Am Soc DOI 10.1007/s12108-015-9277-6

Moving from Urban Sociology to the Sociology of the City Cary Wu 1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Castell’s claim that urban sociology has no subject matter has yet to be refuted. In this article, I argue that urban sociology should be understood as the sociology of the city. Rather than focusing on social problems within an urban context, urban sociologists need to treat the city as an autonomous social unit. The main task for the sociology of the city is to explain similarities and differences across individual cities and urban groups and to identify how these affect social life and collectivities. I illustrate this argument by exploring the urban production of trust. Treating the city as the unit of analysis, I show how trust matters for cities and how cities produce trust. Keywords Urban sociology . Sociology of the city . The city . Trust There is general agreement that today’s urban sociology, and North American urban sociology in particular, is in crisis. Instead of a dominant and substantive area, urban sociological study has focused on urban life around, for example, race, poverty, crime, immigration, and sexuality (Perry and Harding 2002). Without a clear research focus urban sociology will continue to lose its supremacy within urban studies (Amin 2007; Le Gales 2005; Sassen 2010). This crisis has led a number of leading urban theorists to reflect on the future of urban sociology (Castells 2002; Clark 2012; Gans 2009; May and Perry 2005; Sassen 2000, 2010; Zukin 2011).1 Their concern is far from new – it has been debated by urban theorists for several decades (e.g. Sjoberg 1959; Saunders 1981; Walton 1993; Zukin 1980). Almost 50 years ago, Castells (1968) argued that, because urban sociology has no subject matter, it should not be considered as a scientific sub-discipline distinct from sociology 1

The American Sociological Association set Cities of the Future as the overall theme of its annual meeting in 2001 and joint sessions were organized that same year at the British and American Sociological Associations conferences (BSA, ASA) to discuss the future of urban sociology (see also Perry and Harding 2002).

* Cary Wu [email protected] 1

University of British Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1

Am Soc

in general. Indeed, today’s urban sociology pays little attention to its subject matter or cities per se, instead focusing on social problems in an urban environment (Castells 2002; Gans 2009; Zukin 2011). In this article I argue that urban sociology should be understood as the sociology of the city and that urban sociologists need to treat the city as an autonomous social unit. The central task for a distinct urban sociology is to identify how cities matter for social practices and social change, and how these practices and changes in turn redefine cities. To illustrate this argument I explore the urban production of trust. Treating the city as the unit of analysis, I show how trust matters for cities and how cities produce trust.

Toward a Sociology of the City Urban sociology has largely been understood as a sub-discipline that studies urban society. The problem is that, with increasing urbanization, urban society is nothing less than modern society as a whole. For this reason, Manuel Castells (1968) made the point that urban sociology, and in particular the Chicago School, lacked the combination of theory and substantive focus necessary for an explanatory science. 2 Specifically, the dominant sociological writings of the time focused on urbanism and on urbanization both of which are social processes (ibid; see also Zukin 1980:575). Urbanism is Bthe cultural expression of capitalist industrialization, the emergence of the market economy and the process of rationalization of modern society^ (ibid: 38). 3 The study of urbanization or urban growth is essentially the analysis of a particular historical and geographical formation. As a result, urban sociology has no distinctive feature that sets it apart from general sociology (Castells 1968, 1977).4 Castells’ critique led to a fundamental reformulation of urban sociology and the emergence of a new urban sociology (Kemeny 1982; Gottdiener and Feagin 1988; Zukin 1980, 2011). In pursuing an urban subject the new urban scholars made major inroads in bringing the city back into focus (e.g. Castells 1983; Clark 2004; Lefebvre 1991; Molotch and Logan 1987; Harvey 1985). The city is not merely a physical entity but is itself an effect of more fundamental political, economic, and cultural forces. Cities are shaped by structural powers that affect all aspects of human life. In general, the consensus became that to study urban society was to study how cities reinforce, mediate, and articulate the effects on social life of structural level factors such as consumption culture, political power, and capitalism (Zukin 1980). However, while these neo-Marxian and neo-Weberian approaches emphasize the role of macro-level structural factors, they overlook the role of the city itself. The focus 2 Chicago urban sociologists and their followers adopt a human ecology approach to the city, paying particular attention to the forms of social action and organization within the urban context (see e.g. Abbott 1999; Becker 1999; Bulmer 1986). Three pioneering texts - Park’s (1915) article The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the City Environment, Burgess’s (1925) The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project, and Wirth’s (1938) Urbanism as a Way of Life - laid the foundation for Chicago school sociology and urban sociology writ large. 3 Zukin was referring to Western cities and sociological writings on the city have largely neglected those cities in other parts of the world, for example, in socialist societies such as the former Soviet Union, and the contemporary People’s Republic of China. 4 The city itself is not a meaningful object of analysis – it is an arbitrary laboratory used to investigate other economic, social, and political phenomena (e.g. Sjoberg 1959; Saunders 1981).

