Tag Archives: minority removal

Reading Response

March 29, 2015The Right to the/Just Citycommunity developement, displacement, East Harlem, gentrification, Jasmine boone, macaulay, minority removal, renewal, Uneven Growth, urban planning, urban renewal, urbanizationJasmine Boone

This week’s readings were David Harvey’s chapter, “The Right to the City”, and Susan Fainstein’s “Justice and Urban Transformation: Planning in Context”. Both of these articles elaborated the classes running theme of displacement of low-income families for urbanization of cities.

“The Right to the City,” an excerpt from Rebel Cities showed in depth analysis of the history and urbanization. Harvey, started the analysis with Haussmann’s plan to urbanize Paris in 1848, continued on to discuss the “mortgage and housing asset value crisis of 2008” and current urbanization in Brooklyn and in Harlem. The premise of the chapter focused on the capitalist societies’ need to produce “surplus product” in-order to continue to exist. The Housing market has done an excellent job of providing such a surplus. Providing a need for labor and the expansion of cities to accommodate the changing times. The ethical issue, that seems to be ignored throughout history, is “what is this urbanization costing?”. After reading this article, seems that whenever a city goes into financial instability and the unemployment rates rise, the government’s answer to the issue is “let’s build”. It is not surprising that history repeats itself and capitalist societies have to resort to amending past policies to supply the “surplus product” that is needed for the capitalism to function. However, the areas that are redone are inhabited by members of the community who are of low-income. This urbanization is meant to increase the appeal of the city but it also seems to increase how drastically different the incomes and qualities of life are between the wealthy and middle-class, or even more dramatically the poor, of the city. Susan Fainstein’s chapter points out that urbanization is damaging to low-income and minority groups because it does not take the urban space that it affects into context.

“Justice and Urban Transformation: Planning in Context” focused on the belief of Karl Mannheim, which sought to give the power of urbanization to the members of the community through the efforts of elected officials. Mannheim’s theory stems from the idea of attempting to eliminate class bias. “Comprehensiveness,” which is Mannheim’s policy for planning, theorizes that values can be organized based on importance, and thus planning would proceed based on those values. The issues with the policy are rooted in the fact that values are hard to quantify and not everyone values things the same. As the chapter states, “values of democracy, diversity, and equity may pull in different ways”. This belief is based on the idea that elected officials have a better understanding of what neighborhoods need when compared to organizations and the wealthy, like Yale University and others discussed in “The Right to the City” who currently hold an overwhelming amount of influence in planning. When you are dealing with people and issues that affect “collective human rights” (Harvey 2013) such as property, each individual situation contains aspects that require amending, adapting, and evolving policies so they are beneficial to that area. A policy that worked in South Jamaica in the past may not work in present day East Harlem; unless one is familiar with the needs and individuals of the area, one would not know how to adjust a policy to an area. If done correctly, where the needs of the community are the driving force (not capital and profit), this is a system which may work.

Discussion Question: We live on a country that makes decisions through precedence and tradition; government is constantly looking to the past in-order make policies to improve the future. However, the negative aspects of the past, such as the displacement of communities, are often ignored if the policy showed promise, hence why there is a constant cycle of urbanization and resistance. Will New York ever see a policy that has not already been established in-order to benefit both the needs of a community and the needs of capitalism? Can an adapted version of “comprehensiveness” be the answer?

Reading Response

March 23, 2015The Politics of Place, Oppression, and Privilegecommunity developement, Jasmine boone, macaulay, minority removal, urban planningJasmine Boone

Discussion: Does the lack of representation of minorities directly contribute to the continued issues seen in this city? Minorities which includes women, Hispanics, and Africa-Americans. Without a sufficient number of structures in neighborhoods, can people of these groups ever really feel a sense of belonging? Does powerlessness stem from, said felling of not belonging?

This week’s readings focused on oppression and the uneven distribution of justice, public spending, and other municipal responsibilities. Once again, the theme of government planners ignoring the inhabitants of low-income, or poverty stricken neighborhoods, was brought up.

