I have consistently found the points at which city planning crosses over into social theory to be the most interesting parts of our readings.  So, when I read the following quote, I thought for a while:  The city is “man’s most consistent and on the whole, his most successful attempt to remake the world he lives in more after his heart’s desire.  But, if the city is the world which man created, it is the world in which he is henceforth condemned to live.  Thus, indirectly, and without any clear sense of the nature of his task, in making the city man has remade himself.”  This quote from urban sociologist Robert Park is aptly discussed by David Harvey – he explains that this raises several moral questions, such as what kind of people do we want to be? And what kinds of relations will we cherish?  This helped me to understand that society and culture truly are inherent within a city and part of its character.  Another theoretical aspect that jumped out at me later in the reading was the mention of bourgeois conquest (and of Engels).  In approaching city planning with an economic sociological perspective, we might cite the work of Marx and Engels in explaining how the little people are pushed aside in favor of those who control the means of production.  The little people in our cities, or the proletariat, are the working class in this case.  When a city takes form, those who hire others to work for them are the ones who shape the city to fit their “heart’s desire.”  We’ve seen this countless times, we even see it in the bourgeois’s lame attempts to cater to the needs of the proletariat such as De Blasio’s housing plans for Brooklyn that will actually displace more people than it will house.  The domination of the upper class is a consistent theme in out city’s history, as the working class never seems to be fully supported by what they are given.

The Fainstein reading discusses three important aspects to urban justice.  Democracy, the first, is essential for communication between classes, between those who have practical desires and those who have the power to make those desires real.  Diversity is a somewhat problematic one, as one may believe that it contributes to tension, but diversity in fact inspires the acceptance of others but also the “social composition” of places.  The final aspect, equity, is the most difficult to obtain in policies for housing, and diversity contributes.  Fainstein explains that these three qualities can work in harmony to promote the maintenance of a city that is shaped around all its members.

Discussion:  How can diversity have both positive and negative effects on urban policy and planning?