The Resilient City

Vale and Campanella provide a series of essays exploring what it means to “recover” from disaster. The reader may glean several best practices and lessons learned. Most salient to this one was the reminder that recovery cannot be judged solely by the physical (e.g., rehabilitation of the building stock). Recovery includes a psycho-social element and to overlook it is to do a severe disservice to those impacted by disaster.

The text explores a fanciful notion that cities are inherently resilient, yet simultaneously resist resilience. History is replete with examples of cities that have built back, which implies resilience on a grand scale. However, can the return of the city be attributed to resilience or does it say more about the options available to those impacted. Home is home and it is difficult to leave home behind, no matter the circumstances. Residents may understand that it would be beneficial to relocate, yet find their options limited. Regulations and politics hinder building back “better.”

The writers anthologized in the book seemingly converge around the theme that a city is more than its buildings. Cities are their people and, as such, all of the emotions, attachments, etc. those people carry with them.