Currently, Melbourne’s municipal government is working hard on achieving zero emissions for the down town core. Though there are certainly critics of this effort, it seems to enjoy overwhelming support from both citizens of Melbourne and those who champion cleaner technology and reducing our carbon footprint. In many ways, Melbourne is a trailblazer for clean technology and that’s very apparent with efforts to refurbish existing infrastructure to meet a higher and more efficient standard. But what falls to the wayside in the wake of such advances? Studies in recent years have ranked Melbourne 321st most affordable city to live out of 325 cities that were examined. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey called Melbourne “severely unaffordable” in 2011 and according to government statistics, Melbourne’s rental vacancy rate was 1.3 per cent in 2010 while only 1% would be considered affordable for low-income earners. So what does this say about Melbourne? Of course, it can be argued that housing costs can be tied into a larger real estate shortage in Australia, but should it not be a priority for local officials to make Melbourne an affordable place to live even for its most vulnerable citizens? The answer in my mind is simple: it should be, but it’s not. Though it’s easy to interpret this sustainable development movement in Melbourne as a genuine social and political statement, I would argue that these efforts are not much more than a façade and an attempt to attract business to the down town core while ignoring the needs of their citizens. Instead of making policy around attracting wealthier residents, why not try to improve life for the residents who already live in Melbourne?

That being said, encouraging economic growth is an essential part of maintaining a free-enterprise market in the city. However, if this trend continues there will undoubtedly be an exodus of middle to low-income earners to surrounding areas who will then have to make long commutes into the city. Also, it’s important that I clarify: I indeed applaud efforts towards sustainability, but not at the expense of expelling all but the well-to-do from the down town core–especially one so notable for its vibrant diversity.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-rental-pressure-cooker-20100402-rjvb.html#ixzz2mZthsY55

http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-rental-pressure-cooker-20100402-rjvb.html

In yesterday’s discourse, we only briefly discussed the financial aspects of Le Corbusier’s model city and what his expectations seemed to be for the socioeconomic affect these plans would have. Though it would be encouraging to believe that poverty, crime, and the squalor that ensues from them would dissipate with a change in physical environment–there are too many examples to dispute this claim. Further, just because your new home is nice upon your arrival, does not mean that it will remain that way and stay well maintained. Le Corbusier in “The City of To-morrow and its Planning” seems to infer that this model city would provide a stable and clean living condition for the entire population. However, the realities of a capitalist society (especially unregulated capitalism) would never allow for this sustainable and egalitarian-type environment.

As we see is the case with the development of cities like Paris and London during the 19th century, the only way that the standard of living is raised is through government regulation and intervention. Even though many would argue that business leaders have it in their best interest to have a healthy and prosperous work force, unfortunately this is simply not the case in the grand scheme. Therefore, we see time and time again, poverty being in direct correlation with the free market. With this in mind, even if it were possible to create a partnership between government and business to build such a city as Le Corbusier’s it would be even more unbelievable to permit the idea that changes in buildings and roads would have any affect on whether someone would have money or not. Existing still would be a system based on competition, and in competitions there are winners and losers.

Consider this: If you have a home with a tenant in a house who earns $100,000 a year and working less then take that same exact house and have a tenant who is working longer hours and earning $30,000 a year. You likely will see an incredible difference in upkeep, quality of life, security, and overall potential. Of course, there are indeed exceptions to this, but that is exactly the point. Le Corbusier does not consider the human elements involved with a capitalist society and what implications that has on every social class. It’s possible in a completely fascist or completely self sustaining communist state that you might be able to achieve his ideals, but seeing as how there is no perfect government, ruler, or society this status will remain. It is my belief that cities are a physical embodiment or reflection of our state of existence. So as long as things like individualism and greed are the priorities of the masses, our cities and standards of living for those in poverty will be a direct reflection of our priorities as a society.

“Fritz Lang’s vision of Metropolis”

Upon reflecting on Fritz Lang’s 1927 film “Metropolis” a couple of major themes resonated more than all others. The first being the dystopia vision of the future and the second: a sense of hope that circumstances can change. The characters in this film all play a role in conveying those themes. Joh Fredersen, the man at the helm of this Metropolis is an embodiment of the Bourgeoisie and his son Freder, is characterized as the mediator between him and the underground working class. Maria is the agent of change, whether it be change for the good, or when she is a robot, change for the worse. Though there are many things to dissect in this film, the most interesting element was this: the political change that this film forecasts.

When I think about the time frame for which this film was released in Germany I can’t help but think of the soon to come radicalism that overtook the nation through Nazi rule and the major focus that movement had on social change and hope for a better condition for the working class. Not unlike other nations, Germany’s work force in the early 20th century was dissatisfied to say the least with the working conditions and the living conditions that had grown out of control during the industrial transformation of Europe and with the major losses that had been sustained during WWI. This film was indeed meant for the masses, and very clearly was conveying not only a message of enlightenment but of radical social change. The German people of course, found refuge in a radical movement justified falsely in the name of these very notions. In fact, Joseph Goebbels was very impressed with the film along with other Nazi party members due to its social justice message.

Joseph Goebbels

This film in many ways gives a picture of what is to come politically during the 20th century in Europe and in the United States. Instead of a political Bourgeoisie in command of the government, a strong worker’s union movement would take place during this time. Even here in Canada, it is at this point in history, after WWI that we begin to see radical change take place politically in the form of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In the United States, this political transformation is through the Democratic Party and the New Deal efforts by the Roosevelt Administration.

The reason for pointing out this political shift is that because of this political shift in the early 20th century, we begin to see a change in how cities are planned and how poverty is dealt with. Cities, as we begin to see in the 1800’s are now more than ever, focused on addressing mass poverty and improving the circumstances of the proletariat. Of course, urban planning will follow suit around Europe as different governments take very different approaches to coping with widespread poverty.