Am Soc

of debates about the city as a Bgrowth machine^ (Molotch 1976; Logan and Molotch 2007), the city as an Bentertainment machine^ (Lloyd and Clark 2001; Clark 2004), and the rise of the Bcreative class^ (Florida 2002; Florida 2014) is on social phenomena such as land markets, consumption, culture, and human capital. The city is a container for social processes such as cultural consumption, competition, or collaboration between agencies (e.g. individuals, corporations and government), and political power (see also Gieryn 2000). A dominant, substantive focus is still missing. Today, as Zukin (2011) notes, urban sociology has become more diffuse than ever and Bseems to be as much in crisis as it was when Castells challenged it^ (ibid: 8). It seems reasonable to suppose that urban sociology ought to have something to do with the city. BIf urban sociology is to have a future,^ Amin (2007:101) writes, then Bit cannot take for granted what the city is.^ 5 The founders of American urban sociology certainly recognized that the city is more than a geographical territory or a container for general social processes. The city, as Park et al. (1925) noted, is not a physical mechanism or an artificial construction; instead, it is Ba state of mind, a body of customs and traditions^ (ibid: 1). However, empirical sociologists who write on the city often reduce the city to a place where social problems are located. This occurs because of a fixation with the diversity of social problems in cities and because government and other agencies are more likely to support and fund studies that are problem and issue-oriented (see also Gans 2009; Zukin 2011). Nevertheless, recent efforts in a host of widely recognized articles and books suggest that urban sociology could be significantly advanced if future research were able to concentrate on the city itself (e.g. Sassen 2005, 2010; Scott and Storper 2014). Accordingly, in this article I argue that urban sociology should be understood as the sociology of the city.6 The city is the subject matter. Cities are individual social units, they are real objects, and they have lives and destinies. 7 As Peter Ackroyd’s (2001) panoramic portrait of London, Colin Jones (2006) remarkable study of Paris, and Levin (2014) storytelling of Toronto show, cities have their own biographies. The main task for the sociology of the city is to explore how cities as individual or collective social units foster institutions and lead to future changes. For example, Weber (1958) argues that the presence of politically autonomous cities lead to Europe’s rise in the medieval and early modern years. Saskia Sassen (2001) shows how the growing number of global cities leads to the formation of strategic global transnational networks. Batty (2008) also draws attention to how size, scale, and shape enable cities to function in different ways. More recently, Jeong (2015) explores how urban conditions such as transportation density affect the walkability of cities. Current urban sociology has largely focused on social processes tied to urban phenomena (e.g. Fong and Wilkes 2003). The sociology of the city encourages us to 5

Castells (1968: 36) has long insisted that the sociological study of the city cannot take place until we are clear about whether the city is a real object or whether it is a sociological entity. 6 Gans (2009) argues that American urban sociology is a big American city problem and issue-oriented sociology. Largely overlooked are the suburbs, towns, and rural areas where a majority of Americans live and work. He suggests that the future of urban sociology should be a Bsociology of settlements^ that would encompass all types of communities. This kind of focus could result in the sociology of everything. 7 While, in the near future, urban society will be nothing less than modern society as a whole, individual cities will always be just that individual: New York will always be New York and so too will Chicago, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Beijing.

