The (Exclusive) Right to the City
David Harvey’s The Right to the City brings up really important points, specifically on how architecture and city planning specifically can be used as a weapon to keep up or silence the voices of less privileged groups. One example that came to mind while reading was redlining in the city of Minneapolis. In my undergraduate education this topic was covered fairly extensively when talking about the urban expansion that defined the city. Just as we discussed in class this week, home ownership became a result of the commodification that was happening with public urban spaces. Historically and today, home ownership has been reserved for those with higher socioeconomic status, and in result, minority groups are consistently pushed aside when it comes to neighborhood planning. It is hard to figure out how we can use design to fix this. The question for me is ‘is this a solution architecture has influence to fix or is it more of a societal shift that needs to occur for an equal ‘right to the city’?
You bring up some interesting points, and I really don't think there is a single answer or solution to this problem. It's honestly appalling how urban planners used to design cities based on such a surface level factor of skin color. Why push aside and generalize a whole group of people into a small bubble and promote division when you really strive for expansion? It's a paradox that I will never understand and hope goes away with our generation of architects.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great observation, and I definitely think there has to be a societal shift, and it's not necessarily something architecture influences. I think the issue is largely that housing is seen as an asset and not necessarily a necessity, and I think until that changes, home ownership will continue to create broader socioeconomic divides.
ReplyDelete