The Power of City Walk

Favro’s “Street Triumphant” and de Certeau’s “Walking in the City’ emphasize the strong influence that the populace can have on the makeup and design of a city, contributing to its unique culture. While this may very well be true, the question that arises from these theorists is who exactly holds the power to transform the design of a city? Are the inhabitants considered agents, and if so, does every inhabitant hold power as an agent?

It seems that Favro ultimately believes that the triumphs and successes of Rome contributed to its structure. Favro states, “Celebration of a triumph transformed the urban realities of Rome.” (Favro 157) I think this essentially means that the population’s achievements are what shaped the structure of the city as a whole, rather than the inhabitants themselves. The structures are what hold the most power. “The rituals of a triumph redefined the use of key buildings in Rome.” (Favro 157) “Spectator events were an integral part of Roman life. Thus it is not surprising that they had a significant impact on building design.” (Favro 157) According to Favro, the building’s structure takes on its specific design to suit that of the parades held in the city. The pathways are crucial in order for triumphs to occur, which calls for a particular layout that lasts through time and creates historical landmarks. “Clearly, the relationship between the triumphal parade and the urban form was reciprocal.” (Favro 152)

For de Certeau, his views are a little different, as he explores the city of Manhattan in its entirety by viewing the relationship between the inhabitant and the city. Walking through this city in itself brings upon its own rhetorical discourse. Rather than looking down at the city from a high-rise, he walks through it as a city’s inhabitant. “When one goes up there, he leaves behind the mass that carries off and mixes up in itself any identity of authors or spectators.” (Certeau 1343) Certeau believes someone must be involved in the city itself in order to wholly experience the architecture. It’s the inhabitants who ultimately bring the city to life. Essentially, one cannot know about the culture itself without exploring it. “Unlike Rome, New York has never learned the art of growing old by playing on all its pasts. Its present invents itself, from hour to hour, in the act of throwing away its previous accomplishments and challenges in the future.” (Certeau 1343) What I gather from this is that Certeau takes into consideration that New York does not necessarily gain its structure from huge successes, but is an ever-changing city that holds thousands of inhabitants every day that display a number of different cultures. They are able to choose their own paths and create their own walkways on a day-to-day basis, creating a personal and customized text for themselves. As a native New Yorker, I have walked through the city of Manhattan several times to find that there are a number of different shortcuts and routes that I have the option of choosing, but it’s also because I am well aware of them, which other inhabitants may not be. But if I were to be viewing the city from the World Trade Center, these routes wouldn’t be visible. I would only see a huge city covered in buildings, streets, and taxis, which reemphasizes this idea of a structured map and a set discourse.  

This brings me to the video of ancient Rome we watched in class, which gave us the perspective of the city through a three-dimensional digital lens. While it provides us with a clear picture of of ancient Rome, we’re still not fully experiencing the culture as inhabitants, nor do we have the power to change it. We are only given the perception of the existing structures that have played such a huge role in the shaping of Rome. Certeau would not believe that this would suffice as “experiencing” the city since we’re technically not present and lack the ability to recognize different pathways, thus, hindering us from forming our own type of text and relationship with the city. However, we are still able to move through the city through the use of a screen and explore its architecture, so it is still questionable.

Favro’s and Certeau’s viewings of these cities ultimately lead to two assessments that question the role of agency. While I feel any inhabitant can be an agent in de Certeau’s viewing of a city, there are still many questions to be answered as to who holds the power through these ever-changing pathways. In regards to Favro’s text, I think her fundamental purpose is to display the notion that there are select inhabitants of the city that have achieved what has now contributed to Rome’s ancient design, which continues to last through the course of history. These are the inhabitants that hold the power, that have led the structures and design of the city to hold the focal point of power. Without these achievements, Rome’s design would not be what it is, nor would its history. The two evidently work together. 

-Vanessa Coppola