The Environmental Challenge
Today we face environmental issues on several fronts: social, ecological, economic, etc. Why do we continue to separate each issue into its niche, instead of addressing them as a holistic concern? None of these environmental challenges act independently, and often, the severity of the impact is increased by each other.
In Oakland, CA, you find a huge disparity between social classes and their environment. You tend to see low-income households living in areas that are affected heavily by ecological environmental impacts caused by the infrastructural environment around them. The asthma diagnosis and risk for kids that grow up in areas of Oakland that are close in proximity to highways and airports are extremely high. It is also common to see that the areas least impacted by infrastructural emissions also have residents who earn a higher income when compared to the rest of Oakland. Looking at this issue from the perspective of one environmental topic is not enough and we have to include socioeconomic and historical urban planning conditions to truly begin to resolve the challenges.
The concerns in Oakland are not an isolated condition, and we should begin to consider all the environmental impacts on communities as one holistic concern, instead of thinking about each topic individually.
Michael, sometimes it is difficult to attack a big situation like we have in america with the injustices and inequalities in housing quality when looking at all of these problems together. It feels as if there is no solution to such a massive problem until we begin to break them down into categories or subjects. Because of this we as future architects have to take the small steps we can to help. As we have learned through our education we can begin to implement passive strategies to help people save money and resources and we can also help to implement more sustainable solutions in larger industries.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Michael. I think many ignore the domino effect; how one aspect of inequality thus causes more issues down the line. For example, to Mostafavi's point in "ecological urbanism", those who do not have access to public transportation and live outside of the city due to urban sprawl and cheaper housing in the 'less desirable' areas are further impacted in many different ways than simply not having immediate access to amenities like those living lavishly in the city. To your point, those living in undesirable and cheaper areas (because that's all they can afford due to injustice overtime), there are many health concerns that arise through simply not living in the higher end areas. A kid growing up in a 'slum' has less of a chance than their wealthy counterpart. With change from a capitalist society, and a justice for all approach, it would lead to a positive domino effect, enhancing users lives slowly for generations to come. To me, a great example of this is the natural landscape. Parks and beautiful public spaces are implemented in close proximity all the time for those with money, giving them and their children access to attractive and healthy parks that incentivise exercise, relaxation, or a natural place of meditation. Those who live in disadvantaged with no public amenities receive a negative domino effect, lacking amenities, community, proper nutrition, access to exercise, and are left with nothing but negatives like drugs, violence, or health (physical or mental) issues.
ReplyDeleteMichael, It's sad that socioeconomic factors don't seep through urban planning. Environmental conditions are taken into account. While tackling these issues, specific preventive measures involve huge economic investments. This eventually increases the livelihood in these places better designed to combat the environmental conditions. Ultimately, the lower income class tends to move away from these centers. Considering the demographics and socioeconomic conditions in urban planning will help create an environmentally just society.
ReplyDelete