Sociology

Urban analysis has evolved greatly over the years especially with the rise of globalization and the implications that it brings about. It is from this perspective that the application of approaches regarded as traditional have ceased to take precedence in evaluating urban changes. Furthermore, these trends continue and the very well eluded modernist theory is seemingly following the same path. This is ideally in light of a new postmodernist era which excludes modernist theorists.

Postmodernism as pointed out by Cilliers (1998, p.114) calls for the departure from the modernist way of using simple discourses in cohesively uniting all other forms of knowledge. Instead, postmodernism implies that different discourses emanating from the modern society need to be addressed individually. As such, the postmodernist theorist must cope with a multiplicity of discourses. Following the upsurge of these new view points, the Chicago school models of urban analysis are facing opposition from the LA school of postmodernist urban analysis. These approaches are quite distinct and provide completely opposite forms of urban analysis. Regardless of the positive implications brought about by post modernist approaches, there are existing limitations of the same. This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the postmodernist approach in analyzing urban change in Los Angeles. Though well structured and suited for a first growing city, the post modernist theory has been disrepute as based on mere assumptions. The discussion will therefore focus on the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.

Strengths
a). Pluralism and Concrete Organization
The postmodernist approach of urban analysis has embraced the ideals of pluralism in the implication of using a multiplicity of discourses. Indeed, this is one reason which makes this approach suitable for analyzing change in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is unique in its diversity especially due to the fact that no single group of people seems to have dominated it. Instead, it is inhabited by people from many minority groups and this follows for other elements of a modern society. Neither the way of life nor the structure of its industries can subject Los Angeles into a unified description. Contrary, the city is heavily rooted in diverse lifestyles. Compared to modernist theories which conceptualize cities as unified in all prospects, the postmodernist approach acknowledges the presence of multicultural diversities. Not only does this imply a somewhat form of validity but it also depicts a logical form of urban analysis.

In analyzing Los Angeles, postmodernist approaches do so using the logic that urban neighborhoods are what determine the focal point of the city. It becomes imperative to incorporate such aspects of fragmentations in such a contemporary city because it is in itself highly fragmented. This perspective is quite crucial in the urban analysis of todays cities especially as it is evident that contemporary urban development is as a result of fragmented urbanism. In a bid to bring the diverse cultures together, various urban centers have been created in Los Angeles. Forrester et al (2006, p.329) in their study of the Los Angeles school and its implication on ethnic diversities are keen to note that the postmodernist approach is applicable to Los Angeles only up to a particular extent. Indeed there are few metropolitans which can compare to Los Angeles unique diversity and it seems that the city is presenting a new urban form. This claim only signifies the need for a postmodernist approach as befits the postmodernist society evident in Los Angeles. The presence of many ethnicities has led to the decline of ethnic segregations in Los Angeles and the emergence of ethnically mixed housing areas. Therefore, a study of ethnic diversity in Los Angeles prompts the use of integrative frameworks which are designed to address the particular ethnic groups distinctly despite their fragmentation.

b). Comprehensive and Realistic Analysis
Following the growing fractionalization of postmodern cities, analysts are expected to define changes with respect to the individual needs of various segments of Los Angeles (Dear, 2000, p.1).This sort of analysis offers the possibilities of addressing urban issues at a more comprehensive manner.

Furthermore, policy analysts in support of the postmodernist approach are encouraged to develop a concrete understanding of the citys community discourse. Phillip (2001, p. 164) recommends the complete integration with the target group for policy analysis prior to the making any conclusions on the policy issues. This form of interaction is most suited for an ever changing city like Los Angeles, where peoples needs are dynamic in nature. Central to the postmodernist approach is the trial and error process which is subjected to various resolution prototypes. Testing changes prior to absolute conclusions on the solutions to any urban issues within Los Angeles is quite a strategic maneuver. This strategy lives no room for errors in the success capabilities of solutions to various issues.

