Bottom Up Approach Of Urban Planning

Bottom Up Approach Of Urban Planning Some developing countries like India and China have adopted the bottom-up approach in urban planning, solving the urban problems faced by their cities. The reason of the emergence of this phenomenon was obvious that the central governments of the developing states need to pay more attention to boost the nations economy while cities of the states are still facing a lot of urban problems like poor living environment, poor public infrastructure, lack of housing, over-crowding, pollutions or even widespread poverty. Bottom-up approach of urban planning generally means that local governments or committees formed by local citizens are responsible for urban planning of their own districts, solving the urban problems and planning their future development, and thus the districts link together to make the whole nation or region become more developed. In this paper, advantages and disadvantages of the approach will be covered and examples of cities in developing countries like China and India will be cited before having the final conclusion. It cannot be denied that the bottom-up approach is more man-centered than the classic Top-down approach which means the districts need to follow the guidelines and instructions of the central government to develop. Also, the voices of the citizens can be listened during the policy making and planning of the future development of the districts. Decision making is faster and desperate and serious problems of districts could be alleviated or solved in a shorter time. AR.UTTAM K.ROY (2009) had a research on West Bengal in India and wrote a report called Integration of Top down and Bottom up approach in Urban and Regional Planning: West Bengal Experience of Draft Development Plans (DDP) and beyond. According to the report, West Bengal enacted the West Bengal Municipal Act in 1993 to decentralize spatial and socio-economic planning of different districts. Municipalities and municipal corporations are required to prepare the Draft Development Plans of five years. AR.UTTAM K.ROY (2009) found that DDP could really involve people in the problem identification, prioritization and validation of the plan and desperate and serious urban problems faced by the people were alleviated. Besides, Bottom-up approach could reduce the burden of the central government and more central resources could be used for macro-economic development. As mentioned by P.K. Mohanty(1999),the Director of Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment of New Delhi in India, in a book chapter, Decentralization Reforms and Innovations in Municipal Management in India, Decentralization, if pursued properly, is likely to yield various benefits, including:..freeing of central resources for macroeconomic concerns such as stabilization, structural adjustment ,and poverty alleviation. On the district level, local resources could be exploited and allocated better. Thus, the efficiency of service delivery could be improved. Also, as citizens have a greater chance to involve in urban planning and decision of policies, grass-root democracy could be promoted. As their opinions could be listened and accepted and social problems could be solved, social stability can also be raised. Stable and peaceful society benefits the development of local economy. However, such planning approach also has some disadvantages. Firstly, some long-term planning cannot be drawn up sometimes. When local people can get involved in urban policy making, they may only focus on the issues related to the immediate needs of citizens. According to the book Planning from the bottom up written by professor Anirban Pal(2008)of Delft University of Technology and the repor by AR.UTTAM K.ROY(2009)cities which used the bottom-up approach, the local planning organizations or committees like the districts in West Bengal in India can seldom come up with the development projects for future residential growth or future spatial land use plans. And small scale projects like opening up of green space, creation of health centers, beautification of parks remain the majority of the work of the local committees and organizations. Therefore, some professionals doubt that whether the bottom-up approach is a good urban planning method for cities sustainable development or not. In fact, the lack of long-term plan of the development of the city and spatial land use plans would make the land use pattern of the cities become chaotic, raising other kinds of social problems and hindering the long-term development of the cities. Secondly, the bottom-up approach can lead to competitions between different districts within cities which can result in social instability. Professor Anirban Pal (2008) used Beijing, the capital of China, as an example in his book Planning from the bottom up. Different districts in Beijing are now trying to carry out different policies to raise their own attractiveness for foreign investments. The district level governments compete in carrying out widespread redevelopment and forced evictions. This has led to social unrest in Beijing. Therefore, it can be seen that bottom-up approach may lead to social instability if district level governments are too ambitious. Thirdly, the process of planning would not be truly bottom-up if the local district power is concentrated in the hands of one political organization and there are few channels for the local citizens to get involved in the planning process. Such problem can be found in Kolkata according to V.Ramaswamy. The ruling party in Kolkata has great power and high social status and thus there is no effective opposition to it. And the ruling party control the urban policy making and planning and local citizens do not have so much chance to get involved in the planning process .In this case, the process of planning is not really bottom-up to a large extent. This also shows that the planning organizations should be independent of the ruling parties. If not, the bottom-up approach can never be really effective. Moreover, there is a problem of lack of expertise in LDCs. It is not uncommon that citizens of LDCs do not hold a high education level. Although local citizens have the rights in planning the development and the land uses of the cities, most of them do not have the professional knowledge in the area of urban planning and urban policy. Just like in India the education level is low, more than 140,000,000 people do not have primary educational level and only about 400,000 people have received tertiary education level. Therefore , it is very difficult to guarantee the plans drawn up by the local organizations without expertise are long-term plans which can benefit the growth and development of the cities. The local groups may only concern about the immediate needs of the local people, neglecting environmental conservation and long-term socio-economic development. From the above, it can be seen that the bottom-up approach also has certain limitations and such approach may even harms the long-term development of the cities in LDCs. However, it is very obvious that the urban problems faced by citizens in LDCs cannot be solved easily by the traditional Top-down approach as the central government may focus on the development of whole country rather than district issues and it is very hard for the central government to recognize every district issues. Thus, it seems the bottom-up approach is the most effective method to solve the immediate issues in the districts and satisfy the needs of the local people. Furthermore, if the local immediate problems like poverty, poor living environment could not be solved, the development of whole country would be hindered. To put it simply, the bottom-up approach is a good urban planning method for LDCs when tackling the urban problems in the districts but not so beneficial for further development. In order to achieve sustainable development, cities of LDCs should adopt an approach which consists the elements of Top-down approach and bottom-up approach .This means the government can set up general guidelines and instructions for the districts to follow while granting them enough freedom and resources in tackling local affairs and drawing up plans of future development. Also, Kurian Joseph, R. Nagendran (2007) and Kumar. SA jay (2007) recommended in their papers, Top-Down And Bottom-Up Approach For Sustainability Of Waste Management In Developing Countries and Participatory Spatial Planning A Model from Kollam District, espectively that groups of multi skill professional should engage in the process of planning and tackling urban problems. In fact, tackling issues like environmental problems especially needs the engagement of the professionals. Whats more, in order to facilitate the urban planning process, the central government should enact laws to restrict the participation of politicians like members of ruling parties and government officials in local urban planning, educate the public and raise their awareness on the urban problems around them and start introduce the concept of sustainable development to the communities. For the general development of whole country, central government should monitor the development of different districts and avoid vicious competition between the districts which may lead to social unrest. When vicious competition emerges, central government should intervene in order to make the political scene and society stable. However, it should be noted that the state government should not intervene so much if there is no vicious competition between cities. According to the paper which is called Vision 2021: Urban Governance in India by Dinesh Mehta(1999),the state government should intervene as little as possible if the cities develop in a right way. All in all, the bottom-up approach is a good urban planning method which can really address the problems faced by the local citizens of LDCs. But the classic Top-down approach still cannot be forgotten as it is good for cities further development. Therefore, an approach which integrates both approaches would be a suitable way for cities of LCDs to achieve sustainable development.

