WHO’S?

Posted: August 27th, 2021

WHO’S?

Name

Institutional Affiliation

WHO’S?

Since the US got its independence, a large group of historically marginalized and underserved communities has experienced both space and place injustices. In particular, the native Indians who are considered a marginalized group in the US have faced several challenges associated with urban and house planning. In this regard, many pundits have opined that the idea of gentrification is a measure to end the sustained injustices among these underserved communities.Instead, gentrification continues to be a rather complex and controversial issue that impacts urban housing markets through modernist planning. Therefore, this urban renewal in housing has left many individuals widely displaced and poor.

With a widely considered description of gentrification as a way of resolving urban planning decline, many critiques have argued otherwise (Aoki, 1993). Specifically, they have termed gentrification as an architectural theory that has far and wide intensified the gap between the rich and poor. For example, the method has failed to improve the housing conditions for many marginalized groups, including the native Indians (Aoki, 1993). Nonetheless, gentrificationmust be brought about as an additional element to the dynamics of American cities in the 1990s, leading to major aesthetic realignments. Indeed, added element seeks to improve the conditions and realignments attached to architecture and urban planning, following the 21^st-century modernist ideology (Aoki, 1993). Thus, the changein aesthetic as well as economic revisions due to historical aspects ofgentrification in theUS central city buildings has further fueled displacement.

The advancement of 20^th century technological and engineering developments has impacted the native Indians in respect to urban planning (Levy, Comey, & Padilla, 2006). With the construction of modern highways and skyscrapers, many inhabitants of the native towns have been forced to abandon their homes. Undoubtedly, the idea of urban and suburban spatial distribution has impacted the natives differently, leading to massive segregations along socio-cultural and economic lines. Paradoxically, such new developmentcoupled with the anti-urban Arcadian strand of American town planning has begun to trigger spatial distributions, which exacerbated income inequality (Levy, Comey, & Padilla, 2006). Therefore, both modern and urban planning has accelerated the rift of the haves and have-nots at the expense of promoting infrastructural development.

Furthermore, it is argued that the US spatial arrangements in both urban and suburban regions have encouraged the dislodgment of southern black agricultural workers (Knight & Mohammad, 2016). Specifically, these individuals have migrated northern due to the persistent rise of varied land use controls and zoning. Most importantly, all these land-use control activities, including the urban renewal programs tend to exemplify the actions of suburban and urban planners, therefore bringing forth a steady migration to the northern part of America. For instance, many pundits have seen zoning and urban renewal as enablers of homogeneity at the expense of strong counteractionsand pressures for social change (Knight & Mohammad, 2016). Otherwise, these pressures for social change have been pegged on the existence of deep-rooted, value-laden nineteenth-century assumptions that conspicuously favor the Arcadian ideal. Consequently, spatial arrangements in the US have dislodged the embodiment of a single-family suburban house, thus encouraging urban pathology.

In summary, gentrification has brought out the “filtering theory” of housing markets, an ideology that has widely been critiqued despite being revered by many urban planners. Urban planners have opined that it supports the housing markets for low-income earners. However, the conservatives have argued that the “filtering theory” is a way for the suburban and urban planners to offer an apology for their inability to support new construction for low-income housing (Knight& Mohammad, 2016). As an example, the extreme simplification of assumptions which connects to the traditional filtering model has been fine-tuned to signify a breakdown of the actual procedure of housing markets. Consequently, critiquing modernism tends to occasion a sarcastic historic atmosphere, which in turn brings forth an abdication of social responsibility for the effects of urban planning.

References

Aoki, K. (1993).”Race, space, and place: the relation between architectural modernisms, post-modernism, urban planning, and gentrification.” 20 Fordham Urb. L.J. 699, 1-89.

Knight, M. J., & Mohammad, G. (2016). “Urban displacement and low-income communities: The case of the American city from the late Twentieth century.” International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(2), 1-16.

Levy, K. D., Comey, J., & Padilla, S. (2006). “In the face of gentrification: Case studies of local efforts to mitigate displacement.” Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, 1-100.