Overload and Blase Attitude versus an Intimate Image of the City

Milgram starts us thinking about how psychology might contribute to our understanding of the city, raising the concept of a mental image of the city. Under this notion we can imagine that the expansion of New York City and its adaptability to many individuals and subsequent expansion has to do with its image ability- the use of the grid and its simple numbered sequential naming of the street system allows for frequent diversion from the psychological map and quick reference back to the city image. How does civil inattention, the autonomy of the individual in the city fit in with this reading? Is it possible to draw in the case of a large urban metropolis that the individual has closer relationship to the city itself those within it? Are there certain city images that are made more desirable by some sense of intimacy, relating to Vidler’s critique of estranged space and agoraphobia? In other words, in the context of an overload of psychological face-to-face inputs, is the therapy an intimate psychology of the city?