clairesu94
Freeberg v. Smith
Through a variety of topical lenses including environmental changes, technological innovations, and economic studies of inequality, many authors have sought to define and illustrate the progress of urban environments in the 19th century. Even the accounts that share a similar topical lens vary in the aspects and agents of progress they choose to highlight. Both Carl Smith, the author of Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City and Earnest Freeberg, the author of The Age of Edison, focus on progress brought about by an optimists’ re-imagination of urban infrastructure. The fundamental difference between these two papers is that Smith illustrates a more macro-level view of progress, which he defines in his Heritage chapter as a shift in the public perception and governmental responsibility towards accepting urban planning and improvement for the greater good as a governmental obligation, whereas, Freeberg takes a more ground-level approach to describing progress, taking detailed note of how the integration of lighting as infrastructure changed every day urban life from the work environment, to public spaces, to the home. While different in scope, both approaches have their merit and demonstrate completeness in their own unique ways.
Although Smith’s work focuses less on how changes in the built environment affected every day urban life, his analysis of The Plan of Chicago, captures The Plan’s role in shaping how people viewed the built environment. According to his bibliographical essay, Smith’s main sources included a fully illustrated copy of The Plan itself as well as papers and speeches written by Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett. Smith includes illustrations and quotes from these sources throughout his analysis of The Plan and the process of its implementation in order to “reveal the day-to-day details involved in the creation and implementation of The Plan” (170 Smith). Smith’s bibliographical essay also includes references to sources pertaining to “The scholarship of urban planning in America” as well as texts that describe the history of Chicago’s built environment like Chicago: Growth of a Metropolis. Smith gives a comprehensive overview of how the publication of The Plan promoted urban planning as a means to reform urban space for public good.
Meanwhile, Freeberg takes a magnifying glass to Smith’s macro-view of progress by focusing on the integration of light into the built environment and how it changed lives at all levels of class hierarchy. Some of Freeberg’s main sources included publications such as Electrical World, Boston Globe, and New York Tribune, which allow him to give a comprehensive snapshot of changing public opinions and media battles between interest groups responding to the adoption of the electric light. These sources captured moments of both fascination and dissatisfaction with electrical infrastructure. Quotes from these sources also evidenced day-to-day changes in work life and leisure as public and workplace lighting blurred the once clear delineation between night and day.
These differences aside, Freeberg and Smith both declared that the built environment’s role in driving progress in the 19th century was made possible largely by innovators’ marketing and business minded approach to re-imagining the built environment. As shown in many publications during his time, Edison was a master of glorifying the magic of the electric light, garnering funds, and rallying the public’s support. The Plan of Chicago attempted to do the same, striving to encourage the public to imagine the city’s potential using vivid illustrations and spending time and resources to sell their recommendations to government officials, influential members of “the business community, property owners, and voters”.
Overall, Smith relied on The Plan as well as various secondary sources to perform a study-of-studies, which describes how The Plan of Chicago changed public and governmental views of urban planning, whereas, Freeberg highlighted specific instances and effects of those changes using an abundance of primary sources to examine changes in the every day life of urban residents and laborers. This difference is shown in the illustration above. Despite their differences in scope, both recognized the importance of entrepreneurial forces in changing how people viewed urban spaces and both provide comprehensive understandings of 19th century changes in the urban social experience.
Freeberg v. Smith
Through a variety of topical lenses including environmental changes, technological innovations, and economic studies of inequality, many authors have sought to define and illustrate the progress of urban environments in the 19th century. Even the accounts that share a similar topical lens vary in the aspects and agents of progress they choose to highlight. Both Carl Smith, the author of Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Remaking of the American City and Earnest Freeberg, the author of The Age of Edison, focus on progress brought about by an optimists’ re-imagination of urban infrastructure. The fundamental difference between these two papers is that Smith illustrates a more macro-level view of progress, which he defines in his Heritage chapter as a shift in the public perception and governmental responsibility towards accepting urban planning and improvement for the greater good as a governmental obligation, whereas, Freeberg takes a more ground-level approach to describing progress, taking detailed note of how the integration of lighting as infrastructure changed every day urban life from the work environment, to public spaces, to the home. While different in scope, both approaches have their merit and demonstrate completeness in their own unique ways.
Although Smith’s work focuses less on how changes in the built environment affected every day urban life, his analysis of The Plan of Chicago, captures The Plan’s role in shaping how people viewed the built environment. According to his bibliographical essay, Smith’s main sources included a fully illustrated copy of The Plan itself as well as papers and speeches written by Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett. Smith includes illustrations and quotes from these sources throughout his analysis of The Plan and the process of its implementation in order to “reveal the day-to-day details involved in the creation and implementation of The Plan” (170 Smith). Smith’s bibliographical essay also includes references to sources pertaining to “The scholarship of urban planning in America” as well as texts that describe the history of Chicago’s built environment like Chicago: Growth of a Metropolis. Smith gives a comprehensive overview of how the publication of The Plan promoted urban planning as a means to reform urban space for public good.
Meanwhile, Freeberg takes a magnifying glass to Smith’s macro-view of progress by focusing on the integration of light into the built environment and how it changed lives at all levels of class hierarchy. Some of Freeberg’s main sources included publications such as Electrical World, Boston Globe, and New York Tribune, which allow him to give a comprehensive snapshot of changing public opinions and media battles between interest groups responding to the adoption of the electric light. These sources captured moments of both fascination and dissatisfaction with electrical infrastructure. Quotes from these sources also evidenced day-to-day changes in work life and leisure as public and workplace lighting blurred the once clear delineation between night and day.
These differences aside, Freeberg and Smith both declared that the built environment’s role in driving progress in the 19th century was made possible largely by innovators’ marketing and business minded approach to re-imagining the built environment. As shown in many publications during his time, Edison was a master of glorifying the magic of the electric light, garnering funds, and rallying the public’s support. The Plan of Chicago attempted to do the same, striving to encourage the public to imagine the city’s potential using vivid illustrations and spending time and resources to sell their recommendations to government officials, influential members of “the business community, property owners, and voters”.
Overall, Smith relied on The Plan as well as various secondary sources to perform a study-of-studies, which describes how The Plan of Chicago changed public and governmental views of urban planning, whereas, Freeberg highlighted specific instances and effects of those changes using an abundance of primary sources to examine changes in the every day life of urban residents and laborers. This difference is shown in the illustration above. Despite their differences in scope, both recognized the importance of entrepreneurial forces in changing how people viewed urban spaces and both provide comprehensive understandings of 19th century changes in the urban social experience.