Tönnies viewed the city as a force which gradually eroded what he termed Gemeinschaft, communities with strong interdependent social bonds, roles and responsibilities, and norms of cooperation and mutual dependence. Gemeinschaft formed naturally in agrarian societies tied very strongly to place in which the residents knew each other, shared resources and cooperated towards a common good. Social and physical survival depended on this network of relationships, as the village boundary also represented the boundary of social life. In the city however, there are no boundaries enforcing dependance, and community is replaced instead with association, or Gesellschaft. For the city dweller, relationships are transitory and instrumental in nature, and with the car, are also not tied to place.

A factor in these instrumental relationships is the concept of the Stranger (Simmel). Strangers are a key part of the city, a necessary category of people that allows the city dweller to cope with the complexity of urban social life. The stranger is outside of family, profession and belief, which were factors vital in maintaining village communities. In the city strangers are all around us and our relationships with them are deliberately brief. Money economies simplify these exchanges even further no longer does the individual need to concern themselves with maintaining a relationship with the tradesmen and the shopkeepers beyond procuring a product or service.

Can community in the spirit of Tönnies Gemeinschaft be formed in the modern city? Gemeinschaft is tied strongly to place, in this case instead of village, some other form of arbitrary place definition, such as suburb, block, or shire.

Association and the strangers are the primary barriers to this area-based Gemeinschaft community. Reducing the instrumental nature of relationships, engendering friendship (or at least acquaintance) with neighbours, and the sharing of skills could potentially create fertile soil in which a strong, self-sufficient communities could form over time.

Finding ways of pooling skills, communicating need, and organising the deployment of labour in an area-based community independent of state or market may play a part in reducing the number of instrumental relationships members would need to engage in. With local labour pooled for the common good of the neighbourhood, strangers could be turned into friends, and social norms of reciprocation and cooperation could be allowed to form. Through fulfilling responsibility to community, members would be repaid in social capital (Bourdieu), friendships and connections which would further benefit productive and altruistic members of the forming community.

With these factors in mind, community could form, but it's shape would be deliberate and utterly new. Getting such a thing off the ground would represent considerable social innovation. As every urban area has differing values, ethnicity, age demographics, incomes and skills, determining how to implement such a tailored Gemeinschaft plan would vary from place to place. A very deliberate and careful approach backed up by tailored qualitative research into the selected area's social structure would be vital to forming a self-sustaining community social structure.

Community could be a place in the city in the spirit of Gemeinschaft, if the particulars of implementation can be identified, and the twin barriers of Gesellschaft and the Stranger can be overcome.

 

Unlike neighbourhoods where community is typically present, cities often struggle to have a community like a neighbourhood would have. Many neighbourhoods are made up of similar people with similar perspectives which often makes communities easily created. However, because cities are so big in size there is often a huge level of social diversity within cities compared to neighbourhoods (Paddison, 2001). Many cities comprise of a range of ages, races, genders, and religious values. Due to this diversity in cities it makes it difficult to create a community as people do not have similar perspectives. 

 

Therefore, to create a community in a city, the people who live within the space should interact with one another. City people should not discriminate or exclude people because of their differences, but instead acknowledge that there are differences and try to find similarities with people. This is important as to have a community people must have shared perspectives and values. 

 

To answer the broad question of how can community be a place in the city? In this section, it is evidently noted that community can be a place in the city if people can come together and find similarities between them.

 

Traditionally, community is built upon fixed or sedentary places as its stationary attribute provides people with a concrete place to gather around/to. However, due to the often ‘hustle and bustle’ nature that cities often comprise of, mobility, in terms of housing, can pose a barrier to creating community. Living spaces in the city are generally costlier than living in suburban parts of town, therefore many people are either encouraged to, or sometimes forced out of necessity, to rent properties instead of buying them. Renting housing accommodations limits the time commitment for renters as they must abide by the terms of a lease agreement (unlike buying a house, which suggests a more permanent situation).

