Urban Realms: The Nonplace Communities by Melvin Webber - Article Example

The Interest Communities” “Urban Realms: The Nonplace Communities” was written by Melvin Webber in 1964 and addresses the ways in which a person caninteract within their community. It also discusses people in both their regular environments and the ones in which they actual live and communicate with their neighbours and friends. Throughout the article, Webber makes note of his observations in regards to neighbourhoods and neighbourhood change, mentioning how aspects like time and the growth of businesses effect how people communicate with each other, as well as who they communicate with, why, and in what environment. Webber believes that a person’s work environment and the people within their work community is not their place-community, as it is only a place in which they work. Where they live and interact with people outside of work, however, is their place-community. Though the article was written in 1964, Webber’s insights in regards to neighbourhoods and neighbourhood change can be applicable to the present. Webber states that communication between people, outside of the work environment, depends solely on the proximity between where the person is and where they want to go. He goes on to say that while proximity is important, accessibility to the place is another vital factor. In the 1960s, due to the lack of technology that we have now, the only way people could really communicate with friends or attend clubs or meetings would be to drive to them. There were no methods such as e-mail, text messaging, cell phones, or the perks of having the Internet, so they would have to depend on places that were close to them and within driving range. Even though this generation has every possible method of communication, many people still depend and rely on the places that are closest to them. The closer a place is and the easier it is to get there, the more likely a person will go there than elsewhere. Furthermore, as in the 1960s, in this day and age, people also depend on what they have close to them in regards to friends and companions – the closer a neighbor is, the better the relationship could be. According the Webber, neighbourhoods change according to the times and the growth of businesses. Though people prefer to live closer to their place of employment, and the majority of them move to be closer to their businesses, their place-community remains to be the place they spend their time outside of work. The main people of communication are not the people they work with, but with the people that they associate with outside of work. The same apply to this day and age. While people do communicate and spend with those inside of their work, their main correspondences are those that they live near and can be considered friends with. We still require cell phones and the Internet to stay in contact with people, yet we greatly depend on how close we are, physically, to someone. An examination of subsequent technological developments are not relevant to the overall point that Webber supports. As aforementioned, even with the advances in technology that we have, we still rely on proximity and accessibility in regards to our place-community. The only differences that technology makes in our time that the 1960s did not have the option of is that people can communicate with others, even within their place-community, without even leaving their homes. This does not change, however, the points that Webber pointed out in terms of people, places, and communications between people. Just as in the 1960s, we are still confining ourselves to the boundaries of community, town or city, realizing the convenience and the closeness we obtain with neighbours. Deepening the discussion in regards to who or what constitutes as a place-community, Webber states that closeness does not always play a factor, especially in regards to people. Webber believes that a work associate might live close to another work associate, within the same confines of perhaps a friend or neighbour, yet they are not considered part of the place-community, as they still have that connection of work. A place-community applies to the people that a person decides to make communication with, such as a neighbor or someone within a club or social gathering. A work associate is someone that people have no choice to be in contact with, and are therefore not considered real communications, even if they live close enough to be a neighbor. It remains that he is still known through work. Very little has changed since the 1960s in the way of how and who we communicate with, and why. The designing of technology to help make communication easier for us has not changed the fact that we still prefer to be friends and make acquaintances with people that live in closer proximity to us. Even if we have work partners that live close to us, we still, even unconsciously, do not regard them as people that we would spend too much time with outside of work. They are within our community, but they are not within our place-community because they are outside of recreation and friendship and are associated with work – a place that we have very little choice to be at. Proximity and accessibility are as important to us now in terms of our relationships as it was to people in the 1960s. Even with the increase in technology, we still rely on space and closeness when it comes to who we spend time with. Therefore, comparing the 1960s to now, the designing of technology does not matter, as we still apply to the same aspects of a relationship. Read More