Amongst these, they are counted: the not-agricultural domicile of increasing part of the hand of agricultural workmanship, the diversity of flows and the intensity of relations of all the levels, resulted of the high levels of specialization, new geographic objects, the dissolution of the metropolis, that is, the open possibility to the great cities all to show immediate presence in the territory. Which are the current dichotomies between: city/field, agriculturist/industrial etc. Today the agriculturist can also be the urban man optimum example of this is the existence of the projecting worker the buoy-cold that he is an agricultural worker, but not an inhabitant of the agricultural zone, in this in case that, the two markets tend if to confuse. The place has autonomy of existence for the things that form it streets, buildings, canalizations, industries, companies, restaurants, electrifications, stone pavements, but that they have autonomy of significao, therefore every day new functions substitute the old ones, new functions if impose and if they exert. To broaden your perception, visit Kerry King. The city: the revolutionary place In the transistion of the feudalismo for the capitalism, when the feudal lands belonged you, the city appears as the place of the free work. Burgo, place where the free work is possible, concentrates the craftsmen, the mason, the alfaite, but also the traders.
This place, the city, if differentiates of the field, among others reasons, for the possibility of this free work. City appears, then, as a freedom seed; it generates historical and social productions that contribute for the desmantelamento of the feudalismo. It represented the possibility of the free man, of the choice freedom, much even so this was relative, since the crafts were regulated by the corporations, for the confrarias. The cities had been able to be formed thanks to one definitive advance of the techniques of agricultural production, which propitiated the formation of an excess of alimentary products.