California might be the greenest, it is pushing new housing to less temperate climates such as Houston and Dallas, thus dramatically increasing carbon footprint (p. 212). The fifth section compares and contrasts the two opposing visions of environmentalism: Livingstone 's “big-city modernism” and Prince Charles 's “agrarian utopianism” (p. 215). After evaluating the contrasting visions, Glaeser supports the urban dense living. The sixth section highlights the challenge of sustainable urban development in developing economies. He compares the carbon emissions per household between China, India and America. The growing car usage including the “Tata’s $2500 car” suggests rise in future traffic jams and carbon emissions (p. 220). The final section …show more content…
Cities need a playing field, as competition drives local governments, competitors, businesses, schools to provide better quality services or products (p. 250). According to Glaeser, education is the most reliable predictor of urban growth; this was most convincing. Hence, number of quality school systems should be improved to promote urban growth. Rather than poor places, poor people should be helped; this was least convincing. Glaeser could have provided more examples to support his argument. For example, the Harlem School zone, which targeted a specific place, turned out to be effective in reducing urban problems. Although restricting new constructions might seem relevant, it imposes costs to the society at large. Stopping housing constructions in attractive areas increase the housing prices. The federal housing policy decreases the home mortgage interest rate, which encourages people to own houses in the suburbs. This results in higher carbon emissions. However, this could be lower through carbon tax. Human face-to-face interaction is critical. New technological advancements increase productivity. Overall, the sustaining gift of the cities reflects the social nature of humanity (p.
Gentrification is defined as the process by which the wealthy or upper middle class uproot poorer individuals through the renovation and rebuilding of poor neighborhoods. Many long-term residents find themselves no longer able to afford to live in an area, where the rent and property values are increasing. Gentrification is a very controversial topic, revealing both the positive and negative aspects of the process. Some of the more desirable outcomes include reduced crime rate, increased economic activity, and the building of new infrastructures. However, it is debated whether the negatives overwhelm the positive. An increase in the number of evictions of low-income families, often racial minorities can lead to a decline of diversity
Look at the civilized, beautiful capital cities in every developed country all around the world which is the central of high fashioned and convenience facility. To live in the city, it seems like the nature surrounding is not important to us anymore. In “The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature” David Suzuki presents the connection between human and the nature and how we depend on the surrounding environment. However, within the past century, most of our modern technologies have been developed in order to provide people needs of goods and products (63). Many of the products we made are causing much more harm to the environment than the value that products provide. Technological development has damaged our environment to the point
This investigation is based on the assumption that gentrification with all its troubles can’t be prevented and is an inherent part of every city. What are the negative impacts of gentrification? What are the underlying mechanisms that feed these impacts? What drives these mechanisms? What would be an alternative scenario?
to fund public programs or make general improvements throughout the community. Urban sprawl is expensive not only on people’s wallets, but is taxing on their health, the environment, their relationships. The.. After examining all of the problems associated with urban sprawl it is hard not to question how America lost the genuine communities of old and adopted the new community of
There are people in the neighborhoods that can enjoy the neighborhood enhancements because they know they can survive the inflation of their rent. There are people that are oblivious to the fact that their rent will increase a significant amount, because they are excited that there will be shiny new locations arriving around their area. Once their landlord explains to them that their rent will increase – in New York it could be up to fifty percent – they will be struck with the sad reality of gentrification. Gentrification is similar to other social issues, primarily in the fact that one does not think about the issue until it affects them. To me, it is crucial to approach with Immanuel Kant’s theory in mind. It is important to view the overall morality of an issue. “Is it necessary?” is a question I ask myself when addressing this issue. Kant believes one should not use another for self-benefit, and with gentrification one group of men or women are using a group of families for their own
Gentrification is the keystone for the progression of the basic standards of living in urban environments. A prerequisite for the advancement of urban areas is an improvement of housing, dining, and general social services. One of the most revered and illustrious examples of gentrification in an urban setting is New York City. New York City’s gentrification projects are seen as a model for gentrification for not only America, but also the rest of the world. Gentrification in an urban setting is much more complex and has deeper ramifications than seen at face value. With changes in housing, modifications to the quality of life in the surrounding area must be considered as well. Constant lifestyle changes in a community can push out life-time
“gentrification as an ugly product of greed”. Yet these perspectives miss the point. Gentrification is a byproduct of mankind's continuing interest in advancing the notion that one group is more superior to another and worthy of capitalistic consumption with little regard to social consciousness. It is elitism with the utmost and exclusionary politics to the core. This has been a constant theme of mankind taking or depleting space for personal gain.
