Classical and non-classical theories of the city: From the real to the imaginary
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2026-2-159-174
The article explores classical and non-classical theories of the city, focusing on the Chicago School of Sociology and the Los Angeles School of Urbanism. The aim of the study is to analyze how the understanding of the city evolved during the 20th century and how the concept of the urban imaginary has been actualized within the framework of non-classical theories. The author highlights the antinomy of the city as a cultural phenomenon, presenting opposing views on the urban way of life: urbanism and anti-urbanism. It is shown that classical (modernist) theories examine the industrial city, considering various biotic, economic, and political factors that influence its spatial organization, while non-classical (postmodernist) theories study the post-industrial city, placing particular emphasis on the cultural, symbolic, and emotional aspects of urban life. The Chicago School of Sociology (R. Park, E. Burgess, L. Wirth, and others) explains the existing order of human settlement in the city from an urban ecology perspective, studying real, measurable spatial practices. In this context, the city is treated as monocentric, comprising various zones and specific social groups. Conversely, Los Angeles urbanists (E. Soja, M. Davis, F. Jameson, and others) pay attention not only to the real but also to the non-material dimension of the city, emphasizing the influence of representations of space and spaces of representation—i.e., the urban imaginary—on spatial and social order. Non-classical theories conceptualize the city as polycentric, non-linearly developing, and fragmented, while affirming the primacy of cultural analysis, as it allows for the consideration of the diversity of urban life. Since people semiotically mark urban territories, interpreting them within a specific cultural framework and endowing them with existential meaning, the city is understood not only as an objectively real environment but also as a symbolically significant and subjectively imagined space.
Keywords: city, theories of city, urban imaginary, Chicago School of Sociology, Los Angeles School of Urbanism, space, place
References:
Baudrillard, J. (2011). L'échange symbolique et la mort (S. N. Zenkin, Trans.). Dobrosvet, KDU. (In Russian).
Baudrillard, J. (2015). Simulacres et Simulation (A. Kachalov, Trans.). Postum. (In Russian).
Burgess, E. W. (2015). The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project (V. G. Nikolaev, Trans.). In The Chicago School of Sociology: A Collection of Translations (pp. 20–34). INION RAS. (In Russian).
Cortese, A. J. (1995). The Rise, Hegemony, and Decline of the Chicago School of Sociology, 1892–l945. The Social Science Journal, 32(3), 235–254.
Davis, M. (2006). City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. Verso, 2006.
Delorme, P. (2005). De l’école de Chicago à l’imaginaire urbain. In La ville autrement (pp. 9–27). Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Deutsche, R. (1995). Surprising Geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 168–173.
Fedotova, N. G. (2024). Orthodox Images in the Urban Imaginary of Veliky Novgorod. Journal of Visual Theology, 6(2), 368–381. (In Russian).
Frolova, T. A. (2016). The concept “city” in the legislation of subjects of the Russian Federation on administrative and territorial division. Prologue: Law Journal, 3. https://www.prolaw38.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2016-3.pdf (accessed: 14.12.2025). (In Russian).
Gornova, G. V. (2013). The Concept “City” in the Aspect of the Culture Philosophy. Review of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Research, 1, 21–24. (In Russian).
Gornova, G. V. (2014). Filosofiya goroda [Philosophy of the city]. Forum, INFRA-М.
Jameson, F. (2019). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (D. Kralechkin, Trans.). Gaidar Institute. (In Russian).
Kagan, M. S. (1996). Filosofiya kul'tury [Philosophy of Culture]. Petropolis.
Lavrenova, O. A. (2023). Love and Place. In Memory of Yi-Fu Tuan. Geographical Environment and Living Systems, 2, 58–67. (In Russian).
Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Anthropos.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. MIT Press.
Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (2013). Semiotic Diagnostics: Method of Measuring the Selfishness of Power. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 9(137), 255–261. (In Russian).
Mumford, L. (1970). The Culture of Cities. A Harvest, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Book.
Park, R. (1936). Human Ecology. American Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1086/217327
Park, R. (2002). The City as a Social Laboratory. The Russian Sociological Review, 2(3), 3–12. (In Russian).
Pirogov, S. V. (2004). Fenomenologicheskaya sotsiologiya i urbanistika [Phenomenological Sociology and Urban Studies]. Tomsk State University Journal, 282, 97–103. (In Russian).
Romashov, R. A. (2009). Phenomenon of City in Socio-Cultural and Political-Legal Dimension. Journal of Russian Law, 11, 53–68. (In Russian).
Shirokova, O. V. (2024). Visual Representation of the Historical City in Digital Media. Urbis et Orbis. Microhistory and Semiotics of the City, 4(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.34680/urbis-2024-4(1)-39-50 (In Russian).
Shlay, A. B., & Balzarini, J. (2015). Urban Sociology. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 926–933). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32164-X
Simmel, G. (2018). Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben (К. Levinson, Trans.). Strelka Press. (In Russian).
Simyan, T. (2020). Interior and Exterior Space of Yerevan State University: Semiotic Assessment. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki – ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics, 1, 104–120. (In Russian).
Simyan, Т., & Makaryan, А. (2023). David of Sasun by Hovhannes Tumanyan: from Text to Visualization. Detskie Chtenia, 24(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.31860/2304-5817-2023-2-24-211-235 (In Russian).
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace. Journey to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Blackwell Publishing.
Soja, E. (2000). Postmetropolis. Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Blackwell Publishing.
Sokolov, E. V. (1992). Gorod glazami kul'turologa [The City through the Eyes of a Cultural Scientist]. In Gorod i kul'tura [City and Culture] (pp. 3–15). St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture named after N. K. Krupskaya.
Suvorov, N. N. (2020). Voobrazhaemoe v kul'ture [The Imaginary in Culture]. Lan’, Planeta muzyki.
Trubina, E. G. (2011). Gorod v teorii: opyty osmysleniia prostranstva [The city in theory: Experiments in Understanding Spaces]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Russian).
Tuan, Y.-F. (2001). Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press.
Vershinina, I. A., & Polyakova, N. L. (2013). Theoretical and Methodological Problems of Contemporary Urban Sociology. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science, 4, 60–84. (In Russian).
Weber, М. (1994). Gorod [Die Stadt]. In M. Weber, Izbrannoe. Obraz obshchestva [Selected Works. The Image of Society] (pp. 309–446). Yurist.
Wright, F. L. (2016). The Disappearing City (А. Smirnova, & P. Favorov, Trans.). Strelka Press. (In Russian).
Zamyatin, D. N. (2018). Post-City: Space and Ontological Models of Imagination. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.03.10 (In Russian).
( 362.52 kB ) 
( 350.68 kB )
Issue: 2, 2026
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 159 — 174
Downloads: 320