Controlling Chaos

Through a multitude of significant changes physically, conceptually, economically, and more, the societal reformation of cities in the Progressive Era had set themselves as the foundations of American civilization. The juxtaposition between the rich and poor statuses in these urban areas show the drastic separation within developing cities. Through this division caused a wide variety of living conditions, the majority of which held the overcrowded sections of cities where the population mostly stayed while the higher end communities had more luxurious lives. Through this success of entrepreneurship and economic growth from all aspects in cities, the entire landscape, both physically through innovative architecture and the perspectives outside rural and suburban areas had on them, had transformed for the better in these areas.

From 1890 to 1920, cities in the United States experienced a rapid growth that was unprecedented in years previous. This growth was caused by a number of factors and resulted in both positive and negative consequences. Such factors included, industrialization, technological advances, migration and immigration. Although American cities greatly improved by the expeditious urbanization, these factors also developed numerous challenges including pollution, sanitation problems, a need for environmental reform, political corruption, overcrowding, high crime rates and segregation.

In “New Axioms for Reading the Landscape: Paying Attention to Political Economy and Social Justice,” Don Mitchell incorporates old ideas from Peirce F. Lewis’s original “Axioms for Reading the Landscape.” At the same time, Mitchell includes new ideas into his axioms. In Axiom 1, he explains that “the landscape is not produced through ‘our unwitting autobiography’ (as Lewis describes it), but as an act of (social, not individual) will” (2007, 34). He also stresses the idea that landscape should be produced as a commodity. In contrast, Neil Smith explains the main causes behind gentrification. Smith explains how gentrification happens through a process which he calls “rent gap” (1979, 545). In gentrification, the landscape is a commodity because it loses and gains monetary value through disinvestment and investment.

Its population increased by 48% within few years. The expansion of cities resulted in destroying unbuilt and farm lands to further the constructions. Landowners with land interfering with “planned residential communities” were forced to give up their lands and see them destroyed. As the author states, families such as Warnes were forced to see their family lands bought and built. Even though such intact lands are rare in the area and beneficial to the population as somewhere to connect with nature, entrepreneurs prefer the economical profit. The suburbs expand and with every new family moving in the area, more cars are purchased adding to the gridlock.

In the constantly changing economy of cities, the growth of city housing is oftentimes neglected. In “Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by Gentrification” Timothy Williams recounts how gentrification has evolved over the years. Mentioning how cities have changed in order to appease the younger professionals, Williams shows how the city itself is in jeopardy due to the tax increases. Slowly loosing their faithful residents as well as historic culture cities face a big deal. Williams gives quotes from faithful residents, “…long time homeowners are victims of the success story”, (Williams 346). In “Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by Gentrification”, Williams uses his credible quotes and modern statistics to generate the reader’s emotions, with desire to change how city officials go about gentrification in culturally infused cities.

Imagine the home you lived in for decades, being knocked down for a football stadium, shopping center, or new housing. That is gentrification. Webster’s dictionary defines gentrification as “the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste” (“Gentrification”). Gentrification is not a new subject, as it has been occurring for centuries, dating back to medieval times, constructing forts over villages. Today, gentrification typically occurs in urban settings where buildings are vacant, and most of the residents live in poverty. Gentrification can destroy families, communities, and history. This topic is often at the center of debate for politics and town gossip, as developers are disrupting the current residents that reside in the vicinity. Gentrification occurs all around us, having pros and cons for each project. How is it ethical to kick individuals out of their home, and community for another’s benefit? Questions arise as the development and takeover of land often displaces individuals, their entire families, and livelihood. Temple University is a prime example of gentrification as well as other wealthy organizations, including football teams from the National Football League. The practice of gentrification comes to symbolize the new development and demolition of individual’s lives while trying to benefit the parties involved.

