Abstracting the city?

This week our readings delve into growth and social organization of the city- the city as a phenomenon. There are the conditions of extension, succession, concentration and decentralization as terms used to describe the physicality of the city timeline, as fi the city is a body of its own. These studies are made more interesting by the incorporation of the human condition- Harvey asks the question of whether urbanization has contributed to human well-being, but beyond that, Park and Burgess will suggest that the city itself is a "state of mind...it is a product of nature, and particularly of human nature." If this is the case, how do we look back through these readings to describe these modes of extension, succession, concentration, decentralization as pieces of human nature acting on the built environment? If human nature charges the city and is a product of it, how much should we task ourselves with restructuring these built environments? In other words, is it possible to predict the outcome of a built intervention while targeting human nature without abstraction into terms which really simply target the physical or infrastructural realities of the city?