Rating: 
Summary: Good Until the Last Hundred or So Pages
Review: After two hundred pages I wanted to give this book five stars, but after finishing it, I was almost ready to give it three stars.This book is what it says it is, "The City in History". Starting in the neolithic era, Mumford marches through all of recorded time and place (place being limited to the Near East, Greece, Rome, Europe and America) to bring, you, the reader, his thoughts on the role and "prospects" of the city. In the beginning, it's an exhilerating ride. Mumford is not shy about advancing bold arguments. Although the book starts with sections on the city in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, he doesn't really get excited until he gets to Ancient Greece. I'd say it's clear from the text that Mumford is a fan of Ancient Greece, particularly Athens between the 7th and 6th century B.C. Then it's off to Rome. Mumford is a harsh critic of Roman culture. His critique of the Roman method of burial (take bodies just outside city limits, dump, bury) contrains so much righteous indigination you might think the Romans were still pottering around when he wrote this book. After Rome, we get an equally stirring defense of the Middle (don't call them "Dark" around Mumford) Ages. Mumford is a big fan of the city in the late middle ages. As an example, Mumford uses Amsterdam. Specifically, what Mumford likes about this time period is the community involvement by the ruling elites. Like many other social critics, Mumford is not a huge fan of the impact that capitalism and industrialization have had on the modern city. Unlike some of the other reveiwers below, I don't really hold that against him. He was writing in the sixties, people!!! However, I do admit that by the last hundred or so pages, when Mumford starts despairing of the future of the city, the whole tirade started to get tired. I'm not sure I would recommend this for a general reader.
Rating:
Summary: Good Until the Last Hundred or So Pages
Review: After two hundred pages I wanted to give this book five stars, but after finishing it, I was almost ready to give it three stars. This book is what it says it is, "The City in History". Starting in the neolithic era, Mumford marches through all of recorded time and place (place being limited to the Near East, Greece, Rome, Europe and America) to bring, you, the reader, his thoughts on the role and "prospects" of the city. In the beginning, it's an exhilerating ride. Mumford is not shy about advancing bold arguments. Although the book starts with sections on the city in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, he doesn't really get excited until he gets to Ancient Greece. I'd say it's clear from the text that Mumford is a fan of Ancient Greece, particularly Athens between the 7th and 6th century B.C. Then it's off to Rome. Mumford is a harsh critic of Roman culture. His critique of the Roman method of burial (take bodies just outside city limits, dump, bury) contrains so much righteous indigination you might think the Romans were still pottering around when he wrote this book. After Rome, we get an equally stirring defense of the Middle (don't call them "Dark" around Mumford) Ages. Mumford is a big fan of the city in the late middle ages. As an example, Mumford uses Amsterdam. Specifically, what Mumford likes about this time period is the community involvement by the ruling elites. Like many other social critics, Mumford is not a huge fan of the impact that capitalism and industrialization have had on the modern city. Unlike some of the other reveiwers below, I don't really hold that against him. He was writing in the sixties, people!!! However, I do admit that by the last hundred or so pages, when Mumford starts despairing of the future of the city, the whole tirade started to get tired. I'm not sure I would recommend this for a general reader.
Rating:
Summary: Good Until the Last Hundred or So Pages
Review: After two hundred pages I wanted to give this book five stars, but after finishing it, I was almost ready to give it three stars. This book is what it says it is, "The City in History". Starting in the neolithic era, Mumford marches through all of recorded time and place (place being limited to the Near East, Greece, Rome, Europe and America) to bring, you, the reader, his thoughts on the role and "prospects" of the city. In the beginning, it's an exhilerating ride. Mumford is not shy about advancing bold arguments. Although the book starts with sections on the city in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, he doesn't really get excited until he gets to Ancient Greece. I'd say it's clear from the text that Mumford is a fan of Ancient Greece, particularly Athens between the 7th and 6th century B.C. Then it's off to Rome. Mumford is a harsh critic of Roman culture. His critique of the Roman method of burial (take bodies just outside city limits, dump, bury) contrains so much righteous indigination you might think the Romans were still pottering around when he wrote this book. After Rome, we get an equally stirring defense of the Middle (don't call them "Dark" around Mumford) Ages. Mumford is a big fan of the city in the late middle ages. As an example, Mumford uses Amsterdam. Specifically, what Mumford likes about this time period is the community involvement by the ruling elites. Like many other social critics, Mumford is not a huge fan of the impact that capitalism and industrialization have had on the modern city. Unlike some of the other reveiwers below, I don't really hold that against him. He was writing in the sixties, people!!! However, I do admit that by the last hundred or so pages, when Mumford starts despairing of the future of the city, the whole tirade started to get tired. I'm not sure I would recommend this for a general reader.
