Our exploration of the balance (or imbalance) of equality in the urbanization of cities continues as we explore the justice behind city planning. Fainstein and Harvey describe how, empirically, urbanization takes advantage of the lesser financial and political status of minorities and underrepresented groups.
Fainstein describes the transition of community planning from an aesthetic field to a social science, as the intellectuals of the mid-nineteenth century decided to fix the disadvantages of poverty and discrimination in cities. He describes their proposed solutions, varying from neo-Marxist to democratic, with full citizen participation. However, none of the theories were ultimately put into action.
Harvey describes how Moses’ “suburbanization” of New York City led to the economic crisis of the sixties and seventies, causing the emptying of the city into suburbs and resulting in a polarization in the distribution of wealth (not unlike today’s) and unrest (and violence) in minority neighborhoods (“The Right to the City, 9).
Urbanization results in diversity, but did it result in equality throughout the classes?According to many, it did not, in fact leading to the formation of cultural enclaves throughout the city. Additionally, though it is fair to limit behaviors, we come to limit those who are stereotyped into those behaviors as well. Nevertheless, it is also a restriction on liberty to force people to live in the same building/neighborhood if they do not wish to do so. Unfortunately, progressive solutions seem to move around the key problems of segregation and inequality without solving the issues themselves.
However, it is important to note that not every social scientist agrees with the negative theories surrounding urbanization. Fainstein quotes Kirby in an explanation as to how urban sprawl can lead to benefits for those with lower incomes, as it leads to cheaper housing in fringe neighborhoods (84). Nevertheless, the immense costs and inequalities caused by urbanization far overshadow the benefit of cheaper real estate.
Harvey compares the urbanization and progression of our New York City with the development and urbanization in Paris in the mid nineteenth century, a social and economical era that ultimately ended in revolt. He shows how New York is following in the progression of Paris. Is there a way for New York City (or other cities worldwide facing the same change) to avoid the imminent revolt? Or is Robert Moses doomed to be known as a Hausmann?
