The problem we have across the United States is we’ve been given a false choice for the future of our cities. We’ve been told that our cities are one of two things: the failing bankrupt, crime-ridden cities of the 1970s, or the bourgeois, gentrified cities of more recent history. And that’s our choice. If we want a tax base, then we need chain stores and gentrification. Otherwise, we have no tax base and cities become a horror story. — WHYY
On March 11, architect Vishaan Chakrabarti presented a virtual panel for the Industry Intersections: Art, Design + Development, hosted by the Arts + Business Council in Philadelphia. Along with guest panelists, Lindsey Scannapieco (co-founder of Scout), Sven Schroeter (Director of Interior Architecture at KSS Architects), and Rachel Zimmerman (Executive Director of InLiquid) where the connection between design, real estate, and economic recovery for Philadelphia's creative community are discussed. Before Chakrabarti's virtual panel, he spoke with WHYY's PlanPhilly, Ariella Cohen.
During their discussion, he explained his "faith in density," city growth and renewal post-pandemic, and his confidence in Schuylkill Yards. Regarding the 'false choice' of cities and Philadelphia, he correlates it to the "full-scale withdrawal of the federal government from urban policy and public housing [...] cities don't have the wherewithal to resist the pressures of gentrification" without support from Washington.
![Bracket [takes action]: submissions selected and new website launches!](https://archinect.gumlet.io/uploads/05/05kznvyyjy1lqoiq.jpg?fit=crop&auto=compress%2Cformat&enlarge=true&w=248&h=147 "Bracket [takes action]: submissions selected and new website launches!")
10 Comments
Our culture is starving for informed architecture & urban design history. If we understood how the New Deal federal government designed single fam housing to decentralize the city, raise living standards and create middle class wealth investment devices after the depression -- which were taken advantage of by WASP families during segregation -- we can see how that investment continues to warp American urbanism. It's no surprise that these urban dwellers, holding abandoned communities together for generations, resent the suburbanites coming back to put their capital into new condos and push out the same people they abandoned years ago.
People talk about "equity" and "reparations" but turn around and spew developer talking points about "affordable housing" which you need a lottery to be a 2k a month rent slave. How about giving people equity in the communities they already live in? This sounds like the rich just trying to make a quick buck on rent slaves, not offering the community real equity in the projects. The few owners of these dense buildings, who live in the burbs, always get rich at the expense of everyone else.
That said, most of the people who invested and stayed in the city sold out and left long ago, but there are still a few. There are so many minority owners that played the long game and are making good money now with the urban return. But the majority of urban dwellers have no mechanism to invest in their city, and have no choice but to give their high rents away to the landlord-developer complex. That's what the bully urbanists don't want to fix.
PAU works for the developer. The man is literally speaking for his client under the guise of a scholar.
If there were any credible media left, they would be criticizing instead of getting in bed with these developers. Guess who is paying the NYT ad bills? Who pays for the startups run by their journalists? Somewhere journalism became a racket not a real profession.
Well, PAU has also found itself an incredibly lucrative niche as an urban visionary of sorts - the type that gets to sit on the shoulders of mayors and planners. That, despite the bland designs of the buildings themselves.
The future will be decentralized. Whoever does not see this is living in the past, and will be one day regarded as the architectural conservatives of this era.
In fact, I’ve argued for about 15 years that we are in the early stages of the decentralization revolution. Urban form emerges from technological and economic trends. This is exactly the reason why people are having to force density through inorganic means- politics and policy. The remaining demand for density and centralized urbanism is almost entirely lifestyle driven, which is why it’s become so expensive and sterile. The commodification of the city has moved from a focus on utility to one of luxury.
um, people use policy and politics to prevent dense development. this is entirely the purpose of FAR and building envelope restrictions! an open market-based approach to development would yield much greater density in most major cities. not saying that's entirely what everyone wants, but it certainly would be what city center landowners and developers want.
Yes, but it’s lifestyle driven.
Agree. People flock to big cities for the opportunities (Professional, personal, and whatnot) and leave when they can no longer afford to live there. Urbanization is one of the most universal trends in countries worldwide in the past few decades, especially in the developing world. The US has been through this stage and thanks to the freedom to move within its borders and the vast lands it enjoys, suburbanization has ensued.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.