U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2012, 03:24 PM
 
5,710 posts, read 8,775,783 times
Reputation: 4928

Advertisements

I know this can happen organically by way of gentrification but was wondering if there is a school of thought in the planning profession that poor people do not belong in the cities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2012, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,087 posts, read 17,580,911 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
I know this can happen organically by way of gentrification but was wondering if there is a school of thought in the planning profession that poor people do not belong in the cities?
Not that I am aware of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 04:58 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,575,764 times
Reputation: 4048
There is--it was called "redevelopment" in the 1950s and 60s. The philosophy of the era was that people shouldn't really live downtown at all, except maybe for some high-end condominiums. The original Redevelopment Act of 1949 specified that housing for persons displaced by redevelopment activity had to be provided in the same neighborhoods, but not many projects were actually built because businessmen considered that kind of Communist. In 1954 the act was amended to allow substitute housing to be built in other neighborhoods (or, often, not built at all) and the business community liked this a great deal, because it meant they could shift poor neighborhoods out of downtowns entirely and replace them with expanded business districts, using federal money. Apparently they didn't think that was Communist at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 05:40 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,020 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
There is--it was called "redevelopment" in the 1950s and 60s. The philosophy of the era was that people shouldn't really live downtown at all, except maybe for some high-end condominiums. The original Redevelopment Act of 1949 specified that housing for persons displaced by redevelopment activity had to be provided in the same neighborhoods, but not many projects were actually built because businessmen considered that kind of Communist. In 1954 the act was amended to allow substitute housing to be built in other neighborhoods (or, often, not built at all) and the business community liked this a great deal, because it meant they could shift poor neighborhoods out of downtowns entirely and replace them with expanded business districts, using federal money. Apparently they didn't think that was Communist at all.
Here we go with the communism stuff again. I know the 50s/60s "urban renewal" stuff (called The Renaissance in Pittsburgh) didn't work out well, but a lot of substandard housing was replaced, unfortunately with something equally bad in many cases, huge public housing apartment complexes. Using a city I am familiar with as an example (shocking for CD, I know!), there never was much housing in downtown Pittsburgh. The Civic Arena was an urban renewal project, but it wasn't quite in downtown.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Urban_renewal.aspx

You can read a little more about the Civic Arena in the link below.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Fate of Civic Arena Debated
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 07:07 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,931 posts, read 42,196,076 times
Reputation: 43363
Maybe nothing official or "intentional" but don't think for a minute that planners don't know the consequences of their recommendations or elected officials don't quietly urge them on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,951,877 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Here we go with the communism stuff again. I know the 50s/60s "urban renewal" stuff (called The Renaissance in Pittsburgh) didn't work out well, but a lot of substandard housing was replaced, unfortunately with something equally bad in many cases, huge public housing apartment complexes. Using a city I am familiar with as an example (shocking for CD, I know!), there never was much housing in downtown Pittsburgh. The Civic Arena was an urban renewal project, but it wasn't quite in downtown.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Urban_renewal.aspx

You can read a little more about the Civic Arena in the link below.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Fate of Civic Arena Debated
Besides the Lower Hill being destroyed for the Civic Arena, there were two other major areas which were decimated by the Renaissance

1. There used to be a substantial downtown population at the Point (the intersection of the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers for those not in the know). In 1950, 153 structures were demolished in the region to make way for Point State Park and Gateway Center.

2. There was also the incredible destruction visited upon the Northside by urban renewal. Not only was it cut into three parts by highways (with the highways obliterating Beaver Street, the former commercial thoroughfare for several neighborhoods), but all residential towards the river was systematically demolished to make way for expanded industrial usage and large amenities like stadiums. As a result, only 200 people live in the portion of the North Side towards downtown - and this is only because of a relatively recent apartment complex being built.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,407 posts, read 59,910,649 times
Reputation: 54063
Depends on who you ask. If you ask planners and city leaders, the answer usually is no. If you ask advocates for the poor, the homeless, and other vulnerable populations, the answer usually is yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,087 posts, read 17,580,911 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Maybe nothing official or "intentional" but don't think for a minute that planners don't know the consequences of their recommendations or elected officials don't quietly urge them on.
More precisely, tell them what to do.

[and it is usually more blunt than that]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 09:19 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,575,764 times
Reputation: 4048
It gets couched in all sorts of excuses, ranging from "We have to clear out all the bums and criminals" to more apologetic approaches like "We're not prejudiced or anything, it's just that those people are bad for property values!" (nonwhite neighborhoods were redlined, which reduced property value and made home loans and other financing credit impossible to obtain.) And hey, it was the early fifties, rich guys calling things they didn't like Communist was almost as commonplace then as it is now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 09:27 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,112,325 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And hey, it was the early fifties, rich guys calling things they didn't like Communist was almost as commonplace then as it is now.
Exactly. It doesn't seem far-fetched at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top