Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Variables

Abstract

SYSTEMATIZATION of ecological theory has thus far proceeded on two main premises regarding the character of space and the nature of locational activities. first premise postulates that the sole relation of space to locational activities is an impeditive and cost-imposing one. second premise assumes that locational activities are primarily economizing, fiscal agents.' On the basis of these two premises the only possible relationship that locational activities may bear to space is an one. In such a relationship each activity will seek to so locate as to minimize the obstruction put upon its functions by spatial distance. Since the supply of the desired locations is limited it follows that not all activities can be favored with choice sites. Consequently a competitive process ensues in which the scarce desirable locations are preempted by those locational activities which can so exploit advantageous location as to produce the greatest surplus of income over expenditure. Less desirable locations devolve to correspondingly less economizing land uses. result is a pattern of land use that is presumed to be most efficient for both the individual locational activity and for the community.2 Given the contractualistic milieu within which the modern city has arisen and acquires its functions, such an economic ecology has had a certain explanatory adequacy in describing urban spatial structure and dynamics. However, as any theory matures and approaches a logical closure of its generalizations it inevitably encounters facts which remain unassimilable to the theoretical scheme. In this paper it will be our purpose to describe certain ecological processes which apparently cannot be embraced in a strictly analysis. Our hypothesis is that the data to be presented, while in no way startling or unfamiliar to the research ecologist, do suggest an alteration of the basic premises of ecology. This alteration would consist, first, of ascribing to space not only an impeditive quality but also an additional property, viz., that of being at times a symbol for certain cultural values that have become associated with a certain spatial area. Second, it would involve a recognition that locational activities are not only economizing agents but may also bear sentiments which can significantly influence the locational process.3 A test case for this twofold hypothesis is afforded by certain features of land use in central Boston. In common with many of the older American cities Boston has inherited from the past certain spatial patterns and landmarks which have had a remarkable persistence and even recuperative power despite challenges from other more land uses. persistence of these spatial patterns can only be understood in terms of the group values that they have come to symbolize. We shall describe three types of such patterns: first, an in-town upper class residential neighborhood known as Beacon Hill; second, certain sacred sites, notably the ' See Everett C. Hughes, The Ecological Aspect of Institutions, American Sociological Review. I:i80-9, April, I936. 2This assumption of a correspondence between the maximum utility of a private association and that of the community may be questioned within the very framework of marginal utility analysis. See particularly A. C. Pigou, Economics of Welfare. Second Edition, London: 1924, Part II, ch. 8. For a clear presentation of the typical position see Robert Murray Haig, Towards an Understanding of the Metropolis-the Assignment of Activities to Areas in Urban Regions, Quarterly Journal of Economics. 40:402-34, May, 1926. 'Georg Simmel, Der Raum und die ru cf. Hughes, op. cit.