Am Soc

explore urban explanations for urban phenomenon. Such an approach allows us to distinguish between the social and the urban. For example, Eric Klinenberg’s (2003) Heat Wave is widely considered as a classic urban sociology book. To explain the 1995 Chicago heat wave disaster, Klinenberg highlights 1) the growing number of people who live alone, 2) fear of crime, 3) the degradation and fortification of urban public places, and 4) political dysfunction (see also Klinenberg 2001: 502). However, among these highlights, only the degradation and fortification of urban public place can be considered as urban. Other explanations are social. Table 1 outlines the difference between Chicago school sociology, the new urban sociology, and the sociology of the city. I consider how each is different in terms of subject matter, perspective on cities, and identified cause of urban growth. The Chicago School tradition studies social problems located in cities and this, in turn, promotes the development of sociologies of, to name a few, race, gender, sexuality, and social movements. In The Truly Disadvantaged, for example, the renowned Chicago sociologist William Julius Wilson (1987) investigates how race, employment, and education relate to inner city poverty. His study has led to more attention to racial discrimination and social inequality but not to the city itself. This reduces cities to places where social problems are located. To explain urban growth, the Chicago school draws attention to the division of labor and other social processes resulting from civilization, industrialization, and modernization. New urban sociology emphasizes the role of macro level economic, political, and cultural power. New urban sociologists treat the city as a container of social processes and consider the effects of structural power. For example, Harvey Molotch (1976) conceives of the city as the areal expression of the interests of land-based elites. Clark links culture to urban growth (Clark et al. 2002; Clark 2004). More recently, Silver and Clark (2010, 2015) develop a theory of urban scenes whereby the specific combinations of neighborhoods, physical structures, heterogeneous individuals, and social activities defined by the values that people pursue, create a variety of distinct urban scenes that lead to the growth or decline of particular neighborhoods. However, other than the fact that it studies how these processes operate within cities, it is not clear how such an approach is distinct from political economy or cultural sociology. Urban growth, for these new urban sociologists, is an outcome of social production or cultural consumption.

Table 1 Approaches to the city: Chicago School Sociology, New Urban Sociology, and Sociology of the City Chicago school sociology

New urban sociology

Sociology of the city

Subject matter

Social problems in cities

Structural power

The city

Perspective on cities

Places/locations where social problems are located

Container of social processes; effects of structural power

Autonomous social units; the object of the city

Cause of urban growth

Civilization, industrialization, and modernization

A result of competition/ collaboration between agencies; from culture

A result of how the city itself interacts with other cities, and other social processes

Am Soc

The sociology of the city promotes a distinctive perspective on social problems and urban phenomena. Instead of treating the city as a place where social problems are located or a container of social processes, the sociology of the city approaches the city as an autonomous social unit and considers how cities and urban groups affect social life and collectivities. The city itself is the major focus of the study. Sassen (2010) argues that the urbanization of major processes, such as globalization, the rise of new information technologies, and the intensifying of transnational and translocal dynamics repositions the city as an object of study. How cities interact with these social changes creates specific conditions, contents and consequences. Therefore, the city should be brought back as a lens for social theory (ibid). Under this approach, urban growth is a result of urban production, which relates to the location of the city, the characteristics of the city, and the history of the city. The sociology of the city also aims to develop an ordinary city approach (Robinson 2006). Currently, the dominant urban sociological writings are on a variety of social problems or on structural processes in big Western cities. American urban sociology, for example, focuses on social problems and social processes in cities such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles (Gans 2009; Small 2008). This makes city comparison very difficult as the vast majority of cities are absent. The sociology of the city treats every city as an ordinary social unit. Under such an approach, more meaningful comparisons can be carried out across cities and urban groups (e.g. Asian/European cities, big/small cities, and old/young cities).8 Simply put, while general sociology considers individuals, social groups, and how social interactions construct society, the sociology of the city has as its focus individual cities and urban groups. The main task for the sociology of the city is to describe and explain the differences and similarities across individual cities and urban groups and to explain how these differences and similarities affect social life and collectivities. To illustrate further the utility of the sociology of the city approach, in the second half of this article, I apply it to the urban production of trust as a case.

Illustration: the Urban Production of Trust Trust is one of the most important synthetic forces within society, on which all social relationships ultimately depend (Simmel 1950: 319). This is especially so in socially complex modern urban societies where interaction with strangers is a routine requirement (Luhmann 1979). Since we would rather not have to leave our house with weapons every morning, we have to trust (ibid). While trust has never been a topic of mainstream sociology (Luhmann 2000), sociological writings on trust have been increasing dramatically over recent years, particularly among urban sociologists (e.g. Clark 2014; Hampton and Wellman 2003; Lauer 2008; Sampson 2012; Small 2004). Table 2 outlines the difference in the approach to trust that would be taken by general sociology, current urban sociology, and the sociology of the city. From a general sociological perspective, trust is a social reality, a property of collective units (Lewis and Weigert 1985). Sociologists have explored the forms, sources, and relevance of trust (e.g. Delhey and Newton 2003; Wilkes 2011, 2015). 8

Le Gales (2005) points out that the future of urban sociology lies in the development of comparative work.

