Erik Larson spends a great deal of time in his book discussing the politics around building the Worlds Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, and the obstacles Daniel Burnham had to overcome to get it done. This part of the book serves as an example of all that was right -- and wrong -- about how and why cities were built at the end of the 19th century. The White City was a kind of fantasy utopia made real. It was a place of great beauty and innovation -- the place where many people saw electric lighting for the first time, and the birthplace of Pabst Blue Ribbon and the Ferris Wheel. On the other hand, the motivation behind building such a place -- competition with other cities, the desire to turn a profit -- as well as the ephemeral nature of the City itself, inevitably leads one to ask if it was all worth it. Burnham's force of personality got the White City built, but it is possible that personal vision alone is not the best way to build a city.
So, some thesis statements. You could go either way. Here are some examples you can build off of:
Burnham's struggle to build the Exposition shows how force of character and an entrepreneurial spirit can overcome tremendous obstacles.
or
While the Exposition was a success financially and artistically, Larson's book shows that the drive towards urbanization at the end of the 19th century was motivated by political and profit considerations, and not by a desire to create humane and livable urban spaces.
or
Burnham's White City was an expression of the American spirit, in that it showcased a vision of the future in which average people could live a life of ease thanks to technological innovation and labor-saving consumer products.
or
The future world that the Exposition promised could be found not in the beautiful buildings of the White City, but in the promise of the free market, represented by innovations such as pancake mix or waffle cones.
No comments:
Post a Comment