the rural citizens' rights

This entire segment of the lecture series concerning citizens’ rights and spatial justice, should be regarded as compulsory and indispensable knowledge for every architect. I have to say, however, that for all the magnanimous contemplation and philanthropic gesturing that there is a glaring oversight - by the sociologists, ethnographers, and architects alike. There is a distinct lack of consideration for the rural citizen. Rural households still comprise a large percentage of all households in America, poverty is more prevalent in rural areas, and due to their distance from cities, rural families have access to fewer resources. So why isn’t there more attention and effort being directed towards these families in need?

I think one deterrent to meaningful dialogue around the plight of the rural citizen might be perception. To speak in general terms, the urbanite feels that the rural citizen is less sophisticated for their lack of multi-cultural exposure and access to intellectually-enriching resources. The rural citizen feels that the urbanite is elitist, with a highly disparaging attitude. And it seems that these mutual feelings of dismissal and disregard have been especially exacerbated in recent years. It really seems that the urban and rural citizens have come to view each other as ‘others’. The mental and motivational division is clear on electoral maps - urban and rural identity are becoming more and more indicative of, and associative with, political affiliation. It is difficult to broach this topic without it becoming political, but as we’ve discussed in class, it is nearly impossible to separate architecture from politics. Are there political implications and biases at play here? If perception is an issue, politics and biases must be cast aside in order to do good through architecture.

Of course, I have no idea if perception, politics or biases are truly an influential culprit. However, I have seen that often times, when land development or federal/ local politics become involved with the rural citizen’s property, there is a direct correspondence with extraction - usually for  beneficiaries outside of the affected context. Eminent domain, resource extraction and transportation, vivisection of land for utilities and infrastructure; the list goes on… But a commonality in each instance is the degradation of place. Would anyone say that the affected rural citizen has yielded a net benefit? The urban dweller, typically the primary recipient of such services, reaps the benefits without sacrifice.

We all know that Anderson, SC is known as ‘the electric city’. Gaining that title required the construction of the Hartwell dam, which meant flooding the Savannah River valley to the north - along with thousands of acres of privately-owned land. The land-owners were compensated, sure, but they didn’t have any say in the matter; their rights to their land were violated. Harvey defines the right to the city as the action of claiming ‘some kind of shaping power over the process of urbanization.’ (2) In this matter, the rural citizen had no volition or recourse. 

The architect, longing to bring atonement to the displaced and impoverished urban citizen, practices with commendable compassion and intentions. I think the energy and commitment need only be applied irrespective of urban and rural settings.