Am Soc Table 2 How different types of sociology approach the subject of trust General sociology

Current urban sociology

Sociology of the city

Perspective on trust

A social reality, a form of social capital

A social reality, a form of social capital in urban neighborhoods.

An urban product

Key questions

Why do people trust or distrust? How does trust matter for individuals or social groups

Why do people trust or distrust in urban neighborhoods? How does trust matter for individuals or social groups in urban neighborhoods?

Why does a particular city have more trust or distrust? How does trust matter for cities and communities?

In other words, trust is a social product and matters for human interactions. The key issues are why people do or do not trust and how trust has impacted social life. Urban sociologists typically treat trust as a form of social capital, social tie, or resource available in particular urban neighborhoods (e.g. Granovetter 1973; Bakker and Dekker 2012). They then link this trust to neighborhood (dis)advantage. For example, Sampson (2012) relates trust to neighborhood crime; Small (2004) uses trust to explain neighborhood inequality, and Bakker and Dekker (2012) associate trust with relative ethnic group positions in urban neighborhoods. With the sociology of the city perspective, trust is understood as an urban product. Individual cities produce varying levels of trust because of their distinctive characteristics. Every city needs a certain level of trust to maintain the social order among its members and to generate new growth. In what follows, from a sociology of the city perspective, I explain how trust can be understood as an urban product, how trust matters for cities, and how cities produce trust. Trust as an Urban Product The place we call urban is relative to the rural.9 In traditional rural societies people are mutually acquainted and they share collective beliefs and values. Traditional bonds of family, kinship, and religion govern relationships (Durkheim 1893).10 While the rural town or village consists of people who all know each other; the city is full of strangers (Jacobs 1961). The stranger in the city is not just a wanderer Bwho comes today and goes tomorrow^; he is a Bperson who comes today and stays tomorrow^ (Simmel 1950:402). The accumulation of strangers in the city therefore makes it a Brelatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of heterogeneous individuals^ (Wirth 1938:1). Large numbers of inhabitants and rising settlement density change the character of 9

While some scholars have questioned the sociological importance of the rural–urban continuum (Pahl 1966; Hauser 1965; Reissman 1970) others, from Durkheim, Tonnies and Weber to Sorokin, Maine, Redfield and Becker have all discussed the importance of the rural–urban distinction. 10 Similarly, Tönnies (1955) explains that rural society is a cluster of tightly knit neighbors held together by common economic and social bonds, in which family life is the general basis. Personal relationships depend heavily on kinship or other shared characteristics, such as belief and place. Norms are largely unwritten and individuals are bound to one another in a web of mutual acquaintanceship. However, as social orders move from the gemeinschaft to the gesellschaft type, social relationships become more formalized and impersonal.

Am Soc

social relationships (Durkheim 1893). The rural and urban are indeed two distinct types of social orders (Karp et al. 1977; Sorokin 1962). The factors that distinguish them include occupation, size and density of population as well as mobility, differentiation and stratification (Sorokin and Zimmerman 1929). Specifically, with the rising division of labor in cities, people became increasingly individualized and, at the same time, became more dependent on others (ibid). Under such circumstances, the social contacts in the city may be close but they are Bnevertheless impersonal, superficial, transitory, and segmental^ (Wirth 1938:12). To maintain social order in such a complex society, a type of generalized trust originating from within cities operates as a substitute for traditional bonds (Durkheim 1982; Tönnies 1955; Wirth 1938). Indeed, the complexities of urban society are only possible if members have a generalized trust in each other and in institutions (Lewis and Weigert 1985). From a sociology of the city perceptive this type of generalized trust is an urban product which functions as a rational value that bonds heterogeneous individuals together. Using the lost letter technique 11 as an indicator of trust (see Glaeser et al. 2000) urban scientists have shown that return rates vary according to city demographic, social, environmental, political, economic characteristics (e.g. Bridges et al. 1997; Bridges and Rodriguez 2000; Sampson 2012). These varying return rates are taken to indicate differences in the level of trust across cities. This fact illustrates the extent to which different cities have capabilities in producing different levels of trust. In other words, trust can be conceived as an urban product. In the following paragraphs, I explore the implications of these varying levels of trust. How Does Trust Matter? The absence of trust leads to a variety of urban problems. In examining the decline of America's once greatest city Detroit, Sugrue (2014) concludes that the urban crisis facing Detroit and many other major American cities emerged as a consequence of racial discrimination and class inequality. In fact, Wirth (1938) pointed out that the increasing number of urban habitants had led to the spatial segregation of individuals according to color, ethnic heritage, economic and social status, tastes and preferences. Jane Jacobs (1961:71) noted that trust on the street has a direct bearing on serious social problems - segregation and racial discrimination in cities. In other words, the absence of trust is the real origin of urban problems. Indeed, distrust among heterogeneous individuals in urban societies accounts for urban problems such as discrimination, isolation, violence, and poverty (see e.g. Putnam 2001; Klinenberg 2003; Magee et al. 2008; Sampson et al. 1997; Small 2004; Wacquant 2008; Wilkes and Iceland 2004). Moreover, these urban problems in turn lead to low trust. The absence of trust also hinders community and urban development. Urban sociologists have explored how cultural factors such as lifestyles (e.g. Zukin 1998), amenities (e.g. Clark 2004), skills (e.g. Glaeser and Resseger 2010), and scenes (Silver and Clark 2015) can lead to urban growth. In practice, municipal governments around the globe have used cultural activities and facilities to promote and revitalize their cities 11

