Urban Planning - Socio-Economic Exclusion
[pic]
This paper goes on to explore the issues surrounding the social and physical fabric of Main Street, Unionville, with particular attention to the concept of socio-economic exclusion which is clearly evident. I will approach these issues using Davies and Herbert’s (1993) distinction between ‘neighbourhood’ and ‘place based communities’. “The spatiality of social exclusion is constructed through the physical organization of space as well as through the social control of space, as insured by informal codes and signs and formal rules and regulations. These formal channels act at all scales of space.” (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001, pp. 2171) These informal and formal practices will be examined throughout this research paper. I will review several relevant aspects of the Social Dominance Theory, Pluralist and Neo-Marxist Theories, the Radical Theory, and the Exclusionary Motive, as a theoretical framework for developing the overall analysis of the underlying concept of my paper.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE THEORY:
Social Dominance Theory (SDT) predicts that “the structural position of contextually salient in-groups influences attitudes toward inequality and social dominance orientation” (Sidanius & Pratto, 2003, pp. 208). With this in mind, we can examine the 2001 Canadian Census Data to determine the ‘salient in-group’ in Main St., Unionville. (Please refer to Appendix A- Tables #1 & 2). Table #1, illustrates great income disparity in Unionville. The ‘salient in-group’ makes $60, 000 and over. Table #2, illustrates the ethnic composition of Unionville, where more than 50% is predominantly white. According to personal observation in the study area and Census Data examined, one can identify the predominant or ‘salient in-group’ as the white, middle class. Elite attitudes toward ‘difference’ are expressed through spatial and social construction of the study area. (Please refer to Appendix A- Tables #3). Table #3 compares ‘Canadian Citizenship/Non-immigrant’
This paper goes on to explore the issues surrounding the social and physical fabric of Main Street, Unionville, with particular attention to the concept of socio-economic exclusion which is clearly evident. I will approach these issues using Davies and Herbert’s (1993) distinction between ‘neighbourhood’ and ‘place based communities’. “The spatiality of social exclusion is constructed through the physical organization of space as well as through the social control of space, as insured by informal codes and signs and formal rules and regulations. These formal channels act at all scales of space.” (Meegan & Mitchell, 2001, pp. 2171) These informal and formal practices will be examined throughout this research paper. I will review several relevant aspects of the Social Dominance Theory, Pluralist and Neo-Marxist Theories, the Radical Theory, and the Exclusionary Motive, as a theoretical framework for developing the overall analysis of the underlying concept of my paper.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE THEORY:
Social Dominance Theory (SDT) predicts that “the structural position of contextually salient in-groups influences attitudes toward inequality and social dominance orientation” (Sidanius & Pratto, 2003, pp. 208). With this in mind, we can examine the 2001 Canadian Census Data to determine the ‘salient in-group’ in Main St., Unionville. (Please refer to Appendix A- Tables #1 & 2). Table #1, illustrates great income disparity in Unionville. The ‘salient in-group’ makes $60, 000 and over. Table #2, illustrates the ethnic composition of Unionville, where more than 50% is predominantly white. According to personal observation in the study area and Census Data examined, one can identify the predominant or ‘salient in-group’ as the white, middle class. Elite attitudes toward ‘difference’ are expressed through spatial and social construction of the study area. (Please refer to Appendix A- Tables #3). Table #3 compares ‘Canadian Citizenship/Non-immigrant’
Bibliography: Bigelow, B. & Peterson, B. 2002. Rethinking Globalization. Teaching for justice in an unjust World. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rethinking Schools, Ltd.. Commission for Labor Cooperation. 1997. Plant Closings and Labour Rights. A Report to the Council of Ministries by the Secretariat of the Commission for Labour Cooperation. The Effects of Sudden Plant Closings. USA. Went, Robert. 2000. Globalization. Neoliberal Challenge, Radical Responses. Translated by Peter Drucker. Pluto Press. London, Sterling, Virginia. Castells, Manuel. (2002). Local and Global: Cities in the Network Society. The Royal Dutch Geographical Society, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, 93 (5): 548-558. Daniels, Peter. (1991). A World of Services? Printed in Great Britain - Geoforum, 22 (4): 359-376. Desfor, G, Goldrick, M. & Merrins, R. 1989. A Political Economy of the Waterfrontier: Planning and Development in Toronto. Geoforum, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 487-501. Graham, Stephen. (2001). Information Technologies and Reconfigurations of Urban Space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25.2: 405-410. Sohn, J., Kim, T. J., Hewings, G. J. D. (2003). Information technology and urban spatial structure: A comparative analysis of the Chicago and Seoul regions. The Annals of Regional Science, 37: 447-462. City of Toronto. http://www.city.toronto.on.ca, 2003 City of Toronto - Culture Plan. Sawhney, G. Nov. 16, 2000. The Status of Liberty. New Media. Eye Weekly Planning Reports: Ian Bromley (December, 1992). Industrial Landplan ’92 – A Charrette on Revitalization and Re-use of Metropolitan Toronto Industrial Areas. Metro Toronto Convention Centre. MacDonnell, S, Embuldeniya, D, Ratanshi, F., Anderson, J, Roberts, P., & Rexe, K. April 2004. Poverty by Postal Code. The Geography of Neighbourhood Poverty, City of Toronto, 1981-2001. United Way of Greater Toronto. Metro Planning (May 1996). Industrial Land Strategy Study: Phase 1 Overview Report. Urban Affairs Toronto. Minister of Municipal Affairs. The City of Toronto Official Plan. Planning and Development. (June 1998) Sections 1-17 (Binder 1), Maps & Appendices. (Urban Affairs Library) Minister of Municipal Affairs