Human rights? More like human fights for basic needs
Lefebvre and Harvey argue that cities have an almost ethical obligation to its inhabitants, to meet not only their basic needs but their personal and almost existential needs as well. A person “has a need to see, to hear, to touch, to taste and the need to gather these perceptions in a ‘world’.” (Lefabvre, 147) These needs manifest in society and culture and show themselves in the working of the city. Lefabvre talks about the city like a person. And just as a person can lose their sense of self, a city can lose sight of its ultimate purpose: to house and support human beings. The needs of the people are ignored and abused by those in power to promote a culture of excess (as usual, the culprit is capitalism). Perceiving the city as a thing with rights changes the way architects and planners should design them. Cities suddenly acquire power and autonomy over the everyday.
Emma, I agree with you in that sometimes cities focus so much on growing, expanding and becoming luxurious that they forget about the people that reside in them. This is the case when they start raising the property value of housing in certain areas and it leads to gentrification. I believe this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed .
ReplyDeleteEmma, your summary of the readings from Lefebvre and Harvey do a great job of telling the short of a hyuge ongoing contemporary fight - for that of the people's right to the city. The shameful part is where not everyone agrees on what are human/city rights, like we're all painfully aware of through living in our political atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteYour ending line of cities acquiring power and autonomy of the everyday give me hope for my role as an architect, where we have hopefully developed the skills to be in the weeds for community initiatives that provide equitable access, autonomy, and empowerment.
Cities are 100% steeped in capitalism. All it takes is a walk down the street to see that is true. If a city is meant to house and support humans, then why can only the richest afford to live in the city? I have been struggling lately deciding where I want to live. I really enjoy the city, but have been worried about accepting a job in a city that I can't afford. This shouldn't be an issue when I am about to earn a Master's degree, yet here we are. Unfortunately, this is a problem that goes beyond good design. This is an issue that has to be solved on a political and cultural level. Of course, this is also an issue that isn't at the top of the American political agenda...
ReplyDeleteEmma, I feel like it is super sad. As an emerging (hopefully) architect, I feel that we (architects) are contributing to the problem of this paradox. Wealthy people/developers/etc. hire architects to build the elaborate expensive building and 99% of the people could afford in the cities. Mostly these buildings are occupied by companies and firms that in need of employees to operate. Yet someone with a wage of an employee could never afford to live close to their work. Living close to workspace has so many environmental benefits. But this is not the point we are talking right now. It is an issue that even if people has the “right” to a city, the barrier of entrance is so high that having that right almost become moot.
ReplyDelete