Can a City Have No Bad Neighborhoods?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 мар 2024
- How cities can overcome our greatest weakness as a species through planning, urban design and strong policy choices.
Learn more at / @edenicity
Download the Four Cities Book and Edenicity Reference Design at www.edenicity.com/
Special note: Radio Genoa was fact-checked by the Swiss newspaper NZZ: www.nzz.ch/english/italian-pl...
SOURCES
www.theguardian.com/world/202...
peterturchin.com/wp-content/u...
www.urban.org/urban-wire/less...
www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline...
www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655...
www.dispatch.com/in-depth/lif...
www.npr.org/2024/03/08/123710...
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
www.themarshallproject.org/20...
www.nber.org/system/files/wor...
www.zurich.com/en/media/magaz...
Rutger Bregman, Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build a Better World (2017)
Written and narrated by Kev Polk. Images courtesy of Pexels. 
Наука
Best content on RUclips
Thank you for bringing up so many good arguments!
One thing I don't see people acknowledge, is if you are hiring an employee, you want to hire an employee who is actually interested and qualified in the subject matter being developed or done, yet in the United States people feel forced or squeezed into jobs such that they have to lie to themselves or others about the true magnitudes of their passions.
I'm really glad to see another mind who has similar observations and thoughts about these things and wants to fix them!
I like the emphasis on building housing in all neighborhoods to help society and accomodate newcomers, but having large chunks of the government being on the same page is also essential. Canada and Australia have about the most open immigration policies in the western world and yet the local governments have not been pulling their weight (yet) to build the necessary housing. Jobs might not be a game of musical chairs, but housing definitely is.
Good points!
great video very informative and interesting
As for Vienna, there are absolutely better and worse neighbourhoods, and you can tell income and status by zip code / district number.
(there are some districts which are elongated and have one good/rich and one bad/poor side, but mostly, its quite homogenous)
Also, qualifying once for social housing and then staying there even after getting wealthier is a bug, not a feature, of this system,
leading to rather rich people living in rather cheap municipal housing.
Having public transport is crucial for everybody's well-being though, I completely agree there.
Thank you very much for the added perspective!
Which districts would that be where you can tell thet by the district number?Even Favoriten does also inlude Oberlaa and Sonnwendviertel which do not mach with the income of the rest of Favoriten. Similar things are the case in Floridsdorf.
Mfs want to keep poverty (capitalism) but don't want the negatives of poverty (crime and other clear material inequality effects)
nice✌
The Singapore case study is extremely cherry-picked and misleading. There are many, many things that make Singapore different from other countries. Picking the one thing that agrees most with your political views and highlighting that is misleading. A thorough analysis of Singapore would probably also include things like its extremely tough on crime stance, the influence of Confucianism, its particularly low corruption rate, its very high wealth, Lee Kuan Yew, etc. The implication that Singapore is where it is because of a single housing policy is highly misleading.
A good analysis of what makes cities bad would also include a diverse set of case studies where a formerly good city became markedly worse, and would try to highlight various factors that could have contributed.
It would also look at cities where various proposed measures have been implemented, but which haven't become dramatically better, and would try to highlight reasons that the proposed measures didn't work.
@collinkemper681 Surely you didn’t mean to list Singapore’s high wealth as a separate factor, because as emphasized in two episodes, Singapore was extremely poor when it began building public housing. As for Lee Kuan Yew, my book specifically highlights several dimensions of how his overall policy related to housing, and how it evolved over the years. To be fair, no one has called me out about Singapore’s foreign labor policy (and it would be a point well taken), though my book discusses that, too.
As for the study you outlined, I will be happy to work with any city or intergovernmental agency to conduct it. This would not be a small project: the topics you mention span more than one Ph.D., so we would need to recruit the appropriate university partners.
However, cities that wait until they have a definitive study in hand risk falling behind those that take action sooner based on limited but promising indicators such as those I’ve outlined. I’m aware of at least two that have independently done this in recent years, and I hope to speak with those involved.
