RACE, SPACE, and PLACE: the RELATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL MODERNISM, POST-MODERNISM, URBAN PLANNING, and GENTRIFICATION Keith A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RACE, SPACE, AND PLACE: THE RELATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURAL MODERNISM, POST-MODERNISM, URBAN PLANNING, AND GENTRIFICATION Keith Aoki * [Cite as: 20 Fordham Urb. L.J. 699 (1993)] Introduction Gentrification in United States urban housing markets of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s continues to be a controversial and complex phenomenon. [FN1] During the past twenty years, gentrification's effects on the core cities of the U.S. have been analyzed and evaluated many times over. [FN2] Descriptions of gentrification have spanned the ideological *700 spectrum, from laudatory embraces of gentrification as the solution to urban decline to denunciatory critiques of gentrification as another symptom of the widening gulf between the haves and the have- nots in America. [FN3] This Article critiques gentrification, adding an additional explanatory element to the ongoing account of the dynamics of American cities in the 1990s. The additional element is the relevance of a major aesthetic realignment in architecture and urban planning from a modernist to a post-modernist ideology in the 1970s and 1980s. This shift involved an aesthetic and economic revaluation of historical elements in older central city buildings, which accelerated the rate of gentrification, displacement, and abandonment. This Article describes how certain shifts in the aesthetic ideology [FN4] of urban planners and architects affected suburban and urban spatial distribution in the United States during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These ideological shifts arose from deeply embedded American attitudes toward city and rural life that had emerged in American town planning and architectural theory and practice by the mid-nineteenth century. Part I of this Article examines the emergence of an anti-urban Arcadian strand in nineteenth century American town planning rhetoric. [FN5] This anti-urban Arcadian strand was one of many factors behind the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century expansion of the suburbs beyond the urban core. Part II traces the parallel rise of a utilitarian efficiency-based *701 strand [FN6] in urban planning, examining the impact of new early twentieth century technological and engineering developments, such as automobiles, highways, electricity, and skyscrapers, on U.S. urban and suburban spatial distribution. Ironically, these new developments combined with the anti-urban Arcadian strand of American town planning to begin producing spatial distributions which were strictly segregated along economic, social, cultural, and racial lines. Part III examines the role of the massive and continuous twentieth century northward migration of displaced southern black agricultural workers as yet another factor with major consequences on spatial arrangements in U.S. urban and suburban areas. The pervasive rise of various land use controls, zoning, and urban renewal programs exemplifies the response of both suburban and urban planners to this steady northward migration. Zoning and urban renewal became vehicles for maintaining homogeneity in the face of strong countervailing social pressures for change. Both were premised on deep-rooted, value-laden nineteenth century assumptions, which favored the Arcadian ideal, as embodied by the single family suburban house, over urban pathology. Part IV discusses the paradoxical synthesis of the Arcadian and utilitarian strands in the theory and practice of twentieth century architectural modernism. The widespread effects of the adoption of modernism as the "official style" of the midcentury bureaucratic/corporate state is also discussed in this Section. [FN7] Part IV also discusses the concomitant rise of the post-World War II suburban tracts, insofar as their rise represented a synthesis of the Arcadian and the utilitarian approaches. Additionally, the effects of massive government interventions in post war housing markets are discussed. These interventions were partially based on implicit, but powerful, assumptions *702 by planners and bureaucrats, [FN8] which privileged the semi-pastoral ideology of the middle-class suburban tract house over what had come to be perceived as the dangerous urban pathology of the core cities. These simultaneous and sometimes contradictory trends produced pervasive homogeneity and segregation on virtually all levels of the urban and suburban environment. Part V describes and critiques the "filtering theory" of housing markets. Often embraced by conservatives as an apology for the lack of support for new construction of low-income housing, filtering theory rationalizes why new construction on the high-end of the housing ladder improves housing conditions for those at the bottom of the housing ladder. This Article argues that once the extreme simplifying assumptions of the traditional filtering model are relaxed in ways reflecting the operation of actual housing markets, the filtering model breaks down. After critiquing the filtering model, Part V analyzes and articulates multicausal micro- and macro-factors [FN9] contributing to the distortions in the urban housing markets of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. These distortions have manifested themselves in a wave of rampant abandonment, speculation, gentrification, displacement, and homelessness. Part V also analyzes gentrification from a new perspective by considering the rise of a major ideological shift in urban planning and architectural thought in the late 1960s. This movement, represented in part by architectural post- modernism, provides an additional explanatory variable augmenting conventional gentrification analysis. [FN10] *703 This shift toward post-modernism in the 1970s and 1980s fostered a major aesthetic and economic revaluation of urban spaces and buildings, which prior to the 1970s had been considered as unsightly, unmodern urban blight. Once these formerly-disdained urban spaces could be seen as being imbued with postmodern "ambiance," planners, architects, investors, and developers began marketing and renovating such revalued spaces for the taste of upscale young "baby boom" buyers, eager to return to the same core city that many of their forbearers had fled a generation or two earlier. This Article concludes by critiquing the post-modernism embrace of a facile and ironic historic ambiance as well as its abdication of social responsibility for the effects of urban design and planning on the buildings, neighborhoods, cities, and regions that affect our living environment. I. Strands of Modern Town Planning (1890 - 1940) The professionalization of the field of architecture during the middle to late nineteenth century was a major trend affecting the consciousness of nineteenth century American town planners. [FN11] The American Institute of Architects (AIA), founded in 1857 in New York City, was thefirst national professional architectural organization. Its establishment engendered a significant change in the meaning of the word "architect," which in early nineteenth century America usually referred to a generalist "builder." Following the founding of the AIA, however, the word became synonymous with "design specialist." Virtually overnight, the architect became a professional with esoteric skills, a licensed monopoly, elevated occupational status and a professional lobby. [FN12] Thereafter, the formerly integral "building" profession conceptionally divided itself into "architecture" and "civil engineering," a split setting "aesthetics" apart from "utility" as if they were unrelated concepts. [FN13] This cleavage was *704 reflected in the subsequent emergence of a "high" discourse of professional architects concerned with aesthetics, and a "low" discourse of builders and developers. Ideas passed infrequently between the "high" and "low" discourses, and those that did were either misinterpreted or distorted. Concerns about middle- and low-income housing, for example, were relegated to the profit-driven realm of land developers and were generally ignored in "high" architectural discourse. As architecture assumed exclusive aesthetic jurisdiction over housing design in the late nineteenth century, the new class of professionals turned their attention to the mainstream City Beautiful movement, responsibility was generally shunned for the social consequences of formal design schemes. [FN14] Problems of housing the poor did not readily fit into the professional ideologies of mainstream nineteenth century architects and were thus largely ignored. [FN15] Late nineteenth century architects channeled what concerns they might have had about housing the poor into political support of housing reform movements lobbying for legislative change. [FN16] These architects did not see themselves as being in the business of elaborating design innovations that directly addressed social problems. [FN17] Little professional architectural attention was given, for example, to the problems of tenement construction. The professional assessment that low-income housing construction was not worth the attention, economic or aesthetic, of nineteenth century mainstream *705 architecture left the planning and design of tenement housing by default in the builders' jurisdiction. Nineteenth century builders, who received little or no guidance or control from state or municipal authorities, were driven by the economic need to maximize tenement profitability. [FN18] They achieved their objectives by packing building lots to 90 percent site coverage, [FN19] a practice leading to smothering densities and obscene overcrowding in mid- to late-nineteenth century