The structures of the cities before the 1920s consisted of unflattering, slum-like structures that casted the cities in a bad light. They were not efficient to live and from the 1920s; changes had to be made. Of all the ways to renovate the cities, the one that stood out the most was building the city structures from the ground up.
According to Short, urban renewal needs to start from the ground up (Short, 299). The urbanization of the cities worldwide started to take effect from the 1940s to the 1970s. The main idea behind this urbanization was to transform the city from the traditional slum-like arrangement to the newly modern blocks with straight lines, this would transform the city making it look cleaner instead of the ragged look it had before (Short, 299). The reason behind rebuilding the cities from the ground up in an attempt to urbanize the same is that that the cities need to be built in tandem with the needs of the inhabitants instead of profit.
For a cleaner better looking city to be achieved, the old structures had to be destroyed to give space for the new skyscrapers and better motorways. There were other factors that led to the transformation of the cities. Big companies also bought into this idea since they believed that it would lead to higher profit margins due to benefits of centralization.
Since the presented models for the urbanized cities looked so appealing, other cities including Berlin, Moscow and Rome adopted the new urbanization plans. Companies like General Motors got involved with the makeover process and benefited greatly. The urbanization plans had the intention of transforming the cities from profit-making ventures to structures that fulfilled the needs of the people. Businesses wanted centrally located buildings so that they could manage their investment better.
The urban renewal was for the sole purpose of servicing the needs of the peoples in it. Taking a look at the people inhabiting the new cities, it is clear to see that the majority of the people comprise of the middle class of America. Moreover, it is not only the Americans that have adopted this stance; Britain is one of the cities that have a majority of the people being from the middle creative class. Also known as the Creative class (McGuigan, 311), they comprise of about 30 percent of the country's workforce. The income they get is reinvested in the country hence forming a sort of symbiotic relationship with the cities that they live in. Urban renewal is symbolic of the occupations of the people also. Considering the creative industry in Florida or other bigger economies, it is clear to see that this segment is becoming bigger as the cities are, employing a huge number of people and making the economy better and the cities better and bigger.
In the attempt to rebuild the cities from the ground up, the inhabitants of the cities being rebuilt are one of the core factors that must be put into consideration. The creative populations that make the bulk of the inhabitants that live within the city are vital in the transformation of the city. The most valuable thing that they bring to the table is their creativity. In the transformation, creativity is not a commodity with intrinsic value but is an economic resource (Szeman, 328). The rise of this class is symbolic and directly proportional to the growth of the urban cities.
Even with the modernization of the cities depending on the preferences of the creative class, it is important that the spending power of the creative class not be the only important factor in the transformation of the cities. This is because, developers developing the cities to tap into the pockets of the creative class, it means that the creative class is turned from the creative class into a mere consumer base (Piiparinen, 342). The transformation of the city needs to be focused on making the city more efficient instead of being profit based for the already wealthy.
Some cities have even started adopting this mantra. Cities like Philadelphia, Washington and Boston have changed from their ways of protecting those that will bring an income to the city and now they are making policies that favor those that have stayed in the cities even in the worst times (Williams, 345). A sense of balance is achieved in the cities by attracting the vibrancy of the newcomers and rewarding those that have stuck with the cities in the times of need.
Gentrification, a term that is used to reference displacement of the poor by the rich in an urban setting, is, usually, cast in a negative light. However, used correctly, it can be what the city needs to go the extra mile (Davidson, 349). During gentrification, policies are put in place whereby it becomes too expensive for the poor to live, leaving the wealthy to reside in the cities. One advantage of this is that the revenue collected can be used to make the cities better. The challenge lies in the fact that the balance has to be found where the both classes cohabit (Davidson, 349).
Works Cited
Mcguigan, Jim. "Doing a Florida thing." New York Magazine 12 Feb. 2014: 13-17. Print.
Piiperinen, Richey. "Gentrification and its Discontents." New York Magazine 23 Mar. 2011: 17-19. Print.
Williams, Timothy. "cities gather to help those threated by gentrification." New York Magazine 24 Feb. 2014: 345. Print.
Davidson, Justin. "Is Gentrification all bad." New York Magazine. 2 Feb 2014. Print
Szeman, Imre. "Neoliberals Dressed in Black: Or, The Traffic in Creativity." University of Alberta English Studies in Canada (March 2010): 15- 36. Print.