In the face of an arising issue within Los Angeles, a postmodernist urban analyst provides a sound structure for identifying the disruption in the existing network. The issue is not addressed through a commonality of concepts but by addressing various conflicting concepts within the city. With the exemplification of an environmental problem, it is possible to appreciate the cohesive capacity for postmodernist approaches to succeed. In studying all linguistic, historical, biological, fictional and political ideas, the analysts then draws their conclusions on the environmental issue. This inclusion of personal perspectives in the analysis may influence the positive derivation of knowledge by analysts. Leonie (1998, p.217) agrees with this claim explaining that it is crucial for any analyst to respond to their personal connections with the city. It is in this, that postmodernist approaches give urban analysts the unraveled desire to understand the city and its issues more inherently.

c).The Exceptionality of Los Angeles
Considered an exception from other metropolitans in the United States, Los Angeles has been regarded as exceptional by most scholars. However, they have rendered the city and its issues as merely illustrative failing to consider the realities of this exceptionality. Indeed this exceptionality requires a new and holistic approach such as the postmodernist theory. This is because the exceptionality found in Los Angeles involves a myriad of complications which are very intense. The micro geography of Los Angeles as asserted by Dear (2000, p.14) is finely variegated that it can only be understood through the accretion of the center. This social heterogeneity encourages the creation of distinct local sovereignties. An aspect which is best understood under the impressions of a postmodernist analyst. A look at the architecture of Los Angeles does not display any form of special effect in identifying the city but this knowledge is sidelined by the heterogeneity of Los Angeles architecture. Scott and Soja (1996, p.48) refer to Los Angeles as a type of a heteropolis where architects have embraced pluralism and are ready to exploit varieties and different forms of architecture. Postmodernist approaches are similarly ready to embrace the heterogeneity of Los Angeles architecture as they are guided by an ability to anticipate and appreciate uniqueness and diversity. Los Angeles architecture will never at one time be dominated by any single style. In fact, any previous attempts to establish distinct architectural codes have failed in the past as a result of the inclusiveness of diverse architectural concepts. Even though postmodernist theorists are credited for proliferating urban politics, they are still instrumental in instilling more analytical conceptualizations to the modernistic approach (Davies and Imbroscio, 2009, p.214). With this insight it becomes paramount that postmodernism urban analysis is definitive of Los Angeles as a subject in this postmodern society.

Weaknesses
a). Suspicious and Misguided Assumptions
In spite of the observable strengths of the postmodernist approach to urban analysis, there exists immense scrutiny on the application of this theory to Los Angeles. Sui (1999, p. 404) argues that the LA school is completely misguided and unfounded because it seems to be rooted on the assumption that the society has been entirely transformed into a postmodern era. This phenomena and shift from the modernist era to a postmodernist era is a highly controversial subject which is unproven. Following this, those proponents of the use of the postmodernist approach in analyzing Los Angeles largely rely on those concepts which tend to support the existence of a postmodern society. This assumption leads to a preconceived misconception that there has not been any prior research on the subject of urban studies. Consequently the same misconceptions are bound to influence urban analysis outcomes. Actually, this unfairness is openly seen in the underlying theories and hypotheses of the postmodernist approach which are mainly concepts from the 60s, 70s and 80s. In the same respect, this approach may serve to be contradictory in analyzing Los Angeles especially as Klein1997, p.30) claims the city seemed to be more post modern in the 1900s before the onset of modernism. Back then, the elite class in the city carried out mass advertising and service economies which is representative of postmodernist economies.

b). Disregard for Other Urban Analysts
Developed under the influence of a hierarchical imposition in the field of urban sociology, the postmodernist approach ignores the involvement of other urban analysts. This action fails to acknowledge other urban analysts contribution and alienates them from the process of analysis. Following this, analysts within Los Angeles are excluded from the policy analysis process despite the fact that they may have significant contributions to make on the process. Another element of the postmodernist approach to urban analysis is the convenient downplay of history. Considered the epitome of postmodernist metropolitans, Los Angeles is also illustrative of a history which can be integral in understanding current urban issues. For instance, the automobile is known as the originator of modern spatial patterns in Los Angeles. Indeed, back in the early 1900, Los Angeles had established a profound regional infrastructure for public transportation. The inclusion of this knowledge in the postmodern approach of urban analysis can guide better policy decisions. However, the lack of it depicts a flawed form of analysis which may end up undermining the extent of urban issues in Los Angeles. Also, evidence shows that all cities are characteristic of suburbanization and as other urban analysis approaches support similarly acknowledge this they would serve the city of Los Angeles well.

