Urban scaling - effect in ancient cities = modern cities

  • Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Scaling
In summary: I think you're right, they were suburbs.Yes, but your claim was that a "suburban" civilization never existed. True, nearly all ancient cities were densely populated hives of activity surrounded by walls. Based on this article and other descriptions I've read, the ceremonial centers of Mayan cities were not densely populated "hives of activity" or surrounded by walls. The population lived in simple dwellings made of material from the rain forest on lots that...yes, I think you're right, they were suburbs.
  • #1
jim mcnamara
Mentor
4,769
3,813
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400066

Settlement scaling and increasing returns in an ancient society
Scott G. Ortman, Andrew H. F. Cabaniss, Jennie O. Sturm, Luís M. A. Bettencourt
Science Advances 01 Feb 2015:
Vol. 1 no. 1 e1400066
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400066

The basic concept here is that the same rules for humans developing cities have not changed. This is because what cities provide requires changes in living styles, specialization in trades, and proximity to other people to provide these benefits.

The sciencemag.org article is a good read but I also included the primary resource.

For example:
They compared data from ancient Mexican cites against modern counterparts. As a city's population doubles it expands to cover an additional 83% more space. True past and present. Demographics (status and wealth or resource control) reflected by size of domicile reflect the same underlying data in both modern and ancient cities.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander and Greg Bernhardt
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Fingers crossed this stands up to professional scrutiny --- I've been hunting, digging, reading tripe, wading through nonsense for about twenty years looking for this.
 
  • #3
AFAIK, there has never existed such a thing as a great suburban civilization.
 
  • #6
But from what I have read in your link, this is a city that contains suburbs, not "pure sprawl", and there is a city center. I was referring to coreless
cities, where "there is no there there"., like maybe Los Angeles today.
 
  • #7
WWGD said:
But from what I have read in your link, this is a city that contains suburbs, not "pure sprawl", and there is a city center. I was referring to coreless
cities, where "there is no there there"., like maybe Los Angeles today.

Well, LA has a downtown and always had one. It's true that with annexations, downtown LA was for a time massively dwarfed by its suburbs, but today I think most people would say there is a there there. Mayan "downtowns" were mostly ceremonial centers where human sacrifices were performed. I'm not sure anyone actually lived there except perhaps the priests who took their fellow Mayans' hearts away. Of course, by definition suburbs need "urbs". But I'm not sure the Mayan downtown was the kind of downtown that Petula Clark was referring to in her 1960's song.
 
  • #8
SW VandeCarr said:
Well, LA has a downtown and always had one. It's true that with annexations, downtown LA was for a time massively dwarfed by its suburbs, but today I think most people would say there is a there there. Mayan "downtowns" were mostly ceremonial centers where human sacrifices were performed. I'm not sure anyone actually lived there except perhaps the priests who took their fellow Mayans' hearts away. Of course, by definition suburbs need "urbs". But I'm not sure the Mayan downtown was the kind of downtown that Petula Clark was referring to in her 1960's song.

Still, I don't mean to be argumentative, but, isn't this more an exception than anything else? Have there been, say, 20 notable civilizations without major core centers for their populations? Even the root of the terms "civilization", "civilized" come from the term city, tho that is not really a strong argument. I just believe that a living arrangement with a baseline density is much more conducive to the flow of ideas and meeting of people than sparsely-populated settings. And even today with the web, this is still the case. A nice book on this and related is Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography" , a counter to Friedman's " The World is Flat" .
 
  • #9
WWGD said:
Still, I don't mean to be argumentative, but, isn't this more an exception than anything else? Have there been, say, 20 notable civilizations without major core centers for their populations? Even the root of the terms "civilization", "civilized" come from the term city, tho that is not really a strong argument. I just believe that a living arrangement with a baseline density is much more conducive to the flow of ideas and meeting of people than sparsely-populated settings. And even today with the web, this is still the case. A nice book on this and related is Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography" , a counter to Friedman's " The World is Flat" .

Yes, but your claim was that a "suburban" civilization never existed. True, nearly all ancient cities were densely populated hives of activity surrounded by walls. Based on this article and other descriptions I've read, the ceremonial centers of Mayan cities were not densely populated "hives of activity" or surrounded by walls. The population lived in simple dwellings made of material from the rain forest on lots that were large enough to keep some animals and have a garden. They were scattered over a fairly large area relative to the center. If any civilization could be called a "suburban" civilization, it would be the Maya. Whether it was a "great" civilization is a matter of opinion. They had monumental stone architecture, a sophisticated writing system, a superb calendar that reflected considerable intellectual development, and a well developed social structure.
 
  • #10
I stand corrected, and I change my claim to saying it is much more likely for an urban culture than a suburban one.
 
  • #11
WWGD said:
I stand corrected, and I change my claim to saying it is much more likely for an urban culture than a suburban one.

People who study cities don't seem to distinguish much between urban and suburban. It's all a matter of population density. The typical ancient cities that developed in the Old World outside the deep topics were walled. This forced a certain level of density which most might agree would be an urban environment. There might be a temple complex or a palace complex within the city, but the complex was not the city. The ancient city included the area where people lived, worked, shopped and socialized within a confined space. Unwalled ancient cities seem to have been more likely in the in deep tropics like the Maya cities and Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Here temple compexes were surrounded by populations that were much more spread out. They're still called cities, but clearly they have a suburban character. This article discusses how sprawl might have doomed Angkor Wat.

http://www.livescience.com/1781-urban-sprawl-doomed-angkor-wat.html
 
Last edited:

1. How does urban scaling affect ancient cities?

Urban scaling refers to the relationship between the size of a city and its various socioeconomic and cultural factors. In ancient cities, urban scaling was primarily influenced by factors such as economic specialization, agricultural productivity, and political organization. These factors determined the size and structure of cities, leading to the growth or decline of ancient urban centers.

2. How does urban scaling affect modern cities?

In modern cities, urban scaling is still influenced by similar factors as in ancient cities, such as economic specialization and political organization. However, with the rise of technology and globalization, other factors such as transportation infrastructure, industrialization, and population growth also play a significant role in urban scaling. This has led to the creation of megacities and the urban sprawl phenomenon.

3. What is the relationship between urban scaling in ancient and modern cities?

While the factors influencing urban scaling may have evolved over time, the relationship between size and socioeconomic factors remains similar in both ancient and modern cities. In both cases, cities tend to grow and thrive due to economic and political advantages, but they can also experience decline and collapse if these factors diminish.

4. How does urban scaling impact the quality of life in cities?

Urban scaling can have both positive and negative impacts on the quality of life in cities. On one hand, larger cities tend to offer more job opportunities, cultural diversity, and access to resources and amenities. On the other hand, rapid urbanization and overcrowding can lead to issues such as pollution, traffic congestion, and a higher cost of living. Therefore, it is important for city planners to consider the effects of urban scaling on the quality of life of its residents.

5. Can urban scaling be managed or controlled?

While urban scaling is a natural process influenced by various factors, it can be managed and controlled to a certain extent by city planning and policies. For example, implementing sustainable development practices, investing in public transportation, and promoting mixed-use developments can help manage urban scaling and prevent negative impacts on cities. However, the complex nature of urban scaling makes it challenging to fully control its effects on cities.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top