See ya Pinky Toes
“The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the process of urbanization.” – David Harvey
While I may agree with some ideas put forward in “The Right to the City,” I wanted to express that the concept or ideology isn’t exactly bulletproof. Citizens within a city should have a say in changing the urban components that effect their day-to-day routines and overall ability to live, have a home, and pursue happiness. I agree fully with this. But the idea that people have the right to determine the entire structure and layout of a city or contribute to larger design decisions is ridiculous. As we saw, the City of Paris prior to the 19th century was growing organically and, as a result, led to a culture that was hidden away and uncelebrated. When Haussmann’s plan was put into effect, the city transformed not only physically, but also culturally. The urban plan was creating change in the economy and politics like had never been done before. Because of this development, Paris moved into the future as a cultural, economic, and political icon.
Although people were displaced, and the urban redevelopment of Paris didn’t satisfy the idea that people have the right to the city, I think that the change was necessary, done correctly by the right people, and landed Paris where it is today.
Even if you believe people should have a say in the urbanization of their communities, the people who are calling the shots should listen to the experts and follow their advice. A well renowned urban designer laying out a master plan for a town should be the loudest voice in the room. A master plan that calls for the destruction of 10 homes for the betterment of 200 and the future of the community is a successful master plan. It’s like a doctor telling you that you need to have surgery, or you will die. The surgery is going to take away one of your pinky toes, but you’ll live a long and happy life after. Sure, it might suck to lose that pinky toe, but in 40 years you’re not going to give a shit.
As long as your given a prosthetic in the meantime to ease the pain and fill the void of your pinky toe. In the metaphor you're proposing I guess that's temporary housing? If they're not given that then take to the streets of your city, it is your right after all.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you on a few different facts such as the impact of Hausmann's master plan and how it helped put Paris on the map, do you think Le Corbusier plans such as "La ville Radieuse" by example which could have been implemented likewise would have had the same effect? I am asking because you said "A well renowned urban designer laying out a master plan for a town should be the loudest voice in the room." Strong argument Dan but context matter as much as people's voice. What about Zaha Hadid's Eidar Haliyev center in Azerbaidjan, do you think the project was worth it? From an aesthetic and political context, it might have been, but what about the demographic context? Of course thinking 40 years down the line is great but what about sacrificing human lives when there are multiple possibilities to put cities on the map and better their citizen's lives not burry them? Isn't that what we should do as architects, or should we become the loudest voice in the room and ignore the public even if it is just 5 people ? Doctors aren't always right though and every surgery won't save you, remember the side effects are as painful as the road to recovery is.
ReplyDeleteI think the power that the collective population has is incredible. Used in proper and focused ways, the city can be changed for the better. However, it is also amazing how quickly it can sour. The direction of the city is determined by those that live there but the process should be lead by those with the technical + theoretical know how.
ReplyDelete