This week’s readings themes seemed to echo the importance of serving individual components of a city, rather than creating solutions for the masses. They also brought attention to the differences that can result from ambiguity and specificity when dealing with urban planning.
In Tom Angotti’s article it is clear that the focus is in regards to community planning and political regulations. For example, in his discussion of finding a solution to provide proper land use, Angotti describes the unfair distribution of land that has a tendency to be influenced by the real estate market. In New York City the majority of the population either pays more rent than they can afford, or cannot afford to pay the rent rates at all. Tom Angotti’s article also discusses his criticism for the U.S. rational-comprehensive planning model, in which he brings attention to its main flaw- proposing a solution that favors the upper class while failing to mitigate the problems of the working class minority groups. In this type of proposal, power is given to the wrong hands and the distribution of the resulting benefits is skewed. In this case, Angotti is referring to the ambiguity that stems from such plans. This vagueness allows for several loopholes in a program where the needs of minorities in a community can be severely neglected. There must be a way to build good communities for all, and not just for the upper classes, but what really defines a community? The entire community can benefit from a plan only when its specific components that make it a whole are considered.
In DeRienzo’s article, the specificity of each portion of a community is addressed in detail, giving each part the importance it calls for. It seems as though DeRienzo’s article is resolving the flaws Angotti criticizes in his article, especially focusing on the importance of creating a proposal that serves each part of a community. For a community to exist it must have fundamental proponents so that it is self sufficient and functioning. A key part of this is interdependence. It is this interdependence that creates a natural flow in the population that requires all of its parts to work effectively and fluently. When one part of a community is overlooked, or rather neglected, in terms of housing plans in New York City, the entire community can suffer as a result. Thus, both articles call attention to the need for recognizing the individuality of communities in New York City that may not have the economic ability to have their voice heard.
Discussion Question: When and how can we stop neglecting the needs of those who are not in power? If power is given to those whose voice is not heard will the power struggle shift in the direction of the opposite side of the spectrum? (In this case by giving the power of planning to the poor, will the rich then suffer?)