To what extent is Dracula a conventional Gothic protagonist?

Within the Gothic genre, features of the Gothic protagonist include sharply contrasting character traits, some degree of tragic stature, a striking physical presence, an element of the sexual, and an association with the bestial. Stoker presents Dracula with greatly contrasting traits, from the impeccably polite and courteous host who greets Harker at the door, to a raging psychopathic monster. The aristocratic and noble nature of Dracula's heritage gives him charisma and credibility, on first encounter he seems strange but eccentric, however this lulls Harker, and obviously his female victims, into a false sense of security: â€Å"The light and warmth of the Count's courteous welcome seemed to have dissipated all my doubts and fears. † Stoker reveals Dracula's true self slowly and subtly, so as to build tension, such as when Dracula touches Harker and he feels: â€Å"a horrible feeling of nausea. This imagery hints at the horror of Dracula's true character, which is finally revealed when he encounters the Brides: â€Å"But the count! Never did I imagine such wraths of fury, even in the demons of the pit! † Stoker presents the count as being: â€Å"lapped in a storm of fury,† foreshadowing the terrible storm at Whitby when Dracula arrives on English soil. Stoker's uses the imagery of hell to describe Dracula's rage, writing: â€Å"his eyes were positively blazing†¦ as if the flames of hell-fire blazed in them. This imagery of a fiery furnace is similar to Milton's description of Satan in Paradise Lost' as â€Å"the infernal serpent,† dwelling in a â€Å"penal fire. † However despite Satan's high status and charisma, he does not have the extreme contrast in personality, and the genteel almost awkward persona that Dracula has. Stoker presents Dracula as having tragic stature through his loneliness and sadness that his once noble family have been destroyed. Dracula tells Harker that he longs: â€Å"to be in the midst of the whirl and rush of humanity, to share its life, its change, its death, and all that makes it what it is. But alas! † This desire demonstrates how isolated Dracula feels, as he has been left behind, an unwanted remnant of the ancient world. His immortality means he cannot relate to modernity, and the fast pace of life, and he is stuck in an endless cycle, a pseudo-purgatory for the Un-dead. Stoker presents Dracula as talking with great pride of his heritage, which he is determined to reinstate in England: â€Å"We Szekelys have a right to be proud, for in our veins flows the blood of many brave races who fought†¦ for lordship. Milton also presents Satan as a tragic character, because of his doomed destiny to live forever in the fiery pits of Hell, but also that he has an overwhelming hubris that ultimately makes his downfall so much more difficult to accept: â€Å"for this infernal spirit shall never hold celestial spirits in bondage. † When Dracula is finally killed, Mina writes that: â€Å"even in that moment of final dissolution there was in the face a look of peac e. † Reflecting Dracula's release from his eternal suffering, showing that despite Vampire's intrinsic evil, they did not relish their life of pain and death. Another aspect of the conventional protagonist is their striking physical presence, and Stoker presents Dracula as conforming strongly to this, with his strong jaw, