. I’m not sure if it was because I was reading it from a computer screen, the article itself or possibly because I know this is my last post. Either way I was left with a few thoughts. The first being that it is strange to think about the fuddy-duddy in that picture dictating the form of the spaces I look at today. I guess that I take things like city parks for granted because it seems like the sort of thing that one wouldn’t have to have thought so long and hard about (or written so many words to validate). Parks are amazing public spaces when you think about them. There are so many wholesome and illicit activates that take place on the same ground that it is hard to deny that parks contribute to American life. Is there another place in existence where during the day you could observe a church bazaar, Cub Scout meeting or little league game, and then come back 10 hours later to buy drugs, see high schoolers having sex in cars and be the victim of a violent crime? I surely can’t think of one. Parks seem to be important to people because it is a public space where what exactly the public does with the space is pretty much dependent on the public that is occupying the space at that given time. Though I don’t think that Olmstead had my views of how parks serve the community in mind when he said “The various kinds of recreation may be divided primarily under two heads”.
ReplyDeleteThe second came after I read the passage that starts, “My dear, when the children come home from school… and this shall be no joke, but the most refreshing earnest.” Due to space constraints I won’t type it all out, but this vision of how parks serve people caused me to pause a moment to regain my composure. I suppose that in some ways that this representative of my reactions to many of the Romantic texts I have read these last 4 months. I just have a hard time believing that anyone has ever asked someone to meet at the park in such a dignified and formal manner, regardless of how many times I am shown otherwise.
Olmstead defends city life in a myriad of ways throughout this speech. He begins by addressing the obvious conveniences, easy access to better education, recreation, shopping etc. He touts the division of labor the city offers and the exposure to fine arts and general culture that the city has to offer because of this division. He even claims at one point that city women are "tidy" creatures and that the city is an ideal habitat for anyone who is tidy. Olmstead discusses how the cities are ideal testing grounds for new inventions and therefore are at the forefront of innovation. Specifically he speaks about how rail, public transit, and telegraph are used and developed in the city. He even says that this hospitable environment for innovation corrects the downsides of city living (spread of disease, crime etc.) because the city can quickly innovate and is constantly developing solutions for these things.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile he paints the country as largely cut off or an inconvenient distance from all the jewels city life has to offer. However country folk are not discussed at length except in their tendencies and desire to move to the cities.
Olmstead does claim at one point that there is no problem with population density in the city- at least that it hasn't reached unreasonable levels. I'm not sure if he meant only to discuss suburban areas with this point or if he was merely providing a selective portrait of the city at this point in the speech. Either way he talks about population density problems in poor areas later when discussing the necessity of great spaces for parks.
Overall I found Olmstead's defense of city life over country life to be a little bit troubling. Admittedly part of this stems from personal bias, but even then I didn't see what Olmstead was driving at spending such an extensive time discussing the advantage of city life. It seems his audience for this particular speech were primarily city inhabitants, and if that is the case the first several pages of this speech are more or less a giant back pat for himself and everyone listening to the speech. Of course if he was in fact addressing a more rural audience then I suppose this section makes more sense, although it comes off as somewhat abrasive. I could be mistaken about this but I also seem to remember him alluding to the notion that city life was less trivial than country life. I do not propose the opposite to be true, but I feel like for the purposes of this essay at least, to say either is essentially a baseless claim.
To Olmstead, the city almost is a paradisiacal place for the people and everybody who can afford it, tries to move to one of the bigger cities in country. As opposed to the countryside, cities are booming and the rural areas are declining. What used to be a place where the people took pride in their self-sustainability now is a place where only the most simple people life (maybe granting a few exceptions). Rural people are willing to travel great distances for school and entertainment and so the city have become the centers of commerce and culture whereas the country's sole purpose is food production. The country, in Olmstead's rhetoric seems to be dependent on the city. The only thing that makes the country a place desirable to live in is for relaxation and recovery from the bustle of the city and farmers hope to find a buyer from the city for their farm houses as a country seat.
ReplyDeleteEven more, the only place in the old world where people still mainly live in rural areas is backward Eastern Europe, whereas the civilized people consider it their divine right (just as much as abolition etc.) to live in the city. In the city, life is easier and more convenient because household chores are taken care of by specialists such as butchers and grocers and human strength is not wasted. The current downsides of city living will diminish eventually when even the poor working girl is educated - but this really is only a matter of time. The benefits of city living, however, are only a foretaste of what is yet to come. City Parks, then, only add to the city by bringing the relaxation the country still offers to the cites.
Olmstead makes the connection that country living is for poverty stricken and less civilized individuals. He sees the city as a more intelligent option given it's many activities and conveniences. Olmstead talks quite a bit about a woman's life in the city, defending it's productivity and validity. "Think of all these things, and you will possibly find yourself growing a little impatient of the common cant which assumes that the strong tendency of women to town life, even though it involves great privations and dangers, is a purely senseless, giddy, vain, frivolous, and degrading one." He also lists the many conveniences available to those who reside in the city. "Consider, for instance, what is done (that in the country is not done at all or is done by each household for itself, and, if efficiently, with a wearing, constant effort of superintendence) by the butcher, baker, fishmonger, grocer, by the provision venders of all sorts, by the ice-man, dust-man, scavenger, by the postman, carrier, expressmen, and messengers, all serving you at your house when required..." I also agree with Markus on Olmstead's idea is that residents of the country are dependent on city residents. It is obvious that Olmstead believes that all great, modernized tools come out of the city thus leaving the country folk dependent in terms of communication and travel. In this writing, Olmstead brings up inventions such as the telegraph, stating that these things are advantages that should not be taken for granted but are by people living rurally.
ReplyDeleteThe ‘park’ was a perfect invention for city life. Being able to wander around a nature-filled block with ponds, ducks, swans, squirrels and other small creatures helps possibly relieve stress that an outside world, the city, can put on someone. However, rural communities do not have an ‘un-park’ for their escape from the country. That being said, Olmsted is captivated by the city. He takes it in as his paradise and enjoys his time within the city. This does suggest and show that the Romantic Era has indeed ended, and having a life in the city is becoming the way to live.
ReplyDeleteAs Olmsted validates the park, I realize that when I am in my home city, I take no notice to the park. I do not feel released when I go there, and I don’t even venture to the park so I can see trees, animals, and bugs. I completely take parks for granted, but that is because I have always been in the city. I am sure Olmsted had spent more time in the country growing up than most city people today, so this is natural for him and possibly bringing him back to a nostalgic place.
Olmsted’s defense against city living versus country living is legitimate because city living is more convenient in reality. You don’t have to go kill your food, make your own clothing, or produce your own heat. Like Olmsted mentions, the country is a cut off area from the city (as the city would be from the country), but being a city-slicker guy, Olmsted does no see the point in living a harder life than you have to. Why do it? Well, I think that is what he was trying to say, anyway…
THIS THING DELETED MY COMMENT! >:|
ReplyDeleteI apologize for this post being all over the place, I intended to answer the city v. country question, but In reading Olmstead and Daniel's and Markus' posts I had a thought. Olmstead talks about (and both of my classmates refer to this) how people who can afford it move to the city, and those that live in the country are dependent on an urban center. It got me thinking about what constitutes as "country" anymore, and "city" for that matter. For instance, I'd call my grandparents living in Hermann country folks, but I can still see their neighbor's house from my grandparent's yard. I guess you could say I personally consider country v. city a matter of proximity to other units of living. Olmstead refers to country life as a home that has "almost everything needed for domestic consumption." When you look at modern society using those terms, it has to be a very small percentage of American's. It seems like there is a cross-over between country and city (aka suburbia).
ReplyDelete(Now that I’ve explained that, I can get back on track) Olmstead favors city life by saying those in the country depend on cities or will move there if they have the means. He appreciates the morals that are associated with the country, but wants to incorporate those morals into the city to make it even better. He addresses this when he is talking about how roads will lead to increased population in Boston which will lead to people “seriously affected in health and morals than are now living on this Continent.” He later suggests by including parks in the city, people can go there to escape city stresses (a con to city living). But I’d still say he prefers city over country.
I'd consider myself a person that wants to move to the city once I have the means. I'd also throw in the idea that city life would be nowhere if it weren't for the farmers that provide them with food (unless they eat only frozen meals, but even some frozen food isn’t made in a lab). I think that as much as a country dweller commutes to the city for shopping and theatre (as Olmstead suggests), that those living in the city will take countryside vacations (country, using my term of proximity). Most people I know living in New York travel either upstate or to western ski towns for vacation (some to the tropics), but I'd like to think both sides of the pole rely on each other. The crossover area, like suburbia, is a little of both worlds.
Observing the rapid growth of cities, Olmsted sees a "dark prospect for civilization". The basis for Olmsteds argument is an analysis of the people's characters in a city which are according to his investigations negatively influenced by the living conditions in a city. In a city, men cannot live in accordance with their nature. Only in the country, men can live a healthy life since the living conditions lead to diseases, crime, misery and special evils. Walkways, for instance, have been narrowed which forces people to foresee the steps of others in order to avoid collisions. Unlike in the country, men cannot be contemplative beings, but have to be calculative, keeping the unfriendly flowing toward them in mind. Another negative influence is pollution, increasing traffic and the removal of porches, encroachments and trees. Even though trees are being planted on sidewalks, they are lessened in their vitality and killed if they take away too much precious space at the side of streets. Thus, they cannot purify the air like they do in the country which causes health issues among the inhabitants.
ReplyDeleteIn the country, it is easier to "maintain a temperate, good-natured state of mind" and there is no comparable waste of physical labor. Country people, however, are also influenced by the city as "city delicacies [...] furnish[] their tables." Luxuries like these are one of the reasons for a slow shift in society since only the ones who can afford them leave whereas "an inferior class of men", i.e. poor people, will come to the country. According to Olmsted's observation, women are more susceptible to leaving the country, forcing their men and children to follow suite. This led to an unnatural growth of population in the city which in some cases is "twice as great as country large".
The country people's eyes are gladdened by the appearance of city life, failing more often than not to see that the people living in urban areas are actually hoping to exchange their luxurious home for a country seat. Olmsted, however, also gives a solution to the present state. To react toward the bad "foretaste of what is yet to come", cities should isolate locations of commerce because they establish "conditions of corruption and irritation".
....anyway.
ReplyDelete(sighs)
Comparing Olmstead's view of the city as essentially a safe haven and/or hub for innovation, intellectual stimulation and advancement to the views of the country we've read earlier in the semester by Cole and Thoreau really show me, more than anything, how quickly not only America itself was changing, but the perspectives of Americans themselves about their nation took a complete 180ยบ turn within such a short period of time.
Olmstead goes on a long-winded rant about how essentially, the city itself is not only is the evolution of the country, but how it is also the home to the people who are in a way, superior on the evolution plane than country-dwellers. The city is everything the country isn't, and has therefore made it obsolete—leaving only a trace of memory of the country's serenity in the city's parks.
I forgot what else i said in my last post. Sorry. :(
In ‘Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns’ Olmsted begins with saying how the cities are in fear of earthquakes. The city, he explains, doesn’t provide adequate housing. Rent is expensive for buildings that are falling apart. Before in the country a household could produce most of their domestic needs, but in the city you can buy expensive delicacies. The poor who cannot make a living in the city come to the country and make the country appear poor and unintelligent, while many people from the country are successful people. Education and high status jobs however are in the city and not in the country. Olmsted examines the population in the city compared to the country. The city grows at a faster pace with the population increasing, while the country slowly is decreasing.
ReplyDeleteIn ‘Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns’, A woman says "If I were offered a deed of the best farm that I ever saw, on condition of going back to the country to live, I would not take it. I would rather face starvation in town." I think Olmsted in this paper is trying to show that the city is looked down upon by people and seen as old, unintelligent, and poor, when in reality the city is also made up of poor and unintelligent people and old ruined buildings. Olmsted is trying to defend country life by pointing out the flaws in the city, people often overlook
-jatelle
Olmsted explains the greatest advantages of urban life in the context of proximity and ease. The city allows people of all classes to experience things that they otherwise may not have been able to experience. Each child can go to school, get an education, and thereby prove an asset to society. Libraries, music, theatre, and fine arts are available to all and will give everyone the opportunity to be cultured, which will in turn make the city itself seem more intelligent and cultured: “People of the greatest wealth can hardly command as much of these in the country as the poorest work-girl is offered here.” Once subsistence is no longer an issue, people are free to do more with their lives than simply survive, and an amelioration of character occurs as a result of this free time. You no longer need to be your own “butcher, baker, fishmonger, grocer…[or] postman.” Life can involve more than just housework and farming. Transportation speeds up business, communication, and keeps social ties together, among other things. He praises many inventions, as well, that all end up providing people with a better standard of living. The city also provides many jobs and allows a man to make a living for himself. Life becomes leisurely instead of constant hard work. Olmsted describes this as an “emancipation of both men and women from petty, confining, and narrowing cares.” Parks bring the main advantages of the country to the city while still providing people with the (seemingly more numerous, according to Olmsted) advantages of the city.
ReplyDeleteI kept noticing things in Olmsted’s argument that were similar to Downing’s in “On the Moral Influence of Good Houses,” probably because I am writing my final paper on it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Olmsted takes his argument to a new level—parks actually increase the quality of life and health in the city—it still feels like Downing’s assertions that a beautiful home can elevate mankind. Olmsted sees parks, and just outdoor spaces in general as a way to have positive influence on people stuck in the city: “Is it doubtful that it does men good to come together in this way in pure ari and and under the light of heaven, or that it must have an influence directly counteractive to that of the ordinary hard, hustling working hours of town life?” He then cites groups of forlorn people that need a positive outlet for recreation: mothers trying to keep their children safe from the noise and hectic atmosphere of the city and “young men in knots of perhaps half a dozen in lounging attitudes rudely obstructing the sidewalks” and there is nothing about these men that “brings a spark of admiration.” A park is the new instrument for elevating these “vile” men, which as Downing says of beautiful homes, “is the first thing which influences man to attempt an escape from a groveling, brutish character.”
Trees, though less frivolous than the ornamentation described by Downing, are still a form of ornamentation of outside spaces. Olmsted calls them “permanent furniture of the city,” showing their aesthetic function. Just as Downing argues that we have moved beyond primitive dwellings and should instead house the “civilized and cultivated man” in “fitting, appropriate, and beautiful forms of habitation and costume,” Olmsted begins his argument for outside places with the same move from primitive to cultivated: “In the old days of walled towns all tradesmen lived under the roof of their shops, and their children and apprentices and servants sat together with them in the evening about the kitchen fire. But now that the dwelling is built by itself and there is greater room, the inmates have a parlor…they spread carpets…hang drapery…to gain in seclusion and beauty. Now that our towns are built without walls, is there any good reason why we should not make some similar difference between parts which are likely to be dwelt in, and those which will be required exclusively for commerce?” In this way, he takes Downing’s argument of the private dwelling and expands it to discuss cities as a whole.
Olmstead depicts the city as a seductive place full of so many pleasures and freedoms that it steals people from the country and infiltrates country peoples' homes with its delicacies and lifestyle. The people who do not live in the city still act like they do, and probably wish it as well. The city has stolen all of the intelligent people with promises of better educational and social opportunities. Olmstead states, "An inferior class of men will meet the requirements" (Olmstead).
ReplyDeleteOlmstead also discusses women in the city. He describes women as "even more susceptible to this townward drift than men" (Omstead). This seems to be because of the greatly increased educational and professional opportunities for women to work and enjoy culture, whereas in the country they would likely be confined to the home. He also implies that women enjoy the aesthetics of the gay and tidy city over the dirt and less than glamorous work of the country.
Olmstead appears to paint the dangers of the city as a positive. They provide excitement and adventure in one's everyday life. Finally, living amidst progress and modernity is where Olmstead believes civilized people should be. They need to marvel at the genius of the fellow man and in turn become inspired and more creative because of it. These technologies also make peoples' lives easier (so he thinks), and why wouldn't a civilized, intelligent person want an easier and more efficient life?
It is interesting that Olmstead continuously calls these thriving cities "large towns", rather than cities. It seems that he imagines these cities maintaining a sense of community, rather than submerging their inhabitants into lonely anonymity. He seems to say that man must be much more aware of his peers in the city than in the country, so as not to bump into them physically or in business.
Question #4:
ReplyDeleteAs I read Olmsted’s text, what I found most incredible was the ways in which we now take parks, and the miracle of having any open space in cities at all, for granted. Or at least, it certainly seems to me that we take these things for granted.
