cities are unfair, life is unfair
The entire time reading David Harvey's passage, I could see the "issues" that they point out in our typical capitalist city environments but the alternative, in my mind, is complete chaos. Capitalism, from my view of it, provides the most order and the most opportunities to the most people - as compared to other forms of government. Of course a government is only as strong as its weakest member so corruption is inevitable, but, I think this is a pill we swallow to have the rights we have.
Harvey is essentially encouraging a communist utopia which could never happen as he describes it. Cities need this order and hierarchy to function, which is only truly provided by a capitalist democracy. If we imagine any of our largest cities on earth, most are in capitalist/democratic governed lands. This isn't a coincidence.
I also thought about these questions surrounding gentrification and really wondered if it is as bad as we say it is. Sure, nobody wants to nor deserves to be misplaced by others. Bluntly, gentrification has happened since humans first organized into tribes and shelters. We all want the nicest place to live but it is not always possible - I think the solutions to these issues is investing money into more land in the area to give options for those displaced / social housing / affordable housing / more money and business into the capitalist system.
Harvey seems to promote this utopian idea that suddenly kills gentrification and inequality and I think it's simply off target.
ReplyDeleteYour observations reflect a harsh reality. In an ideal world, we could all live lavishly, but this is not the case. However, I am convinced that the monetary prices set for space have spiraled out of control and can be reevaluated. For instance, the cost of living in Charleston on the peninsula as a student. You and me both have first had experience with this issue. The cost of living for students is unattainable on the peninsula. Why have we allowed this to happen and nothing is being done about it.
I agree with Mia. This conversation reminds me of the quote "the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer". Yes, gentrification is a large concept to tackle AND yes life is unfair... but shouldn't we- as architects- aim to bridge that gap ...?
ReplyDeleteTo add onto Mia's example, and to rebuttal your argument, I don't think housing being unaffordable only affects specific groups. I agree it affects all of us, especially out of college. Most of us will probably have to wait a few years to buy a house because prices-- and what is there is only affordable to 'the rich' (unless you settle).
I empathize with where you're coming from, and it certainly seems that our current capitalist system is our only choice, but the idea that capitalism = democracy isn't necessary fair. To Harveys point, there is never a world where capitalism will value social programs, its fundamentally opposed to the need for surplus value. Most corporations that advocate for this simply do it for PR or some ultimately monetary gain, it's up to a neutral body free of monetary gain to provide these services and check corporate power, i.e. the modern bogeyman "the government." There are plenty of global cities around the world, especially in Scandinavia, that operate on a much more socialistic perspective while still having the democratic and capitalistic freedom you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteI think framing inequity and financial exploitation as inevitable externalities of an inherently selfish human condition betrays a lack of rigor and depth of intellectual pursuit and ultimately ignores a large part of human history. To Jared's point, if solely focused on western society, there are plenty of examples of systems that uphold capitalist economic models while ensuring space for democratic social ideals. I think the dilemma you speak to simply highlights a a deeply American idea of exchange value tied solely to the money price, ignoring the other embedded value.
ReplyDeleteTo look at an ancient city which flourished without so-called hierarchy or order, Nebelivka is a great example. Despite the immense scale, researchers have found no discerning characteristics of centralized government, class disparities, or a ruling dynasty. In fact, most houses were similar in size and configuration. It's an interesting case study of what could have been a dominant idea as cities grew across the ancient world and was featured at this year's Venice Biennale.
https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-nebelivka-hypothesis
I agree with Connor. While I don't deny that "life isn't fair," that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say oh well I guess that's just how it is. Instead, you do what you can to make it more fair.
ReplyDeleteI also want to point out an important distinction between the economic system of capitalism and the political system of liberal democracy. These, while correlated, are not identical. For instance think of the more economically socialististic but democratic nordic states like Jared mentions, the clearly capitalistic but authoritarian current Russian state, or a the avowedly Communist Chinese state which nonetheless is primarily a market economy. Clearly there is a greater degree of distinction to be made between a wider range of possible political and economic systems than is brought up in the original post.
As to your question about whether gentrification is really a bad thing, that's not really a yes or no question. While it has benefits for the area and surrounding community, it simply displaces rather than solves problems, if not causes them directly. The gentrification we currently see and are referring to here is not the same as simple displacement that has happened throughout history, but is rather caused by the unique economic factors in our contemporary western cities, and equating them seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concrete problem.
Finally, even if it were the case that these problems were something that has been happening for thousands of years, or any amount of time, that is no justification for it to continue, and is not a valid argument for its quality. Slavery for instance has been happening for thousands of years, but I expect you wouldn't argue that it ‘isn’t as bad as we say it is.' Your take is interesting, but your arguments don't seem to support your claims.