Preindustrial public space only looks disordered because its ordering principle differs from ours

Evidence

The above portrait particularly emphasized one characteristic of the preindustrial city: the multiplicity of uses to which public space was put. It is this characteristic which imparts to the modern eye, confronting the city through the works of historians and archeologists, an overwhelming impression of disorder. Some critics, disenchanted with what they consider the sterility of the modern city, have even suggested that our contemporary metropolises could well benefit from the importation of a little of this historical “disorder” (see, for example, Sennett, 1970). I do not share in this judgment of the preindustrial city as disordered. It may appear so to us, but only because the principle of its ordering, only because the dominant type of order, differs from that to which we are accustomed. Nevertheless, there is no question but that in contrast to the modern city, the public spaces of historic urban settlements were sites of an incredible mixture of activities and persons. — Lyn H. Lofland, World of Strangers_ Order and Action in…, 174

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• QUESTION: What exactly is the ordering principle of the classic, modern, anonymous city that makes preindustrial mixture read as chaos? Lofland’s answer comes later in the book — worth tracking.
• DEFINE: Introduces the book’s central frame: ‘order’ is not universal but specific to an era’s dominant type of public-space ordering.

Related

• Preindustrial urban diversity looks like disorder only because its ordering principle differs (similarity 0.96)
• Industrial-era disorder itself spawned the modern city’s new order. (similarity 0.85)
• Neither spatial nor appearential ordering wholly replaces the other across eras (similarity 0.83)
• The appearential-to-spatial shift intertwined with many concurrent urban transformations (similarity 0.82)
• Urban history trends from appearance-based to location-based ordering (similarity 0.82)
• Preindustrial cities relied primarily on appearance with spatial segregation as a secondary cue (similarity 0.82)
• Preindustrial cities segregated activities far less spatially than modern cities (similarity 0.82)
• The origins of public space order are independent of its later social uses (similarity 0.81)
• Nonspecialized public space necessarily mixed diverse persons together (similarity 0.81)
• The early industrial city was when urban order had to be explicitly taught (similarity 0.81)
• Modern cities segregate activities spatially far more than preindustrial ones did (similarity 0.81)
• Preindustrial cities segregated outsiders by lodging rather than by restricting movement (similarity 0.80)
• Urban spatial-ordering changes were intertwined with the industrial and political revolutions. (similarity 0.80)
• Urban identification shifted from appearance clues to spatial location (similarity 0.80)
• Jumbled urban space forced preindustrial dwellers to confront social diversity daily (similarity 0.80)