Urban Environmental policy

The reading on Urban Environmental Policy can be summed up in a few simple ways. First, it defines a “local state” as the local government. This would entail town and city governments and perhaps even state governments but not national ones. It places an emphasis on the connection between these local governments and the people they regulate. This connection, however, has been increasingly similar to national governments and the line between local and national has been blurred. This creates a need to strengthen the bond between the local communities and the local governments. In order to do so, there must be a serious consideration of spatial differentiation and social diversion as the basis for the local state. Also, unlike a national government, the local state is anything but uniform and centralized. This means that each local government is unique and must be treated as such placing a further emphasis on the interaction between the local state and the local community. It also means that each local state needs to be self motivated and not rely on other communities for direction.

This need for independent local states is a topic discussed in much of the reading. It uses Toronto and Los Angeles as two examples of how this local state comes into play for controlling liberties. In Toronto, for example, the local state was left up primarily to the individual communities. This created varying disconnected systems there that were later taken over such as the transportation system. The issue was that the various communities within Toronto created their own plan, but only through overall governance could they be worked together. The local state also took on the role of community redevelopment with their waterfront project. With this project, there was a distinct connection between the governing body and the local community and the project was successful because the two groups found ways to work together.

Los Angeles took a different approach to urban planning. The initial freedom of Los Angeles was in the form of mobility. This promoted the use of cars and denounced the use of public transportation, forming the urban traffic jam we know today. This frivolous automobile created serious problems. As the greater Los Angeles area is nearly the size of Ohio, getting to and from the city is a big issue, and due to the lack of public transportation, there is a significant amount of pollution created from these cars. Restructuring the entire transportation system would be a great idea, but would also be a massive undertaking so the city planners took a different approach. As combating automobile emissions is unfeasible, the planners began to regulate industry and residential pollution. The local state, in this case, controls which days factories are allowed to operate, and also controls which days residences are allowed to use barbeques. These two approaches were used to combat the situation that could have been prevented had the communities worked together to form a more mass-mobile system.

The final concept was on the “urban regime.” This is defined as when government and private individuals work together to form governing decisions. A town meeting where everyday citizens spoke up would be an example of this. Regimes are important in the design of cities. They played a key role in Toronto’s development and play a huge part in the way large cities function. By including the communities in the decision making process, a larger portion of the governed bodies have taken a part in the decision making process, thus making it more effective.