Homeless should not be allowed to set up “shanty towns” anywhere they please. There is no debating that not all homeless are angels, many are in their current position because of lifes of crime, and drug abuse. Homeless coming into our neighborhood and setting up camp is mainly unacceptable for that reason, crime rates, and drugs. Next I personally along with many of my fellow neighbors believe the “shanty town” in our community is an eye sore. Torren up tarps, makeshift lean to’s, and homeless people legs sticking out of the bottom of boxes is ugly, and unsanitary. In our specific case this “shanty town” is set up in the neighborhood park. I don’t wish to send my children there anylonger as I used to love to let them hang out there. As
Gentrification has been a controversial issue both in urban planning and politics primarily due to the displacement of poor people by the rich folks (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Many individuals have viewed gentrification as an illegal act that should be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, another group of people believe that gentrification is the way forward to promoting growth and development. With such contrasting ideas, this paper is going to take a look at gentrification from a positive and negative perspective, its effects, and how it can be prevented or contained. Apart from this, the paper will also address the following questions.
According to Newman (2008), housing of the poor has to allow for economic independence and self-care while providing a safe and adequate place to live. The debate about decent housing alone is sufficient to provide a healthier living environment has its roots in the late 1920s, when the unhealthy environment of the slums was associated with numerous social ills. The hands-on approach of the housing and social service agencies was
Rapid urbanisation has caused a variety of problems, including transport congestion, lack of sufficient homes and living conditions, sanitary and health care issues, and crime. For all these problems, city planners have attempted potential solutions, each with varying degrees of success. Cities including London, Manila and Mumbai have several of the aforementioned problems, and have each tried their own potential solutions. This essay will discuss how successful these schemes have been in resolving these issues.
Presently, low-income occupiers are in deeper poverty because of the dislodgment caused by gentrification. Furthermore, a lack of resources plagues low-incomes families and forces them into shelters. Current actions taken by city officials are a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, by including more voices in urbanization of cities in the future, the advancement of cities can include all members rather than just the wealthy.
“Gentrification” captures class disparities and injustices created by capitalist urban land markets and policies. This in turn can cause an increasing house expense encumbrance for low-income and working-class households, and the associated personal catastrophes of displacement, removal, and homelessness, are symptoms of a set of institutional arrangements (private property rights and a free market) that support the creation of urban environments to serve the needs of capital accumulation at the expense of the social needs of home, community, family. Displacement from home and neighbourhood can be a shattering experience. At worst it leads to homelessness, at best it impairs a sense of community. Public policy should, by general agreement,
Gentrification is the term used for the process of renewal and rebuilding of an existing urban district, accompanied by the arrival of wealthier people, an increase in rents and property values, and the transformation of an urban district's character and culture. It is a term often used negatively because of it's suggested displacement of poorer communities by affluent outsiders. It is also seen by proponents as an urban planning strategy because it is meant to minimize the growth of urban slums and revitalize crime-ridden, poorer communities. This is not always the case when gentrification harms the low-income populations by exacerbating affordable housing problems, destroying long-standing social ties, and re-segregating the urban housing
These improved housing will increase the neighborhood and property value, increase social mixed, reduce crime rate, and reduce vacancy rates. While the superficial key of gentrification is the upgrade of housing, there is actually other great benefits that gentrification bring to the neighborhoods. In terms of symbolic implications for urban change, gentrification is the urban changes and improvement which also redevelop the area’s image. Fancy restaurants, high-priced boutiques and shops, high houses’ values, and fancy house have changed the neighborhood's image or symbol from a rural neighborhood (before gentrification) to a high-class neighborhood (after gentrification). Gentrification has certainly restructure the economic of one’s neighborhood by bringing up new standard in consumption. The decrease in crime rates and increase in property value can stabilize the previously struggling neighborhood, restoring interest in the inner city life as a residential. These changes are able to encourage other forms of development of the area that promote the economic
Gentrification has its pros and its cons. Gentrification promotes community well-being, but also promotes displacement of the lower classes and inequality through this displacement. Purchasing these low-cost properties and turning them into high-class communities minus the gates promotes social and racial inequality. The process of gentrification motivates the economy, but the cost of displacement is much higher to the displaced citizens. The cost of displacement is burdensome to the already lower class of citizens being displaced.
