{"title":"<i>Hella Town: Oakland’s History of Development and Disruption</i> by Mitchell Schwarzer","authors":"Robert O. Self","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Oakland, California, situated across the bay from San Francisco, is the quintessential second city. It is, depending on the metaphor of choice, in the shadow of, little sibling to, or the grittier neighbor of its more celebrated urban counterpart. But those metaphors—to say nothing of the greatest cliché of all, Gertrude Stein’s “there is no there there” dismissal of the city—grew outworn long ago. Oakland is a city like any other, deserving of its own history and commentary, independent from constant comparison with San Francisco.Schwarzer offers just such a history in this rollicking, sprawling compendium of, in the words of its subtitle, the development and disruption of Oakland from the 1890s to the present. Focusing on the built environment, this book is primarily about parks, automobiles, highways, and housing, with some mass transit, shopping centers, and urban renewal alongside. It is organized accordingly, with chapters such as “Streetcar Stratification,” “The Politics of Parks,” “Housing Injustice,” and so forth. Schwarzer has read just about everything ever written about Oakland—so it would seem—and he synthesizes a narrative that is both familiar to urban historians and capable of occasional surprises and enchantments.The book’s two chief attributes are its fidelity to Oakland, and to cities generally, as a site of constant creative destruction and its empirical detail. A massive interregional system of streetcar lines was barely up and running before it was outdated, its private business model and fixed tracks supplanted by the public financing of roads and highways and the unfixed ambit of the automobile, truck, and bus. Downtown Oakland suffered from disinvestment and the effects of regional decentralization and subsequently turned to federal urban renewal as a lifeboat—before creeping gentrification saved it in the twenty-first century.That these stories of development and disruption are relatively familiar to urban scholars—as are the many other stories found in the book, of sports arenas, highway construction, housing segregation, commercial decentralization, deindustrialization, and so on—does not diminish their importance here. What is more, Schwarzer tackles them with an attention to empirical detail and specificity that will please even the most demanding local historian. Close readers will also find gems in those details. “The City of Oakland never fashioned a grand and accessible urban park, akin to Golden Gate Park,” Schwarzer writes, not because of a dearth of design plans (the noted urban planner Charles Mulford Robinson penned such a recommendation in his 1906 A Plan for Civic Improvement for the City of Oakland, California) but because of city council dithering (117). To this day, the best local parks are operated by the East Bay Regional Park District, a cooperative endeavor of Alameda and Contra Coast Counties, not the City of Oakland.For all its exhaustive research and factual detail, this often feels like a book in search of a thesis. Development and disruption only take us so far; they are the essential condition of urbanism throughout time. Oakland as a transportation crossroads also feels too generic: What major city cannot trace its origins to some sort of nodal network? Schwarzer writes in the introduction that the book focuses on how “emergent transportation technologies and systemic racism configured access to urbanized land” (5). That is the germ of a potentially urgent argument. But in truth, race plays an insignificant role in his analysis until a few late chapters, particularly one on housing, and what he means by “access to urbanized land” (by whom, under what conditions, to what end) is never meaningfully defined or developed.In the end, for all its merits (and there are many), the book is more encyclopedic than analytical. It is a fascinating, whirlwind ride through almost a century and a half of urban churn. Non-urbanists and Bay Area enthusiasts will likely find its informative and compelling chapters readable and charming. Interdisciplinary scholars of city life will, I suspect, miss a strong analytical framework as Schwarzer navigates the familiar terrain of modern American urbanism.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01993","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Oakland, California, situated across the bay from San Francisco, is the quintessential second city. It is, depending on the metaphor of choice, in the shadow of, little sibling to, or the grittier neighbor of its more celebrated urban counterpart. But those metaphors—to say nothing of the greatest cliché of all, Gertrude Stein’s “there is no there there” dismissal of the city—grew outworn long ago. Oakland is a city like any other, deserving of its own history and commentary, independent from constant comparison with San Francisco.Schwarzer offers just such a history in this rollicking, sprawling compendium of, in the words of its subtitle, the development and disruption of Oakland from the 1890s to the present. Focusing on the built environment, this book is primarily about parks, automobiles, highways, and housing, with some mass transit, shopping centers, and urban renewal alongside. It is organized accordingly, with chapters such as “Streetcar Stratification,” “The Politics of Parks,” “Housing Injustice,” and so forth. Schwarzer has read just about everything ever written about Oakland—so it would seem—and he synthesizes a narrative that is both familiar to urban historians and capable of occasional surprises and enchantments.The book’s two chief attributes are its fidelity to Oakland, and to cities generally, as a site of constant creative destruction and its empirical detail. A massive interregional system of streetcar lines was barely up and running before it was outdated, its private business model and fixed tracks supplanted by the public financing of roads and highways and the unfixed ambit of the automobile, truck, and bus. Downtown Oakland suffered from disinvestment and the effects of regional decentralization and subsequently turned to federal urban renewal as a lifeboat—before creeping gentrification saved it in the twenty-first century.That these stories of development and disruption are relatively familiar to urban scholars—as are the many other stories found in the book, of sports arenas, highway construction, housing segregation, commercial decentralization, deindustrialization, and so on—does not diminish their importance here. What is more, Schwarzer tackles them with an attention to empirical detail and specificity that will please even the most demanding local historian. Close readers will also find gems in those details. “The City of Oakland never fashioned a grand and accessible urban park, akin to Golden Gate Park,” Schwarzer writes, not because of a dearth of design plans (the noted urban planner Charles Mulford Robinson penned such a recommendation in his 1906 A Plan for Civic Improvement for the City of Oakland, California) but because of city council dithering (117). To this day, the best local parks are operated by the East Bay Regional Park District, a cooperative endeavor of Alameda and Contra Coast Counties, not the City of Oakland.For all its exhaustive research and factual detail, this often feels like a book in search of a thesis. Development and disruption only take us so far; they are the essential condition of urbanism throughout time. Oakland as a transportation crossroads also feels too generic: What major city cannot trace its origins to some sort of nodal network? Schwarzer writes in the introduction that the book focuses on how “emergent transportation technologies and systemic racism configured access to urbanized land” (5). That is the germ of a potentially urgent argument. But in truth, race plays an insignificant role in his analysis until a few late chapters, particularly one on housing, and what he means by “access to urbanized land” (by whom, under what conditions, to what end) is never meaningfully defined or developed.In the end, for all its merits (and there are many), the book is more encyclopedic than analytical. It is a fascinating, whirlwind ride through almost a century and a half of urban churn. Non-urbanists and Bay Area enthusiasts will likely find its informative and compelling chapters readable and charming. Interdisciplinary scholars of city life will, I suspect, miss a strong analytical framework as Schwarzer navigates the familiar terrain of modern American urbanism.
