Reading Reflection On The Right To The City By Alessandro Busà

Reading through The Right to the City by Alessandro Busà was tedious. As the way this editorial was written is complex; Because of this I had to unpack the content extremely carefully as I read, to fully understand the take away of each section. The author touches on key points that our class has seen regularly in our City Reader book so far in this semester. To summarize the authors points he writes about global recessions, and how they came to be from a macroeconomic standpoint, and the microeconomic effects of them. Busà also explains the term that seems to be reappearing more and more “The rich get richer, as the poor get poorer. ” Towards the end of the article the author speculates about what the “Desired City” should be.

I think that there are a lot of valid points in Alessandro’s work, but he also loses me in multiple concepts where I can’t help but challenge his idea. I agree with the author that recessions can create a devastating line of issues for people, but I am not so sure I understand how he forms the idea that Wealthy people benefit during a recession. Sure, I bet a slim few could take advantage during a recession, but I can’t see myself accepting this idea that the large gap, is created during a financial crisis. In my own opinion everyone is worse off in a recession. Contrary to, the definition of “Worse off” can vary drastically for people of different economic climates. But what I see Alessandro saying is that because these wealthy people have money put away to support themselves during the down time, it gives them a bad stigma.

On the other hand, Busà goes on to speak about how the most current crisis was established, and he uses this term “Risky Financial Instruments. ” My opinion is that these “Instruments” were products being purchased by a consumer who didn’t know how the tool worked. Not only were Instruments being bought blindly, but skyrocketing rates quickly transcended the gradual pay raises of consumers. On page 3-4 Neil Smith mentions that real estate is a pretty safe investment and that it was a staple of kick starting the economy after World War 2. Not without opposition, the author of the “Urban Revolution” (1907) Lefebvre, says that Urbanization is no longer a poster child for industrialization and the overall growth and well-being of a city, and those who occupy it; He says that Capitol is now the deciding factor of Urbanization, and money is the guide of what’s best for a city. Personally, I agree with both of these points of view. At the same time, I can see a major shift in the way cities are being conducted, it seems exactly as Lefebvre states, but is this because profit hungry millionaires run the city? Or could it be the fact that attendance at both the voting poles, and town meetings fell to an all-time low? Lefebvre says “Extraordinary Passivity of the people most directly involved” are the influencers of what happens in their own city. With this in mind Harvey says, “A select few do the imagining and designing. ”

I think it’s a combination of both ideas. Voicing your opinions and voting are a crucial responsibility of the public, but the “Selected Few” in positions of power will only listen to so many opinions of those who populate the area; I also think this is why voting and public appearance has fallen so low, people think “My voice doesn’t matter, so why try?”Towards the end of the article Alessandro discusses different policy’s that have been put into place to defend the basic rights of those who make up a city. The reading than shifts with an exert from Max Webbers “The City. ” In this Webber calls out the common misrepresentation of a city being a diverse group of people living together, and states a city isn’t all freedom and harmony, it’s an arena of conflict, with different classes struggling. Busà than comes to the rescue with a solution to these problems defined by Max, called the “Desired City. ” In this city the individuals of the population need to use the land how they see fit, and then sell it back to one another through active participation and negotiation. It’s also said that the people that decide these factors need to be a diverse and have an equal say. This idea reminded me of Jargowsky, his solution sounds like a great idea on paper but it’s not very tangible.

On one branch of this article there was a link to “The right to the city VS Bridging the Urban Divide” by Tom Angotti. Tom says that there is a distinct difference between division, and inequality in the city, which I agree with. Division is said to be normal, people will always divide from one another into sections where they feel they are at home, or comfortable. Inequality is what’s destroying us, and Angotti says that the issue begins when division becomes about a person’s social or economic status. Tom elaborates, saying that the problem can’t be solved with urban planning, but with a change in urban policy while keeping in mind the struggles of those who live in places such as slums. Angotti states his main point, “Many communities throughout the world have been self-built, without the intervention of urban planners and architects; This should be the starting point for planning and development. ” But would allowing people in the U. S to have more power over the planning that goes on in their own city be beneficial? I think that this is a great idea, but it would indefinitely ignite a new conflict for the public, as well as for the city. Giving the people more of a voice in the city’s plans is a good idea, but there would need to be limits in place as to what the public can and can’t decide.

My final thoughts on these editorials written by the separate authors is split. As I begin to read I agree with the initial statements put forward about the common economic problems in the U. S. However, I feel that my connection drifts from author as they offer a resolution. This stems from the fact that I believe it is all too easy for one to give a solution to a problem on paper; Yet the majority of the time, these solutions don’t consider every moving part of the issue, causing them to be unrealistic in some way.