The project was unable to obtain investments and its plans were abandoned in the end. The promises of new jobs and an increased tax revenue were all forsaken. Today, the property that was once a neighborhood for families, is a vacant property with no beneficial purpose to the community that it was meant to serve. American’s view of eminent domain, because of the Susette Kelo case, have changed dramatically since seeing the results from the economic project in New London. More Americans believe that eminent domain should only be exercised in the case of benefiting the public and not for the purpose of advancing economic activities of private parties. The case of Kelp V. New London explains how important it is as public administrators to view and interpret policies to make better decisions on how the process of implementation can better serve the needs of society for the greater

Eminent domain disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. For example, in San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by minorities, even though only 30 percent of businesses are owned by minorities. These groups are disproportionately affected because they are easy political and economic targets. Condemnations in minority or elderly neighborhoods are often easier because they are less likely or able to resist. Areas with low property values are targeted because they cost less and the State gains financially when they replace areas with low property values with higher values. / / When an area is taken for "economic development," the

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), building a parking lot will increase the quantity and rate of storm-water flow from the property, thus keeping the floodplain free from the development would likely confine the pressures on Fanno Creek created by the new development. However, this was not enough for the city; the city wanted the land for itself. According to Justice Rhenquist, “the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in *396 support of the dedication it asks for” (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 5). San Jose’s law does not solve the issue of increasing low-income housing, but instead harms entrepreneurs. The City of San Jose has made no effort to meet its burden to show that developers of new homes are somehow responsible for the astronomical prices of housing in the city. The law is an impediment to growth, an interference with the free market and an exceedingly expensive cost-per-unit way of integrating lower incomes into high land-value

This, in effect, creates a miniature city of itself, with businesses, homes, schools, libraries, police stations, and hospitals all building there (Morris 39). This may seem like a good thing, but the consequences of this are that huge amounts of previously free land are now being taken over, and many habitats are being destroyed. Forests, swamps, and fields all make way for big businesses.

People always wonder why the City of Angels is different from other cities. This paper will answer this question and explain the uniqueness that makes L.A., “L.A.” Los Angeles, since its birth as an embryonic city, has become one of the most diverse metropolises, offering to the public what no other city can. This paper will emphasize the relationship between the federal government and the western United States. It will also illustrate how capitalism has flourished because of the prevalent 19th century Laissez Faire ideology. It will describe how the free market prevailed and expanded Los Angeles outward, while cultivating new public institutions and private enterprises.

Gentrification is a planned or unplanned process where wealthy individuals "displace" poor individuals from their areas of living by purchasing the property and later upgrading it through modernization and renovation (Brown-Saracino, 2013). Ruth Glass coined the term Gentrification in her book London: Aspects of Change in reference to the influx of wealthy individuals to poorly inhabited areas in central London in 1964 (Brown-Saracino, 2013). These rich individuals were referred to as “gentry” hence the term gentrification.

Los Angeles was the first product off the assembly line of American urban planning. Turned on in the late 19th century, the city-making machine was fueled by an immense immigration of people who sought to create a new type of city out of the previously quaint pueblo. They also strove to craft the first major city developed primarily by Americans and outside of European archetypes. As a result, Los Angles is not only incredibly diverse, but also nearly impossible to define. Since it is a product of the American machine, understanding the community of Los Angeles becomes vital to understanding the United States. But to fully comprehend the present Los Angeles, one must look at the process that created it. Specifically, Los Angeles was

Burgess’s concentric zone theory was presented in 1924. He presented a descriptive urban land use model that divided cities in a set of concentric circles expanding from downtown to the suburbs. His representation came from Burgess’ observations of various American cities, especially Chicago. Burgess model assumes a relationship between the socio-economic status of households and the distance from the Central Business District. The further from the district, the better the quality of housing, but the longer the commuting time. Making this Accessing better housing is done at the expense of longer commuting times and costs as well. According to Burgess, urban growth is a process of expansion and reconversion of land uses, with a tendency of each inner zone to expand in the outer zone. According to Burgess’ theory, a large city is divided in six concentric zones, Burgess’s model has its cons according to critics. It is said to be a product of its time. That is, it won’t work the same with present cities. The model was developed when American cities were growing very fast and when motorized transportation was still uncommon as most people used public transit. Thus the concept cannot be applied to those from the second half to the twentieth century where highways have enabled urban development to escape the reconversion process and to take place directly in the suburbs. The model in this case was developed for American cities and is limited elsewhere.

An emerging issue is that of urban sprawl. While some aspects of urban sprawl has been seen since ancient times, this phenomenon has started gaining the most momentum in the past century, aided by the advancement of technology, especially with the rise of mass produced automobiles, houses and highway systems. Many people unknowingly contribute to this environmental problem, as is the nature of it. Urban sprawl deals with the growth of the suburbs, the area between the urban and rural areas of a city. Most of America’s largest cities and states, in terms of population, are prime examples of urban sprawl. Opponents of urban sprawl usually cite the government as a major cause of sprawl. The government may be a major catalyst of