位于旧金山海湾对面的加州奥克兰是典型的第二大城市。根据选择的隐喻,它是在其更著名的城市对手的阴影下,或者是兄弟姐妹,或者是更坚韧的邻居。但这些隐喻——更不用说最老套的,格特鲁德·斯坦(Gertrude Stein)对城市的“那里没有那里”(there is no there)——早就过时了。奥克兰是一个和其他城市一样的城市,值得拥有自己的历史和评论,独立于与旧金山的不断比较。施瓦泽在这本喧闹的、庞大的概要中提供了这样一段历史,用副标题的话说,奥克兰从19世纪90年代到现在的发展和破坏。本书关注建筑环境,主要是关于公园、汽车、高速公路和住房,以及一些公共交通、购物中心和城市更新。这本书的组织方式与之相应,包括“有轨电车分层”、“公园政治”、“住房不公”等章节。施瓦泽几乎读过所有关于奥克兰的文章——看起来是这样——他综合的叙述既为城市历史学家所熟悉,又能偶尔带来惊喜和魅力。这本书的两个主要特点是忠实于奥克兰,以及一般的城市,作为一个不断创造性破坏的场所,以及它的经验细节。一个庞大的跨区域有轨电车系统刚刚建成并开始运行,就已经过时了,它的私人商业模式和固定轨道被道路和高速公路的公共融资以及汽车、卡车和公共汽车的不固定范围所取代。奥克兰市中心遭受了投资减少和地区分权的影响,随后转向联邦城市重建作为一艘救生艇,直到21世纪缓慢的中产阶级化拯救了它。这些关于发展和破坏的故事对于城市学者来说相对熟悉——就像书中发现的许多其他故事一样,关于运动场、高速公路建设、住房隔离、商业分散、去工业化等等——但这并没有降低它们在这里的重要性。更重要的是,施瓦泽在处理这些问题时,注重经验细节和特殊性,即使是最苛刻的当地历史学家也会感到高兴。细心的读者也会在这些细节中发现瑰宝。“奥克兰市从来没有像金门公园那样建立一个宏伟的、可进入的城市公园,”施瓦泽写道,这并不是因为缺乏设计方案(著名的城市规划师查尔斯·马尔福德·罗宾逊在他1906年的《加州奥克兰市公民改善计划》中就提出了这样的建议),而是因为市议会的犹豫不决(117)。直到今天,当地最好的公园都是由东湾地区公园区(East Bay Regional Park District)运营的,这是阿拉米达县和康特拉海岸县的合作,而不是奥克兰市。尽管有详尽的研究和事实细节,但这本书经常让人感觉像是在寻找论文。发展和颠覆只能带我们走这么远;它们一直是城市化的必要条件。奥克兰作为交通枢纽也太过笼统:哪个大城市的起源不能追溯到某种节点网络呢?施瓦泽在前言中写道,这本书关注的是“新兴的交通技术和系统性的种族主义如何配置进入城市化土地的途径”(5)。这是一个潜在的紧迫争论的萌芽。但事实上,种族在他的分析中起着微不足道的作用,直到最后几章,特别是关于住房的一章,他所说的“获得城市化土地”的含义(由谁、在什么条件下、为了什么目的)从未得到有意义的定义或发展。最后,尽管这本书有很多优点,但它更像百科全书,而不是分析性的。这是一次迷人的、旋风式的旅行,穿越了近一个半世纪的城市动荡。非城市主义者和湾区爱好者可能会发现它的内容丰富,引人入胜的章节可读性和魅力。我怀疑,研究城市生活的跨学科学者们,在施瓦泽驾驭熟悉的现代美国城市主义领域时,会错过一个强有力的分析框架。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history