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?

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?