Reflection

by Matthew Scott Allen, June 4th, 2009

I have always wondered why society is so segmented, and resources are allocated so unequally, especially within our own cities. While taking International Green Building and Development it made the correlation between sustainability and diverse housing sectors clear. When we have segregated cities, areas take turns being the desirable and undesirable locations. This can be seen with modern-day gentrification. Unfortunately, wherever the undesirable area is is coupled with poverty. What some call “slums” or “ghettos” are pockets of concentrated poverty. A big reason for these concentrations of poverty are land-use laws, municipal governments and greedy developers. Currently most inner-city areas are either very wealthy or very poor and there are relatively few middle class people or families living in the central urban areas (Manhattan has the largest income disparity in North America). The families primarily live in the suburbs, on unsustainable-designed streets far from where they work, shop and go to school, thus requiring an automobile to commute.

The concept of “New Urbanism” is relatively recent, but is a backlash to years of bad land use planning. It looks back to the era before automobile dependence and cheap petroleum, where cities were designed more densely with walking in mind. This plan not only makes everyday activities more convenient but also creates a closer-knit sense or community and social cohesion. Generally when middle class families are living in the suburbs anonymously, they don't meet their neighbors, let alone meet people of different income brackets. I believe this creates segregation and intolerance. Is it coincidental that suburban dwellers are more likely to be socially and fiscally conservative?

During the 20th century we saw rapid decline of income and infrastructure in inner city areas in North America. This was due to many reasons, notably industrial pollution, freedom of the car and in-migration of poor, sometimes African-American people from the South. Tax money and investments quickly went away from funding these areas to start funding sprawling suburbs “far away from danger” and into the artificial countryside.

The early 20th century also saw the destruction of sustainable means of transportation. Companies like General Motors and Firestone Tire used their power and money to buy out streetcar lines and then demolish them, forcing residents to further rely on automobiles (their products). They only received a slap on the wrist and trivial fines.

This move also helped widen the socio-economic gap of cities, as the poor couldn't afford cars therefore couldn't live in the suburbs. As the cities continued to crumble more and more natural ecosystems and agricultural land were destroyed to make way for suburban development. This went on through the last quarter of the 20th century as the term “inner-city” grew to become a derogatory word meaning “black”, “poor” or “ghetto”.

With the 1990s and 2000s came gentrification, which revivalists the inner-city but not the people who live there, instead displacing them. As stated earlier, this is just recirculation on the (separate) socio-economic “classes”, with hardly any cohabitation.

There are good examples, as our own exclusive Pearl District has housing for seniors and people with low to no income. However, this still leaves out the largest segment of our society- middle class families. Almost all of new development in any city center is marketed towards young urban professionals, empty-nesters, elderly and low-income. It is rare to find a new condo building that isn't upscale and has more than one or two bedrooms. This makes it impossible for a family of 4 or 5 to live in the Pearl District or other downtown areas with the same situation. There are also tight regulations for the more affordable housing: must not make income over certain “poverty level” and cannot be a student.

There is a need to build neighborhoods inclusive of all income levels, even middle class. I also think that buildings should include units built for different income levels. Living in the one section 8 building in the neighborhood makes one obvious and most likely prevents certain families from even applying.

There also needs to be access to services meeting the needs of each of the income levels. In the pearl district there are mostly expensive shops, restaurants and other services without much to cater to the residents of the section 8 buildings.

In order to create a truly sustainable society, we must cohabitate in harmony, understand the needs of our neighbors and look beyond personal income and social classes. Rich neighborhood/ poor neighborhood will not sustain a community that work together to create the future vitality of a city.