To take a moment and acknowledge the early modern urban experience in Los Angeles is to appreciate the changes which have occurred over time and influenced postmodern urban trends. Los Angeles in the modernist era had a form of virtual reality in the componential public display of its culture. Coupled with its dynamism, Los Angeles in the modernist era can offer crucial insight on developing the now postmodernist city which is also as dynamic. Appreciating this suggestion will enable urban analysts to understand Los Angeles not only as a postmodernist city bust also as a real world city. This way Los Angeles is seen as a heteropolis and not a mere exaggerated heterogeneous society. More so, it will cease to be considered as utterly formless and sprawling but instead gain unique form. Postmodern times are accompanied by an increasing desire for the study of urbanization trends especially due to the emergent of more urban areas. As such, Los Angeles should be studied with reference to its history. The contrasting of this modernist perspective to the current postmodernist ideology is inevitable and clearly justified. Therefore, Los Angeles needs to be studied by looking beyond the enveloping world constraints and just epitomize it as a reflection of future cities in the world.

c). Multiplicity and Elements of Disunity
Another weakness of the postmodernist approach in analyzing Los Angeles is found in the notion of multiple conceptualization of knowledge in resolution of urban issues. This approach supports heavily the idea that all the fragmentations found in a city are best addressed using various approaches. As such, there exists a division of intervention strategies which increasingly extends the proliferation of the society. Fulton (2001, p.283) explains that a major consequence of postmodernism is the vast fragmentations which fashion such cities like Los Angeles. This city has been emitting a majority of such negative consequences with increased sprawling and urban desolation. Other effects of this have been the development of individualistic ideologies which prompt groups to shield themselves from other peoples problems and further ignore their predicaments. Los Angeles is a city whose sense of community seems to be disintegrating entirely. It is not just a society which has developed beneficial subdivisions but one whose subdivisions support disunity. Subjecting the postmodernist approach to Los Angeles may further augment the society. Instead, Los Angeles requires an approach which largely insists the harmonization of people and the collective formulation of solutions to urban issues.

Conclusion
From the above study, it is evident that Los Angeles is a city which exists within its own unique construct. In addition, it presents an ideal exemplifier of the postmodernist city of the future. It is eminent that the theorys stronghold emanates from its capacity to collectively understand individual and unique experiences of the residents of Los Angeles. This observation makes the approach realistic for such a city like Los Angeles. Diversified in every way, Los Angeles brings together a vast range of urban needs which should be comprehensively addressed. Taking time to understand these needs and devise appropriate solutions for the issues requires an organized approach. The postmodernist approach is organized to the extent that it is capable of scrutinizing the existing networks in the metropolitan concretely. Even though the approach is quite comprehensive in analyzing Los Angeles, its comprehensiveness can work against the citys wellbeing. It is not in the citys best interest that the already existing divisions are continuously fuelled by divisive methodologies. It is important to ensure that the postmodernist approach does not increase the fragmentation but instead unite Los Angeles and its residents. Following this, it would be logical to apply a postmodernist approach in its analysis as it serves the uniqueness of Los Angeles. However, it is vital to also acknowledge the deficiencies this method presents and work towards bridging any observable gaps. Indeed, the approach is highly organized but its failure to acknowledge history and previous approaches may discredit its validity. In order to develop a fundamental approach for the urban analysis of Los Angeles, it is important to integrate both modernist and postmodernist approaches. This would call for the association of both types of analysts in studying and formulating resolutions for the city. Los Angeles needs to be an impeccable model for the cities of the future and must therefore be handled appropriately.