Modern Urban Planning

[Tahuti]

In the light of the recent multiculturalism thread opened by Quackers, I'd like to draw attention to what I think is the actual reason why migrants fail to integrate in mainstream society, as well place artificial limits to social mobility: Poor urban planning.

We may have a gone a little too far with rationalistic modernism: Every extension to any town or city these days seem to be designed for cars rather than people. There is pattern to be had: Every immigrant riot in the Europe started in the suburbs - built by modernist principles. Perhaps no coincidence: The suburbs in Europe were originally built for the middle class. They did not flock to those places and instead those modernist suburbs got inhabited by those who poor in means, primarily immigrants.

So let's rant about that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In the light of the recent multiculturalism thread opened by Quackers, I'd like to draw attention to what I think is the actual reason why migrants fail to integrate in mainstream society, as well place artificial limits to social mobility: Poor urban planning.

We may have a gone a little too far with rationalistic modernism: Every extension to any town or city these days seem to be designed for cars rather than people. There is pattern to be had: Every immigrant riot in the Europe started in the suburbs - built by modernist principles. Perhaps no coincidence: The suburbs in Europe were originally built for the middle class. They did not flock to those places and instead those modernist suburbs got inhabited by those who poor in means, primarily immigrants.

So let's rant about that.

I wonder why that is? In the US, the middle class did flock to the suburbs in the 60's and 70's while the immigrants and poorer folk stayed in the city.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, though it is part of the same problem. Mind you that as a European, some of the OP's premises are based on European experiences and in Europe, the inner cities are usually the most affluent parts of any town.

Though I think 'American beauty' style suburbs suffer from many of the same defects and fallacies behind their reasoning as European 'La Haine' style suburbs.

 

[Core Imposter]

I wonder why that is? In the US, the middle class did flock to the suburbs in the 60's and 70's while the immigrants and poorer folk stayed in the city.

I know nothing about Europe. Here in the South, we moved out I think as a result of forced busing. I can't say if that was a factor in other parts of the US.

 

[Perfection]

I'm over car culture.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree that poor urban planning seems a decent explanation for lots of problems. In Sydney, there have been problems where government housing has been clumped together (e.g. the Macquarie Fields Riots), but you don't get those same problems when government housing is interspersed throughout various suburbs. I don't agree that a specific type of urban planning can be blamed as being 'poor', because it seems very situational. For example, new suburbs on the outskirts of Sydney are often fairly expensive estates, and these are indeed designed for cars, given huge infrastructural challenges associated with low population density. This sort of expansion might be problematic in some places, it might not be in others. I don't think the key is that x type of urban planning always causes problems, but that poor urban planning does in general, and in some circumstances x can be an example of that.

 

[Tahuti]

I think the very concept of suburbs should be questioned. Eliminate cars and/or public transportation from the equation and you basically have disfunctional neighbourhoods with high unemployment.

When designing neighbourhoods, the primary goal should be to design those for people and perhaps most importantly, make them as self-sufficient as possible, for instance, by making multipurpose buildings. Older buildings in European inner cities usually fit the bill, being used as shops, office spaces and residences.

 

[Kyriakos]

In any reasonably large city you are bound to have good, average, and bad areas. And since the other thread was about London, that city is an excellent example of that. Some areas are incredibly nice. Others are 3rd-world towns.

The urban planning could to a degree be different, but not as much as that it would solve the issue of most immigrants (obviously) not being able to afford rent in more expensive areas.

Moreover traditionally the industrial zones are in the worst areas of all, bordering some large town or city. And they are where most unskilled labor is asked for.

(ps, remember that 30K people 'building' in Hong Kong, which fortunately has been demolished for a few years now...).

 

[Camikaze]

@Kaiserguard - questioned perhaps, but the answer might be an emphatic 'why yes, they are a good idea' in many cases. Probably highlights the problem with identifying a single type of urban planning as invariably negative, regardless of the context. I don't know if Australia would work without suburbs. Europe's different, as you mentioned in your second post.

 

[Core Imposter]

Future events will make cities a thing of the past. The same with coastal development. Humans will spread out over the landscape in a decentralized manner.

Urban planning is an exercise in obsolescence. Urban and coastal areas will be too insecure, subject to both manmade and natural catastrophe.

That is my opinion, subject to error.

 

[Cutlass]

I wonder why that is? In the US, the middle class did flock to the suburbs in the 60's and 70's while the immigrants and poorer folk stayed in the city.

The real story isn't that simple, though. While there was a desire on the part of the broadening middle class of the post-war years to have houses of their own, and so move out of the cities, the other factors shouldn't be ignored. One is the building of highways, which made the suburbs much more practical, particularly since gas in the US was cheap. Second is that it wasn't so much the poor who were locked up in the suburbs, as it was the colored who were locked up in the suburbs. And both the growth of the suburbs and the neglect of the cities had more than a lot of racism at its foundation. So the urban transit deficit as well as the suburban car culture both owe a lot to the racism which underlie why it was built that way. Add in a lot of special interest pressure by automakers and oil companies, and there you have it.