@@edenicity I did mean to list Singapore's wealth as a separate factor. Singapore is in a unique geopolitical position that enabled it to become wealthy from trade (among other things). Singapore would not be nearly as nice of a place if it happened to be located in the middle of the Australian outback, and weren't able to use its geopolitical position to generate wealth. It is important to consider the role of commerce, geopolitics, and economic policy as distinct from ordinary urban planning. If Singapore had built a bunch of public housing but had not ended up being as wealthy as it is today, it would be a very different place.
Yes, studying other cities would be a very big project. I might suggest that one could consider cities such as Philadelphia or Detroit that were once considered very nice but are now much less so. Would public housing or other urban planning have helped them? Maybe, but it seems likely that other things were far more important to their rise and fall.
I think it would certainly be nice if a number of cities experimented with different approaches to improving themselves. Though I think that there are multiple policy dimensions to experiment along, and that the ideal policies likely vary based on context.
In the most general view of the crime problem, most criminals are just businessmen who are willing to take more shortcuts than those who take care to skirt the very edges of the law, and stay on the right side of avoiding getting into trouble. First thing they need are business opportunities with low enough risk. Poor people make a great source of such opportunities. They have a bit of money quite often, and not much in the way of outside help to help them keep that money, often.
So if you have a lot of poverty, you have enough prey for the most shady businessmen (of all grades of legality) in your society. It helps crime pay, and if crime pays, you get criminals.
(The apartheid government in South Africa added another layer to this, beyond just the exclusion policies. It's just the racist assumptions a racist can make without feeling any ill will toward the object of the assumption. That's just what "they" do. Lots of stabbings in the African townships? Well it can't be helped. "They" are violent people.)
So even before deliberate hell-making measures (to discourage urban settlement) there was a neglect of law enforcement, just because of basic assumptions made.
I agree that more than just law enforcement is needed, but when it's necessary it's a very important part of the process of dealing with crime. Just sitting around waiting for people to somehow become nicer doesn't work. There needs to be physical protection of the most vulnerable along with the other measures. There needs to be at least an outwardly unsympathetic attitude to those who prey on them, too. I'm quite happy for this to include dealing roughly with the businessmen who skirt the edge of the law, and not just the kind of person who will kill someone because they like the shoes he's wearing.
If the dam is leaking, first thing to do is plug the hole. A better fix can come later.
I was just looking at the results of the 1948 election, here, again today (because I know that the "apartheid party" won that election on a minority vote - because things were too skewed toward rural constituencies). They only had 37% of the total vote. The party that regarded change as inevitable and necessary won something like 52% of the votes. And a party headed by a reasonably moderate man who was a bit paranoid about the English (losing relatives who died in a concentration camp will do that to some people) had enough constituencies to bring the seat count between the apartheid party and the not-really-apartheid party up to a majority.
So there's a sense in which this need never have happened. That always hurts to reflect on. (But we're stuck with the fact of things, not what might have been. What might have been never was.)
Interesting perspective on crime. Singapore has been strict from the beginning on both crime and corruption: both ends of the continuum you describe between impulse and opportunity. Singapore also profited handsomely by taking equal rights and full representation as seriously as possible.
@@edenicityIt's definitely a problem that has to be tackled from both ends.
Or maybe all sides, if the spectrum turns out to be on a plane instead of a line.
There's definitely much to be learned from Singapore.
This isn't a video about bad neighborhoods, it's a video about humanity.
Btw I only have prejudice against first world people. You can leave your abusive ex, but Europe isn't going to disappear from the Earth's crust.
The problem here is that we have stats. In my city, there are inmigrant neighborhoods too. The problematic ones are clearly the ones with Moroccans and Algerians. Other africans (like blacks) are ok despite the issues their poverty poses.
In the case of Latin Americans everything is fine, although for some reason there's a sizable amount of violence coming from Dominicans (or so I've heard from other latin-americans and read in the news).