 

Considering the promotion of temporary living within a city for renters and the seemingly obvious barrier that it would pose to forming community, there is a way to navigate through this. For example, people who are renting out an apartment unit in a building are likely to be surrounded by other renters in that same building. There is often stigma toward renters or a certain attitude displayed by landlords to their tenants, therefore renters could connect with one another through their shared values/circumstances. In addition, they may find comfort in knowing that other people face similar struggles (in this case, financial) as them. As the reading by Paddison suggests, community can be interpreted through the way “the individual is able to develop a sense of belonging and identity with at least part of it”, therefore the shared bond between renters can create community (Paddison, p. 10). In addition, as these renters form community with other like-minded people who share common values and perspectives, it excludes those who don't share those values (Young, p. 301). In this case, landlords of non-renters such as home-owners are examples of groups that would be excluded from the 'renter' community.
Thus, despite being in a circumstance that opposes the natural formation of community, there are almost always possible ways for it to be created.

Over time, community members may begin to accomplish tasks together for the good of the communal whole, develop friendships, and partly erode the constant need of associative relationships to accomplish tasks in their local area.

Recycling and repair – people would be able to repair and reuse items that others in the community no longer require, thus reducing the overall waste generated by the community that the state must handle.

Perceived safer area for children – knowing neighbours and fellow community members is key for a sense of safe community. Adults are often brought into contact by the interactions of children. Safe community could potentially foster these interactions and greatly grow children’s and adults’ social networks.

Resident interdependence – community members will assist each other in many matters rather than relying as heavily on the state. Strong communities and greater inclusion can potentially decrease social issues such as crime, drug use, and alcohol abuse.

Greater ownership – people will feel more connected to place and have greater pride and belonging in their local area.

 

Loss of state influence – the state would lose influence in terms of adherence to building codes, maintaining occupational health and safety, and legality when community members accomplish projects. This would require the state’s assistance to overcome.

Insurance & liability – no community member would be covered by insurance when operating within the community. This may provide opportunities for capital to step in, which is perhaps a mixed blessing for the community.

Taxation revenue loss – in barter exchanges of goods and services within the community, the state loses its slice of the exchange in terms of income tax, GST, or capital gains.

No gain in the short term – setting the scene for urban Gemeinschaft provides little immediate gain for those participating. Gemeinschaft in this manner is an investment for the community rather than immediate individual advantage. Incentives from the state such as tax reductions or decreased business levies may be needed to convince members to donate their time and expertise.

Trust – There is perhaps a deficit in generalised trust inherent to cities, people would be wary of entering into this arrangement with the Stranger.

Cheats – unfortunately, some may be tempted to take much and offer little. Over time, social norms would form, but early opportunities for cheating the system with no social sanctioning are many.

Diversity in all its forms – the range of ages, ethnicities, religious beliefs, classes, genders, mobility (the renter vs the resident) and political views within any given area would make community in the Gemeinschaft way challenging to form.
 

There are a great number of barriers that would need to be overcome in order to emplace such a structure. The complexity of such a task is enormous, however properly managed, a Gemeinschaft community could be implemented if citizens and state are willing and able to take the first step towards forming it.

Perhaps the best argument for the community in the city is that a more median approach to Communitarianism and Cosmopolitanism is required to maximise the benefits of each. State, capital and citizenry all have a stake in community, and all groups want to have their cake and eat it too. Community as a concept still represents a tantalising goal to many interests. First, community appeals to state in that it makes populations more resilient, self-sufficient and less dependent on its services; however, when communities become cohesive, politically powerful and motivated this presents a barrier when state and capital attempt to enact their own agendas. Secondly, for capital community as a concept becomes a consumer product. If commodified versions of community can be perceived as successful it allows developers to sell more so-called community. Finally, to people within community it means a feeling of belonging, safety, and common cause. Responsibility to greater community means a payment in social capital (Bourdieu), deeper social networks mean greater opportunities for the individual, and protection against social deviance such as crime and substance abuse. Despite its all beneficial connotations, community can be problematic when it becomes more inward-looking suspicious or exclusive of outsiders, as is the concern put forward by supporters of the cosmopolitanist paradigm.

Perhaps elements of both could be combined to create something new which possesses solidarity, significance, and unification of purpose, while still providing mobility, tolerance, and diversity where all members can thrive in the city. Certainly, community is possible if all groups involved are willing to make sacrifices for the common good, though the how realistic that is, ultimately is the question.