This weeks readings again suggest the contradictory nature of urban planning and community involvement. Both articles, as well as the Stein article question who the city is for, and who has the power to shape it.
Harvey defines the right to the city as “to claim some kind of shaping power over the process of urbanization”, which we started talking about as a response to development of the city in terms of displacement and growth. Urbanization, however, as Harvey points out, is a result of capital growth and surplus- urbanization is supposed to prompt more growth. The reference to large scale urban planning brings about modern issues of uneven growth, as Robert Moses rethought structuring cities, and reshaped New York on a more holistic level, or on a broader scale. This seems like the “placeless” planning referenced in last weeks article on community response to private development.
The Smith article in this week’s announcement section puts these ideas directly in context, and discusses a mayor who is currently attempting to reshape the city. Mayor De Blasio is not as progressive as he claims to be, especially in terms of urban planning. What he is selling himself as, a liberal political leader fighting for equality in housing, is far from the truth. Smith cites a coalition established in Chinatown who proposed rezoning recommendations, yet were rejected because it preserved too much affordable housing. Private developments must incorporate inclusionary housing, but it is clear where urban planning priorities lie- development and restructuring the city must also contribute to growth. “Quality of urban life has become a commodity for those with money”, as Smith puts it. And why shouldn’t it, given the goals of urbanization. Under capitalism, it makes no sense for city planners to contribute toward the needs and consider the input of actual communities.
The solution to this is unclear. If the right to a city is establishing democratic control over the deployment of surplus, how can this be accomplished if land holds do much value in New York? A return of control back to communities seems implausible in a neoliberal society. Engel’s ideas date back to 1872, but resonate through so called progressives, from Bloomberg to De Blasio. Is full-scale urban revolution even possible? Is there any way to return control of capital surplus to those it would affect, or is this counterintuitive?
