Tag Archives: urban planning

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 #4: Specificity Vs. Ambiguity

March 17, 2015Community, Part 2: Organizing and Planningambiguity, specificity, urban planningashwinijchawla

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?)