For decades now, there have been educational problems in the inner city schools in the United States. The schools inability to teach some students relates to the poor conditions in the public schools. Some of the conditions are the lack of funds that give students with the proper supplies, inexperienced teachers, inadequate resources, low testing scores and the crime-infested neighborhoods. These conditions have been an issue for centuries, but there is nothing being done about it. Yet, state and local governments focus on other priorities, including schools with better academics. It is fair to say that some schools need more attention than other does. However, when schools have no academic problems then the attention should be focused elsewhere, particularly in the inner city schools.
John Buntin notes that the arrival of high-income persons will definitely attract services such as schools, better jobs for residents, better roads and electricity among other services (Gentrification Is a Myth). Therefore, gentrification appeals to individuals who are able to put pressure on local authorities by power of their economic status. As a result, the standards of living of developing cities rise alongside the cost of living in those same cities.
Gentrification does not follow traditional urban growth theory, which predicts ?the decline of inner city areas as monied classes move to the metropolitan fringe.? The traditional economic model of real estate says that wealthy people can choose their housing from the total city market (Schwirian 96). Once these people decide to live in the suburbs, the lower social classes move into the old homes of the upper class, essentially handing housing down the socioeconomic ladder. Gentrification is actually a reversal of this process. For a variety of reasons, many inner city areas are becoming more attractive to the wealthy, and they are selecting their housing in those areas (Schwirian 96). The problem is that now when the wealthy take over poor homes and renovate them, the poor cannot afford the housing that the wealthy have abandoned. Many researchers have argued whether gentrification has truly created problems in cities. I will analyze the arguments for and against gentrification by exploring the subject from both sides.
Originally, cities arose because naturally, humans are social creatures that dwell in close proximity to each other, and it was typically in areas where the basic needs of food, shelter and water could be met or obtained. These communities grew to be large and expansive cities with complex natures, public buildings, religious institutions and possessed unique forms of housing, transportation and streets. (Cavaglieri, 22). There are currently two conflicting ideas of how a city should develop, through urban sprawl or through smart growth. Low density development, otherwise known as urban sprawl, is defined as "low density, automobile dependent development beyond the edge of service and employment areas." (The Policy Almanac, Urban Sprawl). On the other hand, Smart Growth which is loosely defined as planning principles "to stop sprawl, regenerate inner cities, provide transportation choices that include public transit, protect and integrate green-space into the urban fabric – and generally renew the promise of vibrant, vital cities and liveable communities." (Onyschuk, 1). Despite the positive aims of smart growth, many say that it is highly flawed and the results tend to contradict its goal of creating livable cities. The use of smart growth principles are essential for building sustainable, urban spaces. Smart growth promotes mid to high density development in the hopes of using less land to sustain more people. Mixed use neighbourhoods is an aspect of Smart Growth which allows residents to live, work and play in the same area. Various forms of transportation are heavily invested in to give people the option not to take their car, or completely get rid of it.
School funding has always been a debatable topic. Although school funding needs to be increased, there is no proof of academic achievement (Hanushek). Academic researchers have sought to answer the questions of whether education expenditures are correlated with student performance(Hanushek). Hanushek has found that there is no proof of academic achievement towards funding the schools(Hanushek). It depends on how the money is spent, not on how much money is spent(Hanushek). “ There are so many areas of education that require money(Shanker).” When you are able to reduce the size of a classroom you allow the teacher the opportunity to give additional help by spending more time with each individual student(Shanker). Also, higher teacher salaries are very important when it comes to having the best teachers(Shanker). Studies show that raising the city’s basic per-pupil allocation from $9,306 to $11,608 will provide better technology and better teachers(Brown). Smaller classroom size and better teachers have a positive effect ...
Newman, P. (1999). Transport: reducing automobile dependence. In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable cities (pp. 67-92). London: Earthscan Publications.
As previously implied, cities are currently the antithesis of even the barest sense of sustainability. To succinctly define the term “sustainability” would be to say that it represents living within one’s needs. When it comes to the city, with almost zero local sources of food or goods, one’s means is pushed and twisted to include resources originating far beyond the boundaries of the urban landscape. Those within cities paradoxically have both minimal and vast options when it comes to continuing their existence, yet this blurred reality is entirely reliant on the resources that a city can pull in with its constantly active economy.
Ludwig, Jens, Helen F Ladd, Greg J. Duncan. Urban Povert and Educational Outcomes. Raleigh, Duke University. 2001