Exploring_Political_&_Economic_Forces

It seems no matter what time or place that history is examined there is one aspect that has always been present, and that is, concentrated urban poverty. These are neighborhoods in which a high percentage of residents fall beneath the federally designated poverty lines. To develop a better understanding of what drives these wedges between the classes and communities, one must be able to recognize and comprehend political and economic forces that are driving a society's built environment. Identifying political and economic forces in urban life may creates a clear picture of discrimination and inequality within certain areas, and the factors that influenced the environment's social structures. This paper will explore two essays, “The Great Towns”, and, “Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space”. Though these essays were written during two very different periods and about two different countries, we will still find many similarities concerning social and economic inequalities amongst the classes. In “The Great Towns”, an excerpt from, The Conditions of the Working Class in England (1845), author Friedrich Engels brings attention to the living conditions of the working class people in some neighborhoods in England he observed during the nineteenth century, in comparison to an upper class society. Engels paints a bleak picture of the working poor and, as well, of the cottage industry and the bourgeoisie in the great towns, as he calls them, giving examples such as London, and Manchester. The working poor lived in deplorable conditions, without any planning for housing, shopping areas or public spaces, as opposed to that of the more privileged bourgeoisie. This higher class lived in spacious quarters, as far away as possible from the dirty quarters of the working poor, without being in contact with them or their public spaces. One of the main reasons for this contrast in classes was the built environment and the rapid growth of cities. Rural areas that once were a way for the working class to earn their livelihood were being taken over for the use of commercial agriculture by capitalists. In addition to deplorable living conditions, the working class were forced to work an unbelievable amount of hours without much of an alternative. “With a common workweek of sixty five or more hours, industrial workers were expected to work nearly every waking hour, six days a week.....imprisonment (for vagrancy) or starvation were the alternatives to joining the the workforce...” (Kleniewski, p.70). In an essay written by Mike Davis, titled “Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space” the author gives us a prime example of urban political economy perspective in California in the 1990's. Davis discusses the creation of “prison-like” inner cities, (he cites a number of movie examples of these inner cities to express a dystopian view) with an example of the history of the transformation of Los Angeles as an example of capitalism and industrial urbanization. Davis argues that downtown urban renaissance displaces thousands of poor, mainly Hispanics, to make room for the affluent and for the unionized heavy industry. This is a case, however, where according to this author, cultural renaissance hinders cultural diversity. Another issue, which Davis brings up, is the political economy of security and fear and of policing these inner cities that are sectionalized by architecture. The concentration of neighborhoods is blurred along racial and ethnic lines as new cultural sensibilities emerge—as a result of high tech development, businesses, erection of residential housing and large commercial centers. Davis probes the issues of class and space—Los Angeles an example of capitalism and urbanization, a metropolis of diverse—and sectionalized—interests of developers, dwellers, sectionalized by architecture. The architecture, as well, makes the upper class quarters and public spaces, look prohibitive to the poor by their appearance and security features. Examples are fortress-like malls, including a Hollywood library and other public buildings. Another example is the campaign to drive the homeless away from city parks and from areas that can be used for sleeping. The condition of the toilets for the homeless in downtown Los Angeles supports the authors argument that downtown has become unlivable for the homeless and the poor (page 159-161). Establishments were created, such as ”defensible” urban centers in Bunker Hill where the Latino and elderly homeless get to feel like the underclass. Furthermore, the city has ensured “their containment” by moving the “undesirables” to Skid Row, thereby removing them from the active life of the downtown. The city has become so inhospitable and unfriendly to the indigents that even restaurants follow in the city’s footsteps by protecting their trash from scavengers by building enclosures with padlocks . Engels describes for a us a very similar type of social segregation. Manchester is a potent example when the author says “The town itself is peculiarly built, so that a person may live in it for years, and go in and out daily without coming into contact with a working-people's quarters or even with workers…” (Engels, p.49). The way Manchester is built in order to shield working class dwellings from the eyes of the upper and middle bourgeoisie, who can enter the city and patronize the commercial side of the city without having to be in contact with the working class inhabitants of the city or ever pass by their living quarters. Over 350,000 workers, Engels reports, live in deplorable conditions. “In one of these courts there stands directly at the entrance, at the end of the covered passage, a privy without a door so dirty that the inhabitants can pass into and out of the court only by passing through foul pools of stagnant urine and excrement” (Engels, p.51). By examining the essays “Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space”, and “The Great Towns” we can see both authors speak of the plight of the poor working class (though in Davis’ case it is more of the poor) and of the impact of industrial urbanization and commercialism on these cities. Both essays explore a class warfare through architecture and social oppression of one class over another. Engels writes mostly of the power of capital and of the warfare between the working class or bourgeoisie and middle class—in Davis',“ Los Angeles” the capitalists are the mega developers and the warfare is no longer working class vs. middle class, but everyone against the working poor. In Davis’ case multiculturalism is openly encouraged where as that is not the case in Engels writing. Engels explains the separation through building in a certain way. In conclusion we can see that social and economic separation between the classes is, and has been prominent throughout history. After reading Mr. Davis' and Mr. Engels' essays it is impossible to ignore that the spatial segregation they both described was not done accidentally, but purposefully in order to separate and preserve the classes. I'm sure that the more attention we pay to our own communities, and the classes of people within them, the more aware we will become of the fact that spatial segregation still exists.