But to some extent in the US and Canada, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.

 

[Traitorfish]

In the light of the recent multiculturalism thread opened by Quackers, I'd like to draw attention to what I think is the actual reason why migrants fail to integrate in mainstream society, as well place artificial limits to social mobility: Poor urban planning.

We may have a gone a little too far with rationalistic modernism: Every extension to any town or city these days seem to be designed for cars rather than people. There is pattern to be had: Every immigrant riot in the Europe started in the suburbs - built by modernist principles.

Well, that's debatable. Post-war architecture and urban planning was generally framed as "Modernist", but the extent to which that actually was the case is more debatable. Often-times, it's superficial, blocky buildings and wide streets, but without any of the social democratic rationalism that actually underlay this aspect of the the Modernist project. Notably, most of the Modernists argued strongly for socio-economically mixed housing, which they saw as necessary to building a sense of citizenship, yet this characteristic is limited, if not entirely absent, from almost all post-war housing schemes. The primary characteristic of such construction wasn't that it was Modern, only that it was cheap without being actively hazardous to the inhabitants. (And the past tense should be stressed.)

Show any socialist Modernist worth their salt one of these dismal suburban ghettos, and he'd vomit with rage, so it seems strange to highlight "Modernist principles" as a central factor.

 

[Quackers]

First thoughts: immigrants will typically be low income. They start from the economic bottom. Therefore, they can only afford to rent in certain areas. Unless you intervene into the housing market through rent controls, special dispensation for new arrivals - immigrants will end up in one section of the city.
What changes in urban planning can you do to alleviate that?

 

[Tahuti]

What changes in urban planning can you do to alleviate that?

A lot. You have to make sure that the lowest income neighbourhoods are overall pretty decent.

 

[warpus]

Every extension to any town or city these days seem to be designed for cars rather than people.

I'm not sure if this is a significant enough reason why people do not integrate, but that is a big problem - cities are built without pedestrians in mind - and as such you end up with cities that have very little public space where people can meet, dance, drink, socialize, etc.

Maybe that leads to each social/ethnic group doing their own thing and thus integrating slower?

 

[Domen]

One extreme example of consequences of lack of urban planning. Two houses adjoin each other with backyards, but due to chaos in urban planning, you need to drive 12 km (over 7 miles) in order to get from the front of one house to the front of the other house:

Orlando, Florida:

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...p-w;FaFiswEdEpIp-w&t=h&doflg=ptk&mra=luc&z=17

Spoiler :

Albanian thread where they complain about lack of urban planning in Albania (some funny photos):

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1665089

==================================

Poland - the country of adds:

Wrong way (frequent):

Spoiler :

Good way (why so rare):

Spoiler :

#1 Polish invention - asphalt made of tar:

Spoiler :

#2 Polish invention - psychedelic cobblestone paving:

Spoiler :

 

[Tahuti]

I'm not sure if this is a significant enough reason why people do not integrate, but that is a big problem - cities are built without pedestrians in mind - and as such you end up with cities that have very little public space where people can meet, dance, drink, socialize, etc.

Maybe that leads to each social/ethnic group doing their own thing and thus integrating slower?

Well, more 'traditional' neighbourhoods typically have higher property values and higher social cohesion, go figure. However, perhaps the higher property values have fuelled the belief that such neighbourhoods are only for the rich, not noting how modernist planned nieghborhoods like the Parisian banlieues have failed so spectacularly.

 

[Cutlass]

First thoughts: immigrants will typically be low income. They start from the economic bottom. Therefore, they can only afford to rent in certain areas. Unless you intervene into the housing market through rent controls, special dispensation for new arrivals - immigrants will end up in one section of the city.
What changes in urban planning can you do to alleviate that?

That depends on your immigrants. Canada, for example, aims to get as many educated and high productivity immigrants as it can.

 

[Domen]

"Do not construct monuments of me. Do something good for the people" - John Paul II

Spoiler :

Extreme cycle paths (śmieszki rowerowe):

Spoiler :

No more Blitzkrieg, let's put Anti-Tank obstacles everywhere:

Spoiler :

Sunshine block of flats:

123 dustbins along 500 meters:

Spoiler :

High concentration of toilets:

Spoiler :

"Your house is your castle":

Spoiler :

And your front yard is your bunker:

All colours of the rainbow:

Spoiler :

Masterpiece of urban planning:

Spoiler :

 

[Kyriakos]

^Hm, the statue of that pope with the bird rising near his waist, well, there is the issue of the metaphorical meaning of that term in various euro languages (including iirc polish)...