Gentrification is the result of renewing or rebuilding in urban neighborhoods , which has become a common controversial topic in urban planning. As the rise of gentrification increases basic upgrades such as sanitation and safety requirements are being put in the environment. Two distinct articles contemplate on the idea of gentrification are, The Independent’s “Artisan cafes and luxury flats: How bad can gentrification really be?” by Kashmira Gander from the June 2, 2016 and CNN News’ “American Opportunity: How gentrification may benefit the poor” by Patrick Gillespie from the November 12, 2015. Gander interprets gentrification does not improve the economy but affects the wellbeing of owners to be displaced and in greater terms lose their job and become homeless whilst in contrast Gillespie focuses on the benefits and the greater opportunities for the proletariat. Both articles differ on the topic between gentrification.
Mike Davis, author of Planet of Slums, predicts the direction in which the world’s cities are headed, and how the changes in living conditions are only going to deteriorate if certain trends continue. The title of his book explains Davis’s vision for the future of cities as he feels there is enough evidence pointing towards an exponential rise in slum populations across the world’s largest cities. Additionally, he expresses his opinion on many issues regarding the rapid rise in developing cities’ slum populations, although he offers very one-sided arguments geared towards those who feel the current system is causing more problems rather than improving current conditions. This causes Davis to overlook the problems of slums as resolvable through different modes of assistance such as international aid programs. Instead, he views aid programs as the root cause of imbalance created during industrialization. Throughout the book, Davis presents information that confirms his preconceptions towards the slums. Therefore, all the evidence that is presented by him portrays confirmation bias as Davis fails to mention anything about the resolution of the problem of the growing number of slums and instead sees this problem as unavoidable. Particularly, Davis’ writing, although intended for the general population, is more geared towards critics who have similar ideas. Instead of providing the means through which the economy could be improved and the problem of slums could be resolved, it is
In Slumming by Chad Heap the author describes the true reality of slumming, and how it was more wide spread than what it appear just in the surface. Heap defines slumming, as he concentrate on cities like Chicago and New York, that were provide with entertainment. This entertainment would come from immigrants, blacks, gays and bohemians during a period of large scale immigration in this cities. The author explains in detail the culture of slumming, as well as how it helps to produce the sex/gender/racial system. Heap also argues how the different participants in slumming affect one another. The impact between the different interactions among different races, classes and gender was as well discussed in detail by the author. Finally Heap
I think that the idea of moving the slums is a very bad idea because all that you are doing is moving the same problems just to somewhere different.
Due to the progressive development of human societies, their ecological and environmental influence has been steadily increasing. The spatial expansion and higher population and housing density of cities with its multiplier effect on land use and land cover change (LUCC) have been recognized as the most important aspects of cities climate change which is triggered by the need for urban services provision for the influx of human population. The shortages of housing in particular, and other urban services provision is the fundamental cause and effects of development of illegal and informal settlements. With analysis from empirical study in Eldoret town, the study discusses the need for urban land regularization as a requisite to combat the driving forces for formation of informal settlements and its impacts on cities climate. After presenting a series of concepts and definitions related to urban land informality and illegality, standardization and tenure security from the literature, we then discuss the data methods for the study. A detail of the research results focusing on the nature and the impacts of informal and illegal settlement in both the city centre and the hinterlands using the UN-Habitat Slum indicators is presented. We conclude on implication cities’ climate change dynamics
Most urban poor live in various part of slums settlements and work in the informal sector . The location of the poor to resettlement takes them far from area of economic activity in the city, accordingly making it impossible Domestic Workers: Conditions, Rights and Responsibilities for them to try and gain reasonable employment. In this setting, it has been all around reported that the procedure of movement and removal has driven to issues of maintained access to work, instruction, fundamental administrations and medicinal services where women endure the most. Building a house in the resettlement area takes up a huge part of the family 's income . Even they work after migration, living on the migration of the city implies