Milgram et al. (1965) developed the lost letter technique to measure helping behavior using as a dependent variable subjects’ willingness to pick up and mail lost but stamped and addressed letters.

Am Soc

(Grodach and Loukaitou‐Sideris 2007). However, while these social activities, amenities, and scenes may correlate with urban growth they do not explain it. For instance, creative class theory argues that successful cities are those with high index of 3 Ts, namely, technology, talent and tolerance (Florida 2002). However, Peck (2005) points out that creative class theory lacks a causal mechanism. It is true that tolerance in many American metropolitan areas has been growing. However, this same tolerance is also accompanied by huge overlays of indifference, narcissism, and isolation. Moreover, the very same talented individuals who claim to be motivated by tolerance and the quest for diversity typically live in wealthy homogeneous neighborhoods (Storper and Scott 2009). 12 In this case, how can it be supposed that the 3 Ts promote urban and community growth? Another magic T, trust, is needed to pull these factors together. Many researchers have appreciated the value of urban diversity in driving urban growth (Jacobs 1961; Florida 2002). More recently, Silver (2015) shows that the most diverse cities are often the most segregated. Ultimately trust is the foundation for any livable city. How Do Cities Produce Trust? The fact that some cities are more trusting than others also requires considering how cities produce trust. The city is a multilevel structure, consisting of streets, neighborhoods and the city as a whole. Therefore, the sociology of the city adopts a multilevel approach to the city. Specifically, we explore the modes of trust production at the street level, the neighborhood level, and at the level of the city as a whole. Streets are the most basic units of a city. People perceive residential streets in the cities as forming the basis of Blively, close-knit communities^ (Appleyard and Lintell 1986: 106). Thus, they serve unique and important functions in the life of a city (Grannis 1998). The building of trust in cities starts from public contacts on streets. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs (1961: 56–57) stated that: BThe trust of a city street is formed over time from many, many little public sidewalk contacts.^ Therefore, it is essential to identify how a city can increase public contact on its streets. Indeed, the geography of streets often mediates, directs, and constrains social interaction patterns. For example, the designs and governance in housing (e.g. Dewey 1960), trivial streets (e.g. Grannis 1998), blocks (e.g. Jacobs 1961), and sidewalks (e.g. Anderson 2000; Duneier 1999) are all important for promoting public contact and fostering trust. When speaking on the importance of streets in building trust, Jacobs (1961: 56–57) stated that: It (trust) grows out of people stopping by at the bar for a beer, getting advice from the grocer and giving advice to the newsstand man, comparing opinions with other customers at the bakery and nodding hello to the two boys drinking pop on the stoop, eying the girls while waiting to be called for dinner, admonishing the children, hearing about a job from the hardware man and borrowing a dollar from the druggist, admiring the new babies and sympathizing over the way a coat faded. 12 Florida (2002) links the presence of lesbians and gay men, among others, to urban growth. However, the concept of Bgayborhood^ entails the clustering of gay residents.

