The articles this week made some very interesting points in the discussion of how community planning goals interact with the reality of the city itself. I have consistently been asking in class where the ownership or power is truly in place concerning the neighborhoods of the city. The question is: who has the right to determine the city’s future, whether it be planners, city officials, or the residents?Throughout our previous discussions I have been trying to reconcile this disparity and have so far been unable to see a clear-cut answer. Fainstein finally addresses this inquiry in his paper, Justice and Urban Transformation: Planning in Context. Fainstein asserts that urban planners cannot just devise a model of what the ideal city would be and then tear down the existing city to build their vision. While this may be a crude generalization, Fainstein says that urban planning movements throughout history have all been carried out in this way. He mentions planners such as Ebenezer Howard, who modeled a ‘garden city’, as well as Daniel Burnham’s ‘City Beautiful’ concept. Fainstein states that these men’s, “implicit theoretical arguments dwelled on the nature of the good city instead of how one derived either of the ideals or the means to attain them.” So, while planners like Burnham and Howard may have had highly impressive theoretical ideas of how a city should run, they didn’t take into consideration the existing city that stood before them.
Harvey’s Rebel Cities reading put an economic perspective on the issue of how cities function under capitalism. He asserts that in urban development today, the human rights of residents are being ignored in order to fuel capitalism and growth. The city is seen as a profit making machine, not as a product of human expression and sustainability. Land use rights and profit margins are trumping the care for basic human rights of urban residents. People who live in a space are inherently invested in that space. Their voice on that space’s use is important regardless of what a land use piece of paper or zoning law says, which is not something which key players in the issue are taking enough into consideration before targeting areas for development. Using an eloquent quote from David Park, Harvey looks at the human aspect of urban planning and raises questions about what we have to consider before claiming to have found a ‘solution’ for a particular community. Cities can account for social relations, connection with nature, supportive communities, and countless opportunities for personal growth.
Discussion Q: Which rights should be given more consideration in planning decisions? Resident’s unwritten human rights or Public/Private property rights? What is given more consideration under our current system of urban planning?