Rating: 
Summary: Mumford had a gift for writing, but this tome gets lofty
Review: I'd agree with some of the other reviewers who found the first 3/4 of this book interesting and insightful and who were put off by the last portion. Mumford has a dexterous command of language and weaves prosaic citations and factual listings with poetic and metamorphic digestions. Though this book is an extremely long and at times a very dry 570 pages, I was rarely bored enough to put it down for too long. Mumford has a keen intellect and his pen touches on nearly every aspect of human development and interaction, even in contexts that one would think are not directly related to city life or urban growth. Here we see that city-man has cast an inescapable cultural legacy: religion, economics, epistemology/philosophy, politics & government and even biology are and have been in constant dialog with urban forces, dramatized by symbolic manifestations of rural and urban, man and woman, individual and communal, organic and mechanical. As a repository for cultural and historical development in the west, this book should have much more attention that it does nowadays.
Mumford's analysis of the development of western cities since the inception of agriculturally-based sedentary communities is for the most part highly critical of the social and organization manifestations of the cities of the ancient world. He waxes with a somewhat fair disposition on the democracy that gripped Athens in the 5th century, yet from then until the Middle Ages, he suggests a kind of downward spiral of avarice, destruction, homogeneity and inanity (i.e. Rome) A revival of his conception of beneficent communitas arises with the guild-guided Middle Age towns, but this is ultimately usurped by the emergence and domination of mercantilism and the contemporous rise of state politics and economies. The industrial revolution saw urban cityscapes that offered a cultural vibrance below even that of Rome. Today's cities according to Mumford are a cancerous legacy of these preceding few centuries, whose doom is intertwined with their insatiable appetite for growth through ecological imbalance and resource depletion.
One might think from the title and aim of this book that it would be a survey, yet Mumford's dissection of the most heinous eras in urban culture, Rome and the Modern Era (from c.1600) play into his deconstructionist framework which he uses to villify capitalism and industry and likewise acquaint the two with greed, luxury at the cost of inhuman exploitation. While this is fine, and he does make a number of interesting observations, it glosses over any contribution whatsoever these periods made to urban culture; the reader is given an unbalanced account of each era, and leads one to wonder if there were any positive contributions whatsoever.
Finally, Mumford's exhaustive treatise on the failures of civilization, the untapped creative potential of the human mind-which is basically what this book is about- in the end offers no real solid retort or solution. The two concepts he does point to for a model of regional civic interaction - the electrical grid and the interlibrary loan system do seem to have a modern syncrete in the Internet, a network of easily availble cultural capital. Mumford is undoubtably a humanist and several times yearns for cities to allow humans to unlock their full creative and biological faculties, followed by a stream of dreamy platitudes that do little to qualify what this kind of feeling or sentiment concretely would entail. This is perhaps the biggest disappointment in this otherwise well-written book.
Rating: 
Summary: read Jane Jacobs instead
Review: I'm puzzled by this one. The history is pretty ordinary, the analysis pretty obvious (cities originated in order to facilitate religion, security and trade) and the conclusions, that the city is a necessary element in future human progress and must be strengthened and preserved, are simply wrong. If Mumford was once important, he has clearly been rendered a peripheral figure by the passage of time and his vision has been proven obtuse by the march of human events. Mumford was essentially an urbanomystic neo-Luddite. At the same time that he opposed what he saw as the deleterious affect of mechanization on the human soul, he lauded cities as enormous receptacles for accumulated human intelligence. But his antitechnology bias blinded him to the role that technology would play in making the city obsolete. Computers serve as much more efficient storage centers for knowledge than all the libraries in any city ever could and the Internet has made the entire World into an interlocking community. He also viewed cities as somehow uniquely suited to serve as the stage for human development. I'm not sure I even follow his reasoning here, but he seemed to think that humankind benefited from the mere proximity to one another that urbanization forced and the possibility for institutional structures that this allowed. This is pure Socialist Utopian blither. The latter quarter of this century has seen Man in full retreat from these restrictive authoritarian institutions and from the urban hells in which they arise. Mumford's view that benign social structures would arise organically as a unique function of urbanization, has shown itself to be disastrously wrong. Cities have instead proven to serve as concentrations of human pathologies (crime, drugs, pollution, family disintegration, etc.). It is perhaps best to simply ignore this whole line of argument since, not surprisingly, this intellectual saint of Urbanism moved to rural Dutchess County in 1936 and spent the rest of his life there. As we well know, humans, given a choice, will seldom choose the city over the country and modern technology is increasingly granting us all this freedom of choice. This is a very muddleheaded book. It can only have made this list because the pointy headed liberal Left still has some affinity for New York City. It's a New Yorker reader's pick. Skip it. GRADE: D
Rating:
Summary: read Jane Jacobs instead
