Based on chapter 3 of Angotti’s book, it seems that the biggest problem facing city planners and urban communities is one of balance. Jane Jacobs hinted at this when she wrote that the key to successful cities was diversity and varied buildings. But Angotti’s work prompted me to think more deeply about the issue, and I saw that the more important (and more challenging) balance to achieve is between people rather than buildings.

This chapter highlights the power struggle between the decision makers and those affected by the decisions. One example of this struggle was the rent strikes that took place throughout the early 1900s, and the battle for rent controlled properties. Landlords did not want to relinquish profit, while tenants did not want to pay high rents. Another example is the struggle between squatters, who wanted to stay in abandoned areas, and the city government that sought to auction off those areas. Both groups were acting in their own best interest, and this theme pervades the rest of the chapter. Such conflicts are not limited to struggles between groups. CDCs provide a perfect example of how, even within a group, there can be a conflict of interest. Different CDCs had different political agendas, and they also had multiple responsibilities that were sometimes contradictory. They acted as both landlords and as vehicles of change in cities, and those that focused too heavily on one particular role had trouble surviving.

The CDCs, the strikers, the city government, the squatters, and the landlords all have one thing in common: they acted in their own best interest. This makes sense, as self-preservation is a fundamental part of human nature. This chapter showed that fact quite clearly. In general, city planning organizations assert an agenda that benefits a particular group at the expense of another. No plan can satisfy everyone, so it is essential that the various groups reach some sort of compromise. No single group should have absolute power because a city, like an ecosystem, must maintain a balance if it is to thrive. Reading this chapter made me realize that compromise is essential in city planning. People need to be willing to sacrifice some of their immediate gains for the long-term benefits of living in a thriving city that does not suffer from constant conflict and unrest. Incidentally, this logic can be applied to the Jacobs-Moses rivalry, and it follows that a compromise between the two would be better for a city than the application of either the Moses or Jacobs philosophy alone.