Marina Vs Ostia

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.

The distribution of Government lands had been an issue since the Revolutionary War. Early methods for allocating unsettled land outside the

Both the European Americans and the American Indians have opposing views on the topic of land. European Americans believe that they have a right to own property and that God gave them that right. Although, the American Indians believe that no one has a right to own, sell, or buy land and that it came as a sacred gift from the Great Spirit. Wars and battles and been fought over these ideas of land. Was it really worth

Geographic differences include physical and human characteristics of a society. This includes where the civilization is located, and the specific features of each landscape. In “Of Cannibals”, “the situation of their country is along the sea-shore, enclosed on the other side towards the land, with great and high mountains, having about a hundred leagues in breadth between.” (Montaigne 3). Similarly, Utopia’s ideal society is also by the ocean but it is a crescent island, that is naturally protected by rocks that surround the island (More 49). While these locations may seem to offer similar advantages, More’s island is specifically different because the maze of rocks that surrounds it. The reasoning behind this is to have the entrance to the island be a secret between the citizens. The added protection is a geographic difference that originates from cultural order.

I think it can be the next consideration to think about the land development because human comfort is important for people to live.

Land was a common resource village leaders could assign to families to live on but not to own. Indians believed that the land was common to everyone and can’t be sold because it doesn’t belong to anyone. Black Hawk, a leader of the Sauk Tribe, said, “The Great Spirit gave it to his children to live upon and cultivate as far as necessary for their subsistence, and so long as they occupy and cultivate it they have the right to the soil”.

Throughout history, nations and tribes often came in conflict with each other over areas of land containing resources or other important. It was important for the survival of a group to protect resources and reserve them for their own people. Native american tribes had a different concept of property from Europeans when they first arrived. While the idea of ownership of land was a foreign idea, tribes still fought over hunting grounds for their food. Holding land solely for the group means a better chance of survival and therefore, has been a priority in the history of group vs. group competition. Since having land means that resources for living are secure, it provides a sense of safety for the

What this is saying is the relationship the people have with the land, and how they treat it will impact the future. In the article by

Despite the vast differences in the ways that European and American cities were designed and shaped, their unique characteristics reflect the distinctive circumstances in which they were created in both political and socio-economic realms. Furthermore, although each continent has a distinct urban origin, it is crucial to point out that it was Romulus' undertakings that lead to the existence of the western democracy and its importance in the shaping of the cities that exist

hard for people to buy their own land, which is why it was only a

The public land was generally to be used

Early European settlers gave them the land and told them that this is your small piece of land, do whatever you want with it, and run your towns however you want. However companies come in now days and just start developing on this land. The reason for this is money. An example of such a company is Dakota Access, LLC (energytransfer.com).

“Cities are not approached simply as forums for economic and political confrontations but as places rich with meaning and value for those who live, work, and play in and near them” (Borer 2006). People assign characteristics and personality to cities. These traits are assumed to be as permanent and concrete as the physical city (Borer 2010). However, like the characteristics of a person’s identity may change over time, the identity of places is fluid and dynamic (Borer

Many downtowns first emerged as a distinctive place due to elite residents with homes in the area, which served as meeting places for important business transactions. By the late 19th century downtowns had typically been laid out with designated business blocks (Ford 2003). The growth of the business block as an economic center and booming downtown forced out any competition that were not appropriate with “high rents, social pressure and architectural change” (Ford 2003, pp 45). This was the origin of the spatial structure and land use patterns that are associated with contemporary downtowns. The origin of the town structure is most commonly affiliated with European cities as models of spatial layout. Specialty business and retail districts that characterized American downtowns and what we now image a good downtown to be are directly linked to it European counterpart. The key characteristic that defer from the European model was the tendency for American cities to be street-oriented rather then place-oriented. This contributed to the more linear structure of the city, business pursued locations on the “main street” rather then near major plazas or religious buildings (Robertson 1997).

Space that is documented and utilized by humans, whether directly or indirectly, takes on a basic level of social utility and cultural construction. As Elias Canetti would suggest, the prospect of touch carries with it the risk of being taken and subsequently assimilated or digested (1). The predecessors to the first great urban parks in the United States, namely country estates, cemeteries, and town squares or plazas, all contribute some aesthetic and related ideological basis for a newly emerging discourse of urban parks. Parks were seen as the “poor-man’s countryside,” in reference to the country estates of the wealthy. Also, cemeteries were the first naturalistic open spaces consistently built within urban boundaries. The idea of the commons and town square is perhaps the most telling predecessor of the city park.