Some background is probably required in order to fully explain my position. I come from a relatively small town, Sedalia, Missouri, which only has a population of around 20,000 people. And yet we have five parks in my hometown, as well as a larger lake area outside the city limits. And almost every one of these, sadly, is struggling just to stay open. Almost every one of these parks has fewer visitors every year, the plants wilt more and more, the playgrounds rust, etc. I had the pleasure (or misfortune) of growing up only a block away from one of these parks. It certainly wasn’t the worst park, but it was probably a close second. At this point it has basically devolved into a big field, for exactly the type of “riotous and licentious behavior” people seemed to worry about in the Olmsted text. Drug deals and violence aren’t uncommon, and the police constantly have to circle around it at night. And this park isn’t alone. At least half of the parks in Sedalia exhibit similar disrepair, and it has sadly come to a point where going to most of the parks is no longer a peaceful activity. Instead, it’s a suspicious one. I can’t even name all the times the police have stopped to question me, just for walking through the parks at night. Going to the park is almost seen as evidence of law-breaking in itself.
As a child, I spent a lot of time thinking about why exactly our parks had fallen to this point, and why people didn’t seem to appreciate the careful city planning that had gone into them. As a child who liked the parks, it bothered me that I couldn’t walk the block over to enjoy the park without my parents watching me, or a group of friends with me.
I should probably mention that my parents never really liked the parks in the first place. My mother must have been struck with the New England sensibility Olmsted mentions (even though she’s from Kansas) because what she enjoyed making the family do was going out to look at cemeteries, which were arguably nicer than the parks. They were bigger, for one thing, and generally closer to the city limits, which meant there was more plant life. And despite the slight sense of morbidity (especially since graveyard visits are pretty unusual these days), these cemeteries were nice, packed with town history and abundant with wide open spaces.
But unlike my family, most of the citizens of Sedalia weren’t skipping out on parks to go to graveyards. Instead, the same suburban growth Olmsted praises, as proof that cities can incorporate wide open spaces as well, seemed to have betrayed my town. Those who could afford to do so moved to the suburbs outside the city limits, taking away both the income and the population needed to keep the parks thriving.
In addition, I’ve never been convinced that the state of Missouri, at least, has too great an appreciation for parks. Our state is too rooted in our pride for our agricultural heritage, there is too much open space remaining, and we lack the centers of population density needed to make parks feel like a necessity. Here, where it seems like almost everyone has a car, fresh air and nature are usually an easy drive away.
Sometimes I worry about the future of parks, at least on Missouri towns. Some parks seem to do well, but in many smaller cities like mine I’ve seen parks going into decline, especially through the bad economic times. And yet, the work of men like Olmsted has made certain that parks will remain an important part of city life. While I feel that many people may take their parks for granted, I’m also sure that many others could never imagine city life without them.
Olmsted's vision of city life differs from the texts we have read up to this point because he recognizes its progress cautiously, but also sees its advantages economically and educationally. He is also the first to (sort of) recognize the social advantageous available with city life by noting that women have more available opportunities in the city. Albeit, he explains that one of these reasons is that there is less housework for them to do, but this reasoning is still along the lines that the role of women in the city differs from traditional, limited roles in the country. The idea that women have job opportunities in industry and are no longer confined to domestic life is a fact that we have not previously read about. I also found Olmsted's take on women's progress to be interesting because throughout the essay he notes that city growth is inevitable, but not apocalyptic as we saw in other texts. He is confident that advances will keep up with this growth. This sentiment is reflected in women's history as well. In some ways, women were more equal to men in country life because they shared the same responsibilities and distinctions were less prevalent, but there were no opportunities for advancement or change. As population grew in the city and women joined the labor force, they were able to steadily make advancements that paralleled the changing landscape around them. The economic and educational benefits that Olmsted discusses are also obvious factors in the feminist movement for suffrage that follows Olmsted's essay. A sentiment from one woman who determined that she would rather be poor in the city than live in the country, is one that reflects moods toward social progress of many groups. It is better to have opportunity than to be confined to one role.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't help but notice his paragraph where he outlines the growth of certain European cities compared to their countries as a whole. "And Dublin has held its own, while Ireland as a whole has been losing ground," he writes. It seems as if he sees this immense growth of urban populations as an economic opportunity for his industry. I agree that he privileges urban over rural life, but I think there may possibly be an additional motivation for his opinion than just pure aesthetic opinion.
ReplyDelete