Review: I'm puzzled by this one. The history is pretty ordinary, the analysis pretty obvious (cities originated in order to facilitate religion, security and trade) and the conclusions, that the city is a necessary element in future human progress and must be strengthened and preserved, are simply wrong. If Mumford was once important, he has clearly been rendered a peripheral figure by the passage of time and his vision has been proven obtuse by the march of human events. Mumford was essentially an urbanomystic neo-Luddite. At the same time that he opposed what he saw as the deleterious affect of mechanization on the human soul, he lauded cities as enormous receptacles for accumulated human intelligence. But his antitechnology bias blinded him to the role that technology would play in making the city obsolete. Computers serve as much more efficient storage centers for knowledge than all the libraries in any city ever could and the Internet has made the entire World into an interlocking community. He also viewed cities as somehow uniquely suited to serve as the stage for human development. I'm not sure I even follow his reasoning here, but he seemed to think that humankind benefited from the mere proximity to one another that urbanization forced and the possibility for institutional structures that this allowed. This is pure Socialist Utopian blither. The latter quarter of this century has seen Man in full retreat from these restrictive authoritarian institutions and from the urban hells in which they arise. Mumford's view that benign social structures would arise organically as a unique function of urbanization, has shown itself to be disastrously wrong. Cities have instead proven to serve as concentrations of human pathologies (crime, drugs, pollution, family disintegration, etc.). It is perhaps best to simply ignore this whole line of argument since, not surprisingly, this intellectual saint of Urbanism moved to rural Dutchess County in 1936 and spent the rest of his life there. As we well know, humans, given a choice, will seldom choose the city over the country and modern technology is increasingly granting us all this freedom of choice. This is a very muddleheaded book. It can only have made this list because the pointy headed liberal Left still has some affinity for New York City. It's a New Yorker reader's pick. Skip it. GRADE: D
Rating: 
Summary: A comparative analysis of cities
Review: Lewis Mumford deftly explores the formation and development of the city from its early Mesopotamian and Egyptian roots to its modern day manifestations. It is the logical extension of his earlier works on the subject, in particular "The Culture of Cities," which has been partially absorbed into this volume. Of particular interest to meis his analysis of the walled versus open cities, and the sharply opposing world views of the progenitors of these cities. Mumford was particularly drawn to the early Hellenic and later medieval town planning ideals. He noted how the early cities knew their limits, and established satellite communities, rather than continually extend their boundaries. Loose-knit federations were formed, which were much more democratic than were the Roman and Baroque regimental cities. He charts the evolution of modern city planning ideals, very critical of Le Corbusier's "Radiant City" and other megalomaniac ideas which arose in the 20th century. Mumford favored the "garden city" ideals of Ebeneezer Howard, which recognized the destructive impact of industrialization on urban centers; rather than those schemes which extolled the industrial city as the city of the future. Mumford is careful not to over reach, or at least let you know when he is forming suppositions. His annotated bibliography is immense, and probably the single most compelling aspect of this book for those who want to read more on the subject. The new Harcourt paperback edition, which came when I ordered this volume, has a more handsome cover than that shown in this listing.
Rating:
Summary: Encyclopedic and Impressive
Review: Lewis Mumford is an underappreciated intellectual monster (and I mean that in a good way). This book explains the development of the city as we in the Western World know it, including the paleolithic and neolithic mythologies that led to the current patriarchy, and its emphasis upon the overpowering of the feminine and the matriarchy. To dislike this book, I think, is to miss its point - it is not a feminist reading, but it may be a liberal reading of urban history. Personally, I found very few biases in his reasoning; he reasons clearly, and thoughtfully, and is not given to simple liberalities for the sake of it. He is not a knee-jerk liberal, and is not a cuddly-wuddly "let's all get along" liberal, either. Rather, he is a moderate, espousing a philosophy that takes frequent sojourns into liberalism. At the very least, this book is very much worth reading. Mumford's work must come back into vogue, if we are to learn to evolve as a culture. His evolutionarily and ecologically-sound perspectives are, ironically, unheard of in an era that desperately needs workable ideas that embrace both such perspectives.
Rating:
Summary: Encyclopedic and Impressive
Review: Lewis Mumford is an underappreciated intellectual monster (and I mean that in a good way). This book explains the development of the city as we in the Western World know it, including the paleolithic and neolithic mythologies that led to the current patriarchy, and its emphasis upon the overpowering of the feminine and the matriarchy. To dislike this book, I think, is to miss its point - it is not a feminist reading, but it may be a liberal reading of urban history. Personally, I found very few biases in his reasoning; he reasons clearly, and thoughtfully, and is not given to simple liberalities for the sake of it. He is not a knee-jerk liberal, and is not a cuddly-wuddly "let's all get along" liberal, either. Rather, he is a moderate, espousing a philosophy that takes frequent sojourns into liberalism. At the very least, this book is very much worth reading. Mumford's work must come back into vogue, if we are to learn to evolve as a culture. His evolutionarily and ecologically-sound perspectives are, ironically, unheard of in an era that desperately needs workable ideas that embrace both such perspectives.
Rating:
Summary: Three quarters textbook, one quarter political rant
Review: The first three-fourths of Mumford's "The City in History" is a lengthy treatise on the origins and growth of the city, from Babylon to Medieval times. While there is nothing factually incorrect about this portion of the book - it is a compendium of knowledge spanning dozens of civilizations and cultures, I did not find it particularly interesting. I would compare it to reading a textbook, but it was written with too much of an intellectual bent to be accurately compared to such. The last quarter of the book, however, fell from a high-minded dicussion and description of the nature and purposes of cities into a standard neo-Luddite rant: Capitalism is bad. Cars are bad. Suburbs are bad. Things are getting worse, and someone (the government) must step in and enforce (my) order. If such is your philosophy, you may very well enjoy this book. I did not.
| 
