Faculty Mentor
Jennifer Akerman
Department (e.g. History, Chemistry, Finance, etc.)
Architecture
College (e.g. College of Engineering, College of Arts & Sciences, Haslam College of Business, etc.)
College of Architecture & Design
Year
2018
Abstract
Urban progress is necessary in cities, but at what cost to the people? At what point is it the city’s responsibility to accommodate those that are removed from their neighborhoods due to developments?
Economic isolationism, preventing low-income citizens from benefiting from developments in urban areas, is growing out of control. Urban development often negatively impacts a population, no matter the intentions. Historically based on race, today the impacts seem to be implicitly directed at the “have nots.” These populations are not included in the new identity a city creates. The intent of this endeavor is to investigate who in urban populations are removed to make way for city improvements, and what can be done to bring the culture, economics, and social forces to coexist in cities across the country.
Historically, The Great Depression compounded social and economic issues in urban areas. President Franklin D. Roosevelt created a plan to help the country bring itself out of the depression through The New Deal. Intended to help the “forgotten man,” the policies actually prevented blacks and other low-income people from reaping the benefits of subsidized economic stability. Stemming from The New Deal, redlining practices from the Public Works Administration and Homeowners Loan Corporation kept areas marked as “hazardous” or “definitely declining” from development over the years. Coupled with failed public housing projects and areas that remained stagnant over the years, crime increased, poverty levels remained low, and portions of cities became dangerous and undesirable.
Unfortunately, those historical urbanization issues continue to negatively impact cities today. Richard Florida, author of The New Urban Crisis, suggests that recently cities have begun welcoming new types of development, at the detriment to low-income, service-class, and blue-collar citizens. The rise of the creative class, tech startups, and venture capitalist firms have brought a new culture to urban areas. As companies and employees relocate to urban centers, these developments are replacing the areas deemed undesirable with expensive residential and retail spaces. The gentrification of urban neighborhoods removes residents from their homes, and prevents people below a certain income level from benefiting from their city’s progress.
What does it say about a city’s identity that only a certain demographic can enjoy the spoils of the city? At what point is it an architect’s responsibility to design for the client, while also prioritizing the ethical dilemma that faces many designers of the built environment today?
Urban Identity
Urban progress is necessary in cities, but at what cost to the people? At what point is it the city’s responsibility to accommodate those that are removed from their neighborhoods due to developments?
Economic isolationism, preventing low-income citizens from benefiting from developments in urban areas, is growing out of control. Urban development often negatively impacts a population, no matter the intentions. Historically based on race, today the impacts seem to be implicitly directed at the “have nots.” These populations are not included in the new identity a city creates. The intent of this endeavor is to investigate who in urban populations are removed to make way for city improvements, and what can be done to bring the culture, economics, and social forces to coexist in cities across the country.
Historically, The Great Depression compounded social and economic issues in urban areas. President Franklin D. Roosevelt created a plan to help the country bring itself out of the depression through The New Deal. Intended to help the “forgotten man,” the policies actually prevented blacks and other low-income people from reaping the benefits of subsidized economic stability. Stemming from The New Deal, redlining practices from the Public Works Administration and Homeowners Loan Corporation kept areas marked as “hazardous” or “definitely declining” from development over the years. Coupled with failed public housing projects and areas that remained stagnant over the years, crime increased, poverty levels remained low, and portions of cities became dangerous and undesirable.
Unfortunately, those historical urbanization issues continue to negatively impact cities today. Richard Florida, author of The New Urban Crisis, suggests that recently cities have begun welcoming new types of development, at the detriment to low-income, service-class, and blue-collar citizens. The rise of the creative class, tech startups, and venture capitalist firms have brought a new culture to urban areas. As companies and employees relocate to urban centers, these developments are replacing the areas deemed undesirable with expensive residential and retail spaces. The gentrification of urban neighborhoods removes residents from their homes, and prevents people below a certain income level from benefiting from their city’s progress.
What does it say about a city’s identity that only a certain demographic can enjoy the spoils of the city? At what point is it an architect’s responsibility to design for the client, while also prioritizing the ethical dilemma that faces many designers of the built environment today?