Enclosure Does Not Result In Social Change Social Sciences Essay

ENCLOSURE DOES NOT RESULT IN SOCIAL CHANGE
Student’s Name
Course
Date
Sevilla-Buitrago explains that during the nineteenth century, planning and designs became involved in initiatives to change the shape of the urban centrality and the social space of the poor individuals. In light of these, a large government apparatus captured the design techniques in an effort to mobilize representational and material production of space to benefit the nascent configuration of organized capitalism. This procedure ensured that the places of planning and architecture in the rising state form were secure. However, it also ultimately merged the political project in a fashion that would last for a very long time. As a matter of fact, a majority of the current social problems faced by most cities in America as well as the very position of designers in current ideologies that encompass urbanization and the built environment can be easily understood by taking a closer look at the contradictions, failures, and aspirations of the nineteenth century. More specifically, the re-imagination of the communities on a working-class level. Sevilla-Buitargo takes a closer look at how the practices by the central park were incorporated by the elite to help reform the social culture that was becoming more popular in New York. By focusing on the commons-enclosure dialectic, Sevilla-Buitrago explains how the enclosure of Central Park and the set of rules and regulations were used to try and change the social behaviors of the individuals from the working and low class. However, the concept of enclosure does not necessarily bring about the need for change. Instead, enclosure in public spaces can lead individuals to be more rebellious and try to force their own practices rather than adapting to the rules and regulations. Similarly, Sevilla-Buitrago explains that “enclosure appears when these processes of dispossession are achieved by spatial means, when space is mobilized to separate the commoners from the territorial basis of their autonomy; it erodes the socio-material links that allow a particular community to produce itself as a work of its own.”
A better understanding of the views of Sevilla-Buitargo requires a closer look at the current situation during that period. In the 1800s, Manhattan did not require the same number of open spaces for commerce and leisure as other cities like London and Paris. However, with the change in socio-economic conditions that were mostly contributed by the high immigration levels into the city, the demographics of New York City in the nineteenth century changed how residents, architects, and lawmakers viewed their surroundings. The increase in immigration made it difficult for individuals to identify whether a person was part of the New York society or not. As with most diverse cities, fear rose among the locals since it became difficult to identify a conman or a thief. The emergence of parks in New York established a more secure space for the wealthy New Yorkers to mix and socialize with other people whom they were sure were their equals. Sevilla-Buitargo explains that the park was regarded as “a space of exception isolated and protected from the rough-and-tumble of the street commons.”