Am Soc

A lively and trusting neighborhood is built upon multiple connected streets where the street system is continuous: residents can interact with neighbors who interact with residents from another street. A neighborhood network is then built street by street (Grannis 2005). In addition to streets, churches, schools, public laundry rooms, coffee houses, and other social organizations all serve to assimilate strangers and revitalize connectedness. Associations in cities provide a mechanism of norms, networks, and social sanctions that foster individuals’ trust (e.g. Putnam 1995, 2001; Paxton 2007). Therefore, to promote trust cities should encourage the development of neighborhood associations, public places, and social activities. In fact, Jacobs’s trust mechanisms can apply just as well or better to a neighborhood than to a city as a whole. With the rise of new media and new communication technologies, both face to face contacts and social participation have been in decline over the last few decades (Putnam 1995). To reinforce trust cities also need to develop new ways to link highly individualized people together. For example, urban sociologists have explored how new media, computers, and phones can help generate trust online and offline (e.g. Hampton and Gupta 2008; Hampton and Wellman 2000; Hampton and Wellman 2003). Fukuyama (1995) argued that, in the information society, people value freedom and equality. Empirical studies have documented that people in more free and equal societies tend to express more trust (e.g. Rothstein and Uslaner 2005). Survey data also reveal that the countries with highest levels of trust are the Nordic welfare states (e.g. Norway, Sweden, and Finland) where equal opportunities, social solidarity and security for all are core societal values (Mewes and Mau 2013). Accordingly, to promote trust, the city as a whole should promote the development of new technology, and also a type of urban culture that encourages freedom, equality, and tolerance.

Conclusion The discipline of sociology often gives the impression that it is the study of everything. On the one hand this is positive: sociology is a healthy social science that is publicly relevant and useful. Sociologists have made enormous strides in advancing the understanding of multiple aspects of human life. On the other hand, sociology can also be critiqued for its lack of disciplinary cohesiveness (Best 2001; Turner 2006). If it is to remain a collective project, then sociology requires solidarity among its practitioners (Nichols 2012). To achieve such solidarity, sociologists with similar interests have formed sub-disciplines such as political sociology, medical sociology, and organizational sociology. Urban sociology as a sub-discipline was formed to study urban society at a time when the world was undergoing rapid urbanization. Modern society is now de facto an urbanized society. Yet current urban sociology continues to focus on social problems and social processes in cities and therefore is indistinguishable from general sociology. Recently, urban sociologists have suggested a variety of ways to reformulate urban sociology. For Gans (2009) urban sociology should be developed into a sociology of settlements; Zukin (2011) believes that urban sociology should be reformulated toward a sociology of space; Perry and Harding (2002: 847) argue that urban sociology can be replaced by studies of the city, its space, its culture and its nature. This paper has provided a larger comprehensive framework within which to situate these arguments.

Am Soc

Urban sociology will not wither away. In this article, I have suggested that, in the future, urban sociology should be understood as the sociology of the city. While it is increasingly difficult to make the argument that urban society is different from society writ large, what is clear is that Berlin is a different city from Shanghai, old cities are different from those that are young, and big cities are different from small ones. Cities vary across countries and over time; at the same time, they share common characteristics. As with people, every city has an individual existence. An ordinary city approach allows us to study individual cities and urban groups across countries and over time. Ultimately, it is only when urban sociologists make the move to the city that they will be able to build the common theories, concepts, and tools that are needed for the subdiscipline to remain viable. Acknowledgments I thank Terry Clark, Sean Lauer, Lawrence Nichols and Rima Wilkes for their insightful comments and useful suggestions on earlier drafts. I also thank the Laboratory for Comparative Social Research at the Higher School of Economics (funded by a subsidy from the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program).

References Abbott, A. (1999). Department & discipline: Chicago sociology at one hundred. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ackroyd, P. (2001). London: The biography. New York: Random House. Amin, A. (2007). Re‐thinking the urban social. City, 11(1), 100–114. Anderson, E. (2000). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton. Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. (1986). The environmental quality of city Streets: The residents’ viewpoint. In E. D. Boer (Ed.), Social aspects of transport planning (pp. 93–120). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bakker, L., & Dekker, K. (2012). Social trust in urban neighbourhoods: the effect of relative ethnic group position. Urban Studies, 49(10), 2031–2047. Batty, M. (2008). The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science, 319(5864), 769–771. Becker, H. (1999). The Chicago school, so-called. Qualitative Sociology, 22(1), 3–12. Best, J. (2001). Giving it away: the ironies of sociology’s place in academia. The American Sociologist, 32(1), 107–113. Bridges, F. S., & Rodriguez, W. I. (2000). Gay-friendly affiliation, community size, and color of address in return of lost letters. North American Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 39–46. Bridges, F. S., Welsh, R. L., Graves, B. S., & Sonn, M. B. (1997). Differences in lost letter and postal card returns from cities and smaller urban communities. Psychological Reports, 80(2), 363–368. Bulmer, M. (1986). The Chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park & Burgess (Eds.), The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment (pp. 49–60). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Castells, M. (1968). Is there an urban sociology? Sociologie du Travail, 10(1), 72–90. Castells, M. (1977). The urban question: A Marxist approach. London: Edward Arnold. Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements (No. 7). Berkeley: University of California Press. Castells, M. (2002). Conclusion: Urban sociology in the twenty-first century. In I. Susser (Ed.), The Castells reader on cities and social theory (pp. 390–406). Malden: Blackwell. Clark, T. N. (Ed.). (2004). The city as an entertainment machine. Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI. Clark, T. N. (2012). Urban theory as context specification. American Sociological Association CUSS News Letter, 25(1), 1–15.

