The article is predictable from the title, above.....
I like this comment after the article:
Interesting point, but perhaps anti-urbanist and even racist
Submitted by vtboy99 on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 21:00.
While I do agree with the author's argument for dispersing concentrations of poverty and at the same time integrating disparate socioeconomic constructs, it seems as if the article is ever-so-slightly tinged with elements of anti-urbanism, and perhaps even racism.
Was the city of New Orleans unsustainable prior to Hurricane Katrina?
Or were the socioeconomic conditions which persisted for decades before the catastrophe just a direct result of the standard deindustrialization of America's urban economies? Post-industrial and globalization forces have left countess American urban neighborhoods with an aftermath of extreme segregation and concentrations of poverty and crime over the past 50 years. The author's argument for depopulating inner city neighborhoods in order to make them more sustainable could also be made for countless other districts in cities such as: St. Louis, Cleveland, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Bridgeport CT, Oakland, Detroit, Bronx NY, Gary IN, Newark, Camden, Richmond CA, etc etc.
The author is taking the typical "pro-small government", Reaganist, post-modern approach for pointing the finger in New Orleans on the "bloated, corrupt welfare state", as if there were no other social or economic factors to take into consideration. Perhaps Adam should take a course in urban economics and urban history before he attempts to write an article of such magnitude. Reality ends up being much more political and messy than the author would care to admit.
And what if a natural disaster would happen to befall upon one of those cities mentioned above? Would the author hold the same opinion regarding the support of the "emptying out" of those predominately lower income, black areas in other cities? I believe so. He is merely using the term "unsustainable" as a way of justifying the horrendous and devoid emergency response efforts after Hurricane Katrina on the part of the local, state, and federal governments in providing adequate food, shelter, and reconstruction resources to those who have called New Orleans home for countless generations.
To fill in the apparent leadership vacuum, the free market and private sectors were deliberately and intentionally allowed to guide the entire planning and redevelopment process, through the strong encouragement of George W. Bush, Ray Nagin, Kathleen Blanco, Mary Landrieu, Albert Ratner (Forrest City Partners), Joseph Canizaro, Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Urban Land Institute. Hyper-privatized, segregrated, master-planned city building, in the tradition of J.C. Nichols and his Country Club District in Kansas City. That's what is happening to New Orleans, and that's why it is completely failing. Andres Duany happens to be an outspoken supporter of J.C. Nichols; Duany even did a documentary about the guy. Scary connection!
By the way, as a side note, J.C. Nichols promoted the technique of mortgage "redlining" and restrictive covenants to segregate his affluent "communities" from Jews and Blacks. Not sure if Peter Calthorpe realized that dirty little secret when he won the J.C. Nichols "Visionaries in Urban Development" prize a few months ago. He probably did, but it really doesn't matter to him. Gotta get those "New Urbanist", transit-oriented projects built, regardless of who provides your financing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Clyde_Nichols
And now we have "New Orleans 2007". A disneyfied, predominately white, ghost of its former self. Oh, and by the way, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have decided to now call the "Big Easy" home.
Perhaps they feel it's a bit safer now...
Here's an article by Mike Davis entitled "Who is Killing New Orleans". It provides a much better take on the current state of affairs in the Crescent City.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060410/davis
No comments:
Post a Comment