There's also plenty of Chinese. Most of them came in the early 00s, now there's almost none coming, they think this place is a shithole (Or so I been told, and I guess that If I was Chinese I would only come here for vacation).
Now, again, it's pretty normal to have prejudice floating around but the thing is that it matches our crime and incarceration stats pretty closely.
Why is it like this? I have no idea. It has to be something cultural, as Algerians or Moroccans are not poorer than other inmigrants. It isn't religion because other muslim inmigrants seem to do fine. It's not formal education, as other uneducated inmigrants are fine too.
I mean, I understand in which channel I am but sooner or later we'll have to address the elephant in the room. Different groups of inmigrants do completely different and it can't be everything attributed to prejudice or poverty because it doesn't hold even the most lazy analysis.
How many Algerians or Moroccans do you encounter daily as co-workers and close neighbors? If they live and work in separate immigrant neighborhoods, the fact of contact has not been established. That's a failure of city leadership, with obvious costs.
@@edenicity I am skeptical that, for example, Chinese and Indian immigrants just happen to have much more contact with local populations, and that this causes them to be so successful. In the US, H-1B visas aren't given out at random, there are very salient differences in the visa applicants before they even arrive in the US. It seems highly plausible that these differences that are in place before immigration have major impacts on the later trajectory of immigrants' lives.
It seems like you are advancing a theory where the primary cause of good neighbors is forced integration. For you to show this, you would have to show that this is more important than other relevant factors. However, you fail to address or analyze the majority of other potentially salient factors.
@@edenicityDo you disagree with any of the following:
1) The culture and other pre-existing traits of different immigrants have a big impact on their life trajectory in their new country.
2) Culture and other relevant traits, such as educational attainment and job experience, are not evenly distributed among all groups of immigrants.
3) Culture and other relevant traits make it much easier for some immigrants to become productive citizens in their new country.
4) Countries have finite resources, and should prioritize letting in the immigrants wit the easiest time becoming productive citizens.
5) Thus, countries should screen immigrants and only let in the ones with the traits needed to succeed in the new country. This would result in better cities, as cities would have more productive citizens.
This seems to summarize the case made in the comment you were replying to, but it doesn't seem like you actually addressed its content.
The problem with the "most lazy analysis" is that it throws together lots of stuff instead of pulling apart the different aspects and looking at the actual causes;
Does "a (certain) culture" or "something cultural" cause violence and criminal behaviour?
While education and wealth doesnt, because there are poor and uneducated non-criminals?
How about a somewhat-less-lazy analysis:
Different groups of people behave differently (even one group of Dominicans in your city might behave different from another group of Dominicans in the next city);
Some will stay law-abiding citizens even when kept poor and uneducated and without having infrastructure provided to them.
Others will turn to crime and violence.
Others, to alcoholism, ...
But if you build your city to provide adequate infrastructure and housing and job/education opportunities,
all of them will behave better, and become more productive parts of your city and your community.
Or do you think in a well-maintained neighborhood where people are lawyers and teachers and bank clerks, well-policed, ... - that people there will still turn to petty theft after coming home from their jobs - "because they are Dominicans, after all"?
@@collinkemper681
[4) needs an amendment for refugees under the UN convention which have to be taken in no matter their qualification]
Except for that, your screening plan is sound, and every single country i know of implements it.
The thing is, okay, you screened and only the best came in.
The best of those who wanted, at least (who might not be the "best" culture- und pre-existing-traits-wise), up until ...
your maximum immigration quota? You have one of those? Or how do you determine where you cut off the immigration?
What if you need unqualified workers becuase your population doesnt provide enough of those?
And how do you want to accept, say, Asians, while denying Maroccans, for example?
That kind of racism wouldnt fly even in todays US supreme court, and far less still in the EU...
And what if your immigrants have kids? You want to screen those and deport the ones who doesnt meet the criteria?
So finally, you have people in your country, despite your precious screening plan, who are "not ideal".
So now you better have well-built cities instead of relying on them being good despite a bad environment..
obama