Am Soc Clark, T. N. (2014). Can Tocqueville karaoke? Global contrasts of citizen participation, the arts and development. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing. Clark, T. N., Lloyd, R., Wong, K. K., & Jain, P. (2002). Amenities drive urban growth. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(5), 493–515. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2003). Who trusts?: the origins of social trust in seven societies. European Societies, 5(2), 93–137. Dewey, R. (1960). The rural–urban continuum: real but relatively unimportant. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 60–66. Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York: Free Press. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Cambridge: Basic Books. Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class–revisited: Revised and expanded. Cambridge: Basic books. Fong, E., & Wilkes, R. (2003). Racial and ethnic residential patterns in Canada. Sociological Forum, 18(4), 577–602. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Gans, H. J. (2009). Some problems of and futures for urban sociology: toward a sociology of settlements. City & Community, 8(3), 211–219. Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496. Glaeser, E. L., & Resseger, M. G. (2010). The complementarity between cities and skills*. Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 221–244. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 811–846. Gottdiener, M., & Feagin, J. R. (1988). The paradigm shift in urban sociology. Urban Affairs Review, 24(2), 163–187. Grannis, R. (1998). The importance of trivial streets: residential streets and residential segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 103(6), 1530–1564. Grannis, R. (2005). T‐Communities: pedestrian street networks and residential segregation in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. City & Community, 4(3), 295–321. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. Grodach, C., & Loukaitou‐Sideris, A. (2007). Cultural development strategies and urban revitalization: a survey of US cities. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(4), 349–370. Hampton, K. N., & Gupta, N. (2008). Community and social interaction in the wireless city: wi-fi use in public and semi-public spaces. New Media & Society, 10(6), 831–850. Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2000). Examining community in the digital neighborhood: early results from Canada’s wired suburb. In Ishida, T., & Isbister, K. (Eds) Digital cities: technologies, experiences, and future perspectives (No. 1765). (pp. 194-208). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: how the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277–311. Harvey, D. (1985). The urbanization of capital: Studies in the history and theory of capitalist urbanization (Vol. 2). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hauser, P. M. (1965). Observations on the urban-folk and urban–rural dichotomies as forms of Western ethnocentrism. In P. M. Hauser & L. F. Schnore (Eds.), The study of urbanisation (pp. 503–517). London: John Wiley and Sons. Jacobs, J. (1961). The life and death of great American cities. New York: Random House. Jeong, H. (2015). Re-thinking public transit as a node for walking city: comparative study of transit zone in Chicago, Seoul, and Paris. PhD dissertation proposal, Illinois Institute of Technology. Jones, C. (2006). Paris: The biography of a city. New York: Penguin. Karp, D. A., Stone, G. P., & Yoels, W. C. (1977). Being urban: A social psychological view of city life. Lexington: Heath and Company. Kemeny, J. (1982). A critique and reformulation of the new urban sociology. Acta Sociologica, 25(4), 419– 430. Klinenberg, E. (2001). Dying alone: the social production of urban isolation. Ethnography, 2(4), 501–531. Klinenberg, E. (2003). Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lauer, S. R. (2008). Exchange relationships in inshore fisheries. Sociological Forum, 23(3), 503–535. Le Gales, P. (2005). Interesting times for urban sociology. Sociology, 39(2), 347–352. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (Vol. 142). Oxford: Blackwell. Levin, A. (2014). Toronto: Biography of a city. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre.

Am Soc Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985. Lloyd, R., & Clark, T. N. (2001). The city as an entertainment machine. Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment, 6(3), 357–378. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (2007). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power: Two works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: Wiley. Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 94–107). Electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford. Magee, W., Fong, E., & Wilkes, R. (2008). Neighbourhood ethnic concentration and discrimination. Journal of Social Policy, 37(01), 37–61. May, T., & Perry, B. (Eds.) (2005). The future of urban sociology. Sociology, 39(2), 343–370. Mewes, J., & Mau, S. (2013). Globalization, socio-economic status and welfare chauvinism: European perspectives on attitudes toward the exclusion of immigrants. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 54(3), 228–245. Milgram, S., Mann, L., & Harter, S. (1965). The lost-letter technique: a tool of social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 437. Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 309–332. Molotch, H., & Logan, J. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nichols, L. T. (2012). North Central Sociological Association presidential address. Renewing sociology: integral science, solidarity, and loving kindness. Sociological Focus, 45(4), 261–273. Pahl, R. E. (1966). The rural–urban continumm. Sociologia Ruralis, 6(3), 299–329. Park, R. E. (1915). The city: suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. The American Journal of Sociology, 20(5), 577–612. Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The city. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1, 925 Paxton, P. (2007). Association memberships and generalized trust: a multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces, 86(1), 47–76. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770. Perry, B., & Harding, A. (2002). The future of urban sociology: report of joint sessions of the British and American Sociological Associations. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(4), 844– 853. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Reissman, L. (1970). The urban process. Glencoe: Free Press. Robinson, J. (2006). Ordinary cities: Between globalization and modernity. London: Routledge. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. M. (2005). All for all: equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(01), 41–72. Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. Sassen, S. (2000). New frontiers facing urban sociology at the Millennium. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 143–159. Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: NewYork, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sassen, S. (2005). Cities as strategic sites. Sociology, 39(2), 352–357. Sassen, S. (2010). The city: its return as a lens for social theory. City, Culture and Society, 1(1), 3–11. Saunders, P. (1981). Social theory and the urban question. London: Hutchinson. Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2014). The nature of cities: the scope and limits of urban theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12134. Silver, N. (2015). The most diverse cities are often the most segregated. Retrieved from http://fivethirtyeight. com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/, May 6th, 2015. Silver, D., & Clark, T. N. (2010). Scenes: social context in an age of contingency. Social Forces, 88(5), 2293– 2324.

Am Soc Silver, D., & Clark, T. N. (2015). The power of scenes: quantities of amenities and qualities of places. Cultural Studies, 29(3), 425–449. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (Vol. 92892). New York: Simon and Schuster. Sjoberg, G. (1959). Comparative urban sociology. In R. K. Merton, L. Broom, & L. S. Cottrell Jr. (Eds.), Sociology today: Problems and prospects (pp. 334–359). New York: Basic Books. Small, M. L. (2004). Villa Victoria: The transformation of social capital in a Boston barrio. Chicgao: University of Chicago Press. Small, M. L. (2008). Four reasons to abandon the idea of “The Ghetto”. City & community, 7(4), 389–398. Sorokin, P. A. (1962). Society, culture, and personality: Their structure and dynamics. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. Sorokin, P. A., & Zimmerman, C. C. (1929). Principles of rural–urban sociology. New York: Henry Holt. Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(2), 147–167. Sugrue, T. J. (2014). The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar Detroit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tönnies, F. (1955). Community and association :(Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft). London: Routledge & Paul. Turner, J. H. (2006). American sociology in chaos: differentiation without integration. The American Sociologist, 37(2), 15–29. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. London: Polity. Walton, J. (1993). Urban sociology: the contribution and limits of political economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 301–320. Weber, M. (1958). The city. New York: The Free Press. Wilkes, R. (2011). Re-thinking the decline in trust: a comparison of black and white Americans. Social Science Research, 40(6), 1596–1610. Wilkes, R. (2015). We trust in government, just not in yours: race, partisanship, and political trust, 1958–2012. Social Science Research, 49, 356–371. Wilkes, R., & Iceland, J. (2004). Hypersegregation in the twenty-first century. Demography, 41(1), 23–36. Wilson, W. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1–24. Zukin, S. (1980). A decade of the new urban sociology. Theory and Society, 9(4), 575–601. Zukin, S. (1998). Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption. Urban studies, 35(5–6), 825–839. Zukin, S. (2011). Is there an urban sociology? Questions on a field and a vision. Sociologica, 3, 1–18.