I found it very interesting that you mentioned that the three E’s ultimately transformed into a philosophical/moral argument supporting certain types of building projects. Originally, the three terms made me think facts and statistics. However, the “narrative of threat” definitely shows how the three E’s definitely can fall into a moralistic argument. Fear mongering often can garner support very quickly, especially is the narrative can place blame on something that happened in the past. Moses “featured liberal use of creative assumptions, delivered as facts,” according to Ballon (Larson 60).  Yet I feel that Jacobs also preyed on emotions and morality. Her narrative of “eyes on the street,” and diversity creates a very Utopian seeming society where everyone takes care of one another. She felt that city planning should involve “knowing” and understanding what each city need. In theory, this idea sounds great, but in practice this type of planning still leaves out the underprivileged who slowly get pushed out of their homes anyways. You also wrote about how planning for future sustainable cities often “romanticizes our sustainable past” which led to an overly vague holistic plan. This romanticizing of “the good old days,” or however it gets phrased is another way of preying on emotions.

Areas that are deemed “blighted” are the areas that are renovated. If we disregard any moral and/or philosophical argument then we should not care about previous residents there. Blighted areas are often repurposed by private companies to make a better profit that what already exists in the area. It would become “more amenable to tourists, to a new class of worked, and to corporate and speculative real estate interests” (Larson 71). The alternative is leaving the area as in which might mean leaving certain people in a very low standard at living. Yet at the same time, they can stay where they are and keep their homes.

In summation, I wonder what factors should considered when doing city planning. If we focus on just the moral aspects, we fall into the trap where the most convincing narrative shapes the city. Facts, even incorrect ones can be skewed to support certain agendas. Should our morals favor lower income people, or should our morals lean towards harming a few for the “greater good”? In other words, should we care about people living in poor income areas, or should we just see the area as an opportunity to make more money for the city and also jobs? Alternatively, if we just focus on facts and numbers, the city might be planned to bring in the highest income possible while disregarding poorer residents. Either way it seems that the city is constantly being shifted to please tourist and higher income classes, or in shorter terms a “‘retaking’ of cities by the upper and middle classes” (Larson 74).