Urban planning is a difficult undertaking, in the sense that it is not a concrete science. It is not subject to specific laws and principles, and no standard models exist.Throughout history the goals and methods of urban planning have shifted away from general design toward the ideal of an all-encompassing project for the betterment of society. This project often calls for more equality. However, this goal cannot be achieved because of the large gap between the lower and higher economic classes. To achieve equality would mean to introduce socialism.
In its early history, urban planners of Europe tried keeping planning separate from politics. It was believed that planners would act in good faith and design according to the public good. However, those with a stronger political foothold were able to push their goals forth and influence planners. Today this pattern exists to a much higher extent. In “New York for Sale” Angotti mentions that powerful real estate clans that own much of the land in Manhattan are the largest funders of political campaigns in the city. The extent of the influence of money in urban planning has made it an inevitable factor in decision making. It is impossible to divorce politics, much less financing of the upper class from urban planning today because of they way campaigning is based on money. Profitability drives investment and reinvestment, so because the wealthy classes control capital they can choose to shape the city so it best fits their needs.
Diversity is a new goal of urban planning. When integrating people across demographics, there is an idea that it will produce some kind of equality. Integration cannot occur by force, and some forces such as gentrification and urban renewal hurt diversity along class lines, which then contribute to race and cultural divides. Robert Moses’s mega-projects hurt diversity further by separating minorities and low income households into large housing blocks that became the projects. Requiring private developers to designate affordable units is not a solution to creating diversity. As more affluent people move in, goods will increase in price as rents increase, so the poor will have to move as they will not be able to afford the neighborhood. There is an internal competition among residents of a local area and as the playing field is uneven, those on top will prosper, those in the middle will fair well, and those on the bottom will suffer the most. I think that Moses’s mega-projects created a “safe haven” for the poor that shields them from gentrification. These buildings are not desirable areas to live in and local businesses have lower rents and must provide their goods at lower prices to serve these communities.
I don’t believe that there is a solution to urban planning. There are only improvements that can temporarily better the current situation. Capitalism exists because of inequality and will continue to as long as people profit off of each other. Redistribution of wealth evenly would call for socialism, and then a central planning committee could design based on a true public good. I think that in order to preserve capitalism but level the playing field, there need to be more regulations and caps on profits as well as market forces. The true solution in my opinion is to achieve a socialist state, but it is not a practical answer because of potential unpopularity.
Discussion Questions: How can diversity in the urban landscape create more problems than solutions? What should the goals be for urban planners who are trying to keep the poor inside the city while maintaining the free society?
