Design is restricting social distancing, thus creating a new spatial injustice
Looking to today, we see that cities
with high density have huge issues with control within this new idea of “social
distancing”, but who is to blame? And should we have even prepared for this to
begin with? Let’s take New York City for example, the price per square footage
to rent is so extreme that it has forced a market where buildings are built to squish
as many rooms into it as possible and then rent them out for an outrageous
price. For instance, the floor plan shown is less than 400sqft and costs over
$2,800 dollars. For someone to have to toss that much money at a such a small
space leaves one to wonder what they have left over at the end of the month,
but more importantly why do designers allow buildings like this to happen? At
times I wonder how flawed the system is that allows for buildings to get
constructed based on the client’s greed.
With today's issues with this new virus
that causes the disease, apartments like these are not only expensive, but unsafe.
With hallways not allowing for a comfortable distance from someone you pass in
the hallway, because it was the minimum required by a code somewhere in a book.
Even elevators are limited because of how expensive they are to install which
still would not allow for proper distancing. The list goes on and on for how
minimum requirements has shaped not only our cities but our society. Before the
conversation was that the cost to live in a city was outrageous for what you
got in return, now it should shift to the health risks you take just to live in
a city. In my mind, this could easily be viewed as a new observation of spatial
injustice.
The crazier part about this topic is that people actually want to live like this. I do see the appeal and I (like you) have lived in a less extreme version of this in downtown Portland (700 sqft studio apt downtown for 1,600 per month). People like to be near the social atmosphere and have the opportunity to walk to work and back and are ok with paying 1,600 dollars every month for a hip 600 sq. ft. box. It really is a great lifestyle, however, there are other ways to live then that. Living in a rural community away from the hustle bustle of the city can be appealing. There are pros and cons in both types of living, and it is entirely understandable for someone to choose either.
ReplyDeleteCody, I agree. My sister lives in Chicago, and though it is not as bad a NYC, it is still the 3rd largest city in the U.S. After visiting her over the years, I see why she loves living there because it is easy to get around and there is always something to do. But, the spreading of the virus exposes many flaws to living in Chicago (besides the winter weather!). Similar to how The Great Chicago Fire changed a lot of building codes in history, I wonder if this pandemic will change any the building codes of the spaces you describe.
ReplyDeleteThinking about spatial injustice usually brings an impoverished third world country to mind, but you're totally right, Cody. Living in a world where a global pandemic is entirely possible, places like New York City, are suddenly seen in a different light. Personally, I've always had this plan to go live in Barcelona for a while, and to be honest, I've found myself recently reconsidering this for the sole reason of not wanting to find myself in a tiny apartment during a global quarantine.
ReplyDeleteI agree, spatial injustice is spatial injustice... whether choose to buy into and live in willingly or if it’s forced upon us in impoverished areas. I do believe its still an issue that designers should work to tackle rather that feed into what standards of living the media forces us to believe is best.
ReplyDelete