The Development of Philadelphia as a Metropolis

Sam Bass Warner's The Private City provides a glimpse into the processes of urban development over time in Philadelphia. His eighth chapter, "The Structure of the Metropolis." divides the changes in the developing metro area of Philadelphia into two areas of change: development of social groups at work and increasing residential segregation. I believe that both of these developments have since grown into major factors in the modern cityscape.

The development of social groups in the workplace came about because of the growing influence of industrialization. The industrialized city became a system of larger industrial organization rather than the 18th century small shop economy that marked the city until the 1830s. According to Warner, over three quarters of the manufacturers in the city labored in organized work groups (162). This work group organization allowed the multiple layers of business managers and supervisors to oversee smaller groups to increase efficiency. The major effect of these groups was that social interaction at the city level was largely accomplished in the work place, not the tavern or the coffee shop. The rumor mill would churn on in the factory instead of on the streets, allowing a new dynamic to overtake interpersonal communication within the city.

Other results of the work group organization marked Philadelphian society. First, the members of the work group were relieved of most of the responsibility for their work; the managers and supervisors were the ones who held most responsibility, especially for the well-being of their employees (168). This allowed the workers more security and a chance to communicate ill feelings or concerns among more people. This leads into the second result of these work groups, which is the double front that workers were able to work from. As Warner states, the worker could communicate against his managers with his peers, or against his peers with his manager (167). The need for loyalty became both an important and contentious issue, resulting in a few labor riots, but not as many as one would think. I have drawn from this that the diffusion of power and responsibility put many of the laboring class in the same boat, allowing a sense of comradery to emerge amongst the laborers, which could have gone either into violence or cooperation.

Residential segregation is an event that occurred within Philadelphia during the era of industrialization, but has been seen in the 20th century as well. Like the White Flight of the 1950s, the higher income families of Philadelphia sought the comfort and privacy that existed outside of the city. Since these families could afford to, they left the core of the city and settled on the outskirts of metropolitan Philadelphia, forming a ring around the city. Since those in poverty could not afford the new wave of development outside of the city, as well as the transportation costs to get to their jobs, they settled for the long, cramped row houses that popped up in abundance in the city. Warner states a fact that existed both then and in recent times: The result of all of this urban migration was a core of poverty, immigrants, and the low levels of society surrounded by a sprawling ring of middle and affluent class families (171).

A result of both of these factors in industrialization is the withdrawal of a great many people from the responsibilities of municipal politics and duty. Those who fled to the ring of Philadelphia did not necessarily intend to abandon politics; rather, they wished to find a place where they could raise their children and exercise their rights to privacy and happiness. But nonetheless, their movement out of the cityscape left a gaping hole in support for local politics. The few that remained interested in politics, as Warner suggests, were those who would be directly affected by political change on the local level: business leaders, those in the municipal corporation, and career politicians and subordinates (175). These few followers and avid supporters of local politics created temporary coalitions to pass ordinances and laws that would serve their benefit. Such governance would set a precedent for future patterns of municipal government.

Warner's final words of Chapter 8 seem to characterize the message he was trying to send in this analysis: "Neither popular support nor municipal power could be created out of the segregated and specialized structure of the industrial metropolis." (176) The result of industrialization would be the muddying of the waters for community politics and duty in Philadelphia. We can see that today in some cases, as the concern of many Americans is on the scope of national politics, which when diffused only slightly affects their lives. Those who focus on local politics at the present are maybe not the influences that we would care to have determining the fate of the city, such as affluent families and business leaders whose main intentions are for their own pocket books and not for the good of the community. The modern citizenry of the city (city defined broadly to include suburbs) must take it as their duty to take back local politics so they can serve their own best interest.