Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 1,987 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 398 - Next  Jump:
2016 - ASHE Annual Conference: Higher Education and the Public Good Pages: unavailable || Words: unavailable || 
Info
1. Spencer, George. and Britton, Tolani. "Individualized Learning Plans: Do students who fail to plan, plan to fail?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASHE Annual Conference: Higher Education and the Public Good, Hyatt Regency Columbus, Columbus, Ohio, Nov 09, 2016 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2019-05-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1160300_index.html>
Publication Type: Research Paper
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: We propose to measure the effectiveness of using Individualized Leaning Plans (ILPs) by comparing the likelihood of entry into college for students who use ILPs, as compared to students who do not use this tool. We use data from the High School Longitudinal Study (HSLS) of 2009.

2008 - WESTERN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Pages: 23 pages || Words: 5269 words || 
Info
2. Thomas, Jason. and Koontz, Tomas. "The Plan’s the Thing: Linking Collaborative Watershed Planning Processes to Plan Contents and Implementation" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the WESTERN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, Manchester Hyatt, San Diego, California, Mar 20, 2008 Online <PDF>. 2019-05-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p237876_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

2015 - American Studies Association Annual Meeting Words: 499 words || 
Info
3. Amato, Rebecca. "Failure to Plan or Planned Failure? Urban Planning and Gentrification on the Lower East Side" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Studies Association Annual Meeting, Sheraton Centre and Towers, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, <Not Available>. 2019-05-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1015418_index.html>
Publication Type: Internal Paper
Abstract: Gentrification – or the multiple processes we label as “gentrification,” including the displacement of established working class and low-income communities of color by more affluent, often white newcomers and the neoliberalization of municipal policies toward land use – is the result of a failure of urban planning ideologies. That is to say that modern, traditional urban planning, which seeks objectives of “best use” and “efficiency” for land, as well as the protection of the public’s health, safety, and capacity for labor and democratic civic engagement, has failed to deliver on its promises. Rather than privileging the public need for access to decent housing, breathing space, clean air, public services such as schools and hospitals, and workplaces, planning has served to reinforce the same structures of power it originally sought to temper. Even the radical attempts of advocacy planners, who collaborate directly with community representatives to plan in line with community-identified needs and desires, fall short of altering the steamroll effect of the privatization of urban land. Not surprisingly, where planning has failed, the drive for capital accumulation has filled in the gap. Developers take the place of planners, while government assistance to development projects through tax incentives, zoning variances, and the discounted sale of city-owned property ensures that urban land use becomes a profit-making, rather than public-serving venture. As a symbol of the triumph of land speculation and privatization, gentrification demonstrates the impotence of urban planning as a means of protecting public interest.

To highlight this failure, this paper looks at the Lower East Side of Manhattan, an area that has undergone massive transformation as a result of gentrification, but has also been the target of urban planning for over a century. The paper examines two plans that were proposed by city planners in the 1930s and the 1960s and were aimed at revitalizing the impoverished, deteriorating environment of the Lower East Side. The first, proposed by the Lower East Side Planning Association in 1932 in consultation with planner Harland Bartholomew, attempted to rearrange the area’s streets, replace the working waterfront with one devoted to leisure, and replace decrepit tenements with modern, middle-class housing. The intention was to reconfigure the area as “a real walk-to-work district for employees in the financial district,” effectively replacing the low-income population with a more affluent one. The second plan, developed by advocacy planners Harry Schwartz and Peter Abeles in the late-1960s, envisioned a rehabilitated Lower East Side that not only acknowledged, but preserved, its reputation as a multiethnic, working-class neighborhood. In “Forging a Future for the Lower East Side,” they called for the city to invest in social planning (jobs, schools, health clinics), as well as small-scale housing development. Though signaling a desire to plan for the needs of the neighborhood’s existing population, Schwartz’s and Abeles’s proposal went no further than the shelves of the City Planning Commission. Such failures prompt us to ask whether urban planning requires revitalization in an era of neoliberalism, or whether planning is, by design, doomed to fail.

2016 - LRA Annual Conference Pages: unavailable || Words: unavailable || 
Info
4. Woodward, Lindsay. and Hutchison, Amy. "How Teachers Plan to Integrate Technology into Literacy Instruction: A Think-Aloud Study of Planning Processes" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the LRA Annual Conference, OMNI Nashville, Nashville, Tennessee, Nov 29, 2016 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2019-05-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1144186_index.html>
Publication Type: Individual Paper
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 398 - Next  Jump:

©2019 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy