Urban planning serves

Urban planning serves capital, not people. Every street layout, zoning law, and architectural choice reflects whose values matter and whose don’t.

Cities don’t accidentally become unaffordable, segregated, and surveilled. They are designed that way.

──── Who gets to decide what a city should be

Urban planners present themselves as neutral technocrats optimizing for “livability” and “efficiency.” This is a lie.

Every planning decision embeds value judgments about what kinds of lives are worth supporting. When cities prioritize car infrastructure over pedestrian space, they declare that automobile owners matter more than those who walk. When they zone affordable housing away from commercial districts, they enforce class segregation through spatial design.

The planning process itself excludes most people who will live with its consequences. Community input sessions are theater—expensive consultations that legitimize predetermined outcomes. Residents get to choose between pre-selected options, none of which challenge the fundamental power structures shaping their neighborhoods.

──── Zoning as social engineering

Zoning laws are one of the most powerful tools for social control ever invented. They determine who can live where, what kinds of businesses can operate, and how people move through space.

Single-family zoning doesn’t preserve “neighborhood character”—it preserves racial and economic exclusion. Commercial zoning doesn’t promote business—it concentrates wealth in designated areas while starving others of economic opportunity.

These aren’t unfortunate side effects. They are the intended outcomes of a system designed to sort people by value and keep them in their assigned places.

──── Architecture of surveillance

Modern urban design prioritizes visibility and control over human comfort. Open sight lines, minimal hiding places, and strategic lighting create spaces where behavior can be constantly monitored.

This isn’t about safety—it’s about compliance. Parks designed without trees or natural barriers, plazas with nowhere to sit comfortably, streets that discourage lingering. These choices reflect a fundamental distrust of human spontaneity and social gathering.

The rise of “smart cities” accelerates this trend. Every sensor, camera, and data collection point embeds the assumption that human behavior needs to be tracked, analyzed, and optimized by external authorities.

──── The myth of public space

Public spaces in modern cities aren’t truly public. They are managed environments designed to support specific activities while discouraging others.

Homeless people are excluded through hostile architecture—benches with dividers, spikes under overpasses, time limits on sitting. Street vendors are pushed out by permitting requirements that favor established businesses. Teenagers are dispersed by noise ordinances and loitering laws.

What remains is a sanitized version of public life that serves tourism and commerce while eliminating anything messy, unpredictable, or genuinely democratic.

──── Transportation as ideology

How people move through cities reveals who the city serves.

Car-centric design doesn’t just prioritize efficiency—it embeds assumptions about individual wealth, social atomization, and environmental externalities. Public transit investments reflect judgments about which populations deserve mobility and which should remain isolated.

Bike infrastructure gets implemented in wealthy neighborhoods first, not because of demand, but because affluent residents have political power to claim street space. Walking infrastructure remains underfunded because pedestrians are assumed to be people without other options.

──── Green gentrification

Environmental improvements in cities consistently serve capital accumulation rather than ecological or social benefits.

Parks, green buildings, and sustainability initiatives increase property values and displace existing residents. Environmental justice becomes environmental gentrification—poor communities lose access to the very improvements meant to help them.

This isn’t accidental. “Green” development provides moral cover for displacement while creating new forms of residential segregation based on environmental amenities.

──── The housing mechanism

Housing policy reveals urban planning’s true priorities more clearly than any mission statement.

Cities that claim to value diversity and affordability consistently implement policies that make both impossible. Inclusionary zoning requirements get waived for developers. Affordable housing gets concentrated in undesirable areas. Rent control gets abandoned in favor of market solutions that benefit property owners.

The housing crisis isn’t a failure of urban planning—it’s its greatest success. Artificial scarcity drives up property values, which drives up tax revenues, which funds the planning apparatus that maintains artificial scarcity.

──── Technology and urban control

Smart city technologies promise efficiency and convenience while creating unprecedented surveillance capabilities.

Traffic optimization systems track movement patterns. Digital payment systems eliminate anonymous transactions. Public wifi networks log device identifiers and location data. Each innovation creates new opportunities for social control disguised as public service.

Urban technology serves whoever controls the data and algorithms, not the people generating the information.

──── Resistance and alternatives

Some cities experiment with genuinely participatory planning processes, but these remain marginal exceptions rather than systemic changes.

Real alternatives require questioning the fundamental assumption that cities should serve capital accumulation first and human needs second. This means challenging property rights, development finance, and the entire legal framework that treats housing and urban space as commodities.

Urban planning could serve human flourishing, ecological health, and genuine democracy. But first it would need to stop serving capital.

────────────────────────────────────────

Urban planning shapes society more profoundly than most politics, yet receives far less scrutiny. Every person living in a city lives within the value system embedded in its design—whether they recognize it or not.

The question isn’t whether urban planning serves power. The question is whether people will demand it serve different values.

────────────────────────────────────────