|
City Beautiful: For as long as
urban blight has been perceived as a problem, the beautification
of cities has been a policy concern. The perception of the
cities as "dirty," as well as the growing suburbanization
of America aided by the vast highway system, took a valuable
tax base out of urban centers. Left behind was a considerable
amount of urban blight in the forms of abandoned houses, lots,
and businesses. The historical City Beautiful movement was
meant to ameliorate such problems; creating an aesthetically
pleasing city would "inspire its inhabitants to moral
and civic virtue."
In fact, the ideology of the project was rooted in the belief
that beauty could shape human behavior. Residents might be
inspired, by the urban reform, to become more involved in
the community and act as part of the utopian ideal.
The principles of City Beautiful inspired the Beaux Arts movement,
a series of architectural pursuits to beautify downtowns (for
example, the St. Louis World's Fair, 1904). But while City
Beautiful did begin a range of neoclassical architecture thought
to inspire good civic values, it did little in terms of neighborhood
planning and affordable housing. Then, as now, the homeless
were regarded as blight, and aesthetics were held as the primary
goal.
But can aesthetics really change human behavior? Some
researchers suggest that visual statements, such as a newly
renovated house, have little impact on the rest of the neighborhood.
Jacobs, for example, argues that cities have no place being
artistic. Though her work did not specifically address individual
houses in an urban neighborhood, she was quick to criticize
aesthetic movements such as the Garden City and City Beautiful
as futile, at best.
Urban Renewal: Another historic movement that did
greater harm to urban centers than good was urban renewal.
In 1949, urban planners regarded blight as a cancer to cities;
using oncological terms, they described how blight would spread
and infect other parts of the cities. Appropriately to this
view, they called for a total removal of the blight, and the
federal "Urban Renewal" program was formed. In the
West End of Boston in particular, whole neighborhoods were
razed as part of this "housing program." But although
the purpose of Urban Renewal was to improve housing, there
was no requirement to build affordable housing in place of
the razed buildings. Thousands of people were displaced and
the West End was never fully redeveloped, leaving a hole where
once a mixed-use, diverse community had lived.
Restoring older, abandoned buildings:
Jacobs is a proponent of this model; reusing old, well-distributed
buildings as an essential part of urban revitalization.
She claims that razing older buildings and constructing new
structures leads a city to homogeneity and stifles
diversity. The cycle of destroying and rebuilding houses that
will eventually be abandoned is counterproductive. Instead,
Jacobs asserts the value of older buildings: "a good
mingling of the old buildings must remain, and in remaining
they will have become something more than mere decay from
the past or evidence of previous failure. The economic value
of old buildings is irreplaceable at will. It is created by
time. This economic requisite for diversity is a requite that
vital city neighborhoods can only inherit, and then sustain
over the years."
This is the model that most applies to Providence and my study;
the older, abandoned houses are being restored not only to
promote diversity, but to maximize the historic and economic
importance of the buildings.
|