Urban Housing Reforms and Urban Blight - Essay Example

Urban Housing Reforms and Urban Blight Urban Housing Reforms and Urban Blight Urban housing during the 1800s experienced numerous points when government regulation hindered social reform. This hindrance occurred in a form of effects of legal reforms pertaining to urban development. Even when administrations and reformists had a rough agreement on the importance of urban development reform, acts implementing these reforms have been unsuccessful and enacted insufficiently. The contemporary contradiction of urban growth in the United States during the late 1800s has to be tackled critically.

My position is that urban housing reforms of the late nineteenth century ultimately contributed to urban blight because of interference from private corporations and the government. Urban development reforms make minor, immigrant landowners to lose interest in the wider good of the community (Pritchett, 2003). For instance, several protestant ministers kept on viewing poverty as a product of personal failure in spite of reforms to change urban infrastructure. Other ministers collaborated with new nativist associations to demand the barring of immigration to lower the menace of cities.

Another example is the operation of these landowners as speculators who only made profits in reformed urban areas without care for the harmful effects of their activities (Aoki, 1992). These landowners were incompetent in terms of helping neighborhoods and adhering to new reform as their assets was not as valuable as the level of respect they got from local authorities. Cultural groups overran areas that were under urban development reforms in an effort to enjoy imminent benefits like reasonably priced houses (Aoki, 1992).

For example, the aftermath of the First World War saw a profound inflow of African Americans from the south. This influx led to troubles of the “metabolism” of urban housing reform and population distribution (Pritchett, 2003). The dumbbell tenement is another example of urban blight in the form of a product of urban design reform. The vast arrival of communities resulted in the acceleration of the “junking” procedure in the field of deterioration. Reform supporters never built a systematic procedure by which to ascertain the positive impacts of the reforms.

One example is the presented of outmoded contracts in many urban development councils (Pritchett, 2003). Similar to the private sector, urban design reform integrated control and imposed order on surrounding environs. Another example is the burdensome structure of checks and balances that reform supporters did not abandon (Aoki, 1992). This system of transacting fostered fraudulence, corruption, overstated taxes, and election rigging. From this point of new, an urban blight in late nineteenth century America was not just a naturally happening procedure.

Urban housing reforms of the late 1800s in the end contributed to urban blight. The loss of interest in the greater good by landowners, migration influxes, the invasion of urban areas by ethnic groups, and the lack of a systematic process contributed to urban blight. The lack of a systematic procedure caused urban housing reforms to define the disfigurement of urban landscapes with unclear generalizations. Late nineteenth century reform supporters directed what worries they may have had pertaining to accommodating the poor into political provision of housing reform campaigns petitioning for legal reform.

References Aoki, K. (1992). Race, Space, and Place: The Relation Between Architectural Modernism, Post- Modernism, Urban Planning, and Gentrification. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 20(4), 699-829. Pritchett, W. E. (2003). The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain. Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1199. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1199