The chapter, written by Hayden, D., “Claiming Urban Landscape as Public History” mentioned that initially the spending of tax dollars on non-public spaces, spaces that were “not for you”, was not an issue of race, but an issue of class. However, as a result there was an almost nonexistent representation of African American’s, Hispanic, Immigrants, and woman. This concept is further elaborated in the Chapter “Privileged Places” from The Community Development Reader, in which the author stated “Place and race continue to be a defining characteristic of the opportunity structure of the metropolitan area.” These two chapters caused a domino effect of thoughts to occur. Throughout, these two chapters this idea of “belonging” really resonated. There are groups of people whom are ignored when the plans of the city and the future of New York are being discussed; this is a topic already addressed in previous readings. However, if you do not see these groups as belonging to this city, if there is no historical reminder, or proof, of their previous existence and contribution to this city, then their involvement in the future has a diminished significance. Moreover, a person who feels out of place in a city can feel “powerless”, which is one of the five faces of oppression mentioned in Iris Marion Young’s chapter in The Community Development Reader, “Five Faces of Oppression”.

Scholastically, the history of minorities and their contribution to society is known, but there is a difference in being educated about a subject and being able to see a memorial and connecting it to a direct and necessary contribution of group of people. People need to feel connected and comfortable in their neighborhoods. Part of that connection stems from the municipal government showing a concern for the needs of the inhabitants of an area. Instead of cultural imperialism, another one of the “five faces of oppression”, the government policies should be focused on the needs of the area. One of the best things about New York City is its cultural diversity, and yet members of minorities, whom stimulate said diversity, often are viewed as an issue to be fixed. The class divide within the city, feeds societies view certain races in a certain light. The intention of preserving certain aspects of a society, while ignoring another, may not be malicious, but the repercussions of this way of thinking further divides classes within or city. Something as simple as Urban Landscape can

Reading Response #3

March 15, 2015Community, Part 1: Development and Controlminority removal, race relationsashwinijchawla

The role of the community is quickly vanishing as larger complex urban cities encroach upon areas that were once self reliant havens for the working class. It is no secret that the small communities, especially in New York City, serve as the home for many minority groups. In the first chapter of this week’s reading, the authors’s discussion of labor as a commodity is quite intriguing, in the sense that the driving force behind these growing urban areas is a luxury in itself. In order to arrive to work every morning, workers need a home to sleep in every night. In New York City, these homes take shape in areas where thousands of minority workers create small communities where other members of their race or ethnicity groups also reside. In East Harlem, members of these small communities openly protest when their homes are in danger of being displaced to make room for private development projects that cater to the rich. The importance of catering to the working class is lost as the private developments continue to win their case of perpetual encroachment.

The second chapter by Alice O’Connor the flaws of the federal government’s role in facilitating the preservation of small communities is highlighted by revisiting past mistakes. In order to keep these small communities the greed and desire to create a complex commercialized city must be controlled and balanced. New York City has the potential to become an urban city that serves as a home for private luxurious developments and the minority groups that are veterans to the five boroughs, especially in Manhattan. In the film “Whose Barrio” the necessity for a small communities is showcased through the actions of the residents themselves. The morality involved in displacing thousands of people to make room for luxury condos is skewed, for the fundamental ethics behind real estate encroachment in favor of the rich is just plain wrong. Unfortunately, there seems to be problems with every proposed solution to provide homes for both the growing communities of the rich, poor, and working class. This week’s readings related back to the original problems we discussed in Fullilove’s reading that depicted urban renewal as “negro removal.” In the past, displacement of African American communities have had ripple effects that resulted in prejudiced racial relations. These kinds of prejudices must be taken into account for when trying to develop a city with such a diverse population. It is not an easy task to allow for the equal treatment of all, but the basic right to housing should at the least be allotted to all. However, many factors come into play when trying to house a population, especially, racial and social factors. Thus, New York City is the perfect example of the present day’s urban renewal transforming into “minority removal.”

Discussion Question: What validates a class or a group of people to distribute housing according to their liking? Since affordability is a man made concept, what can we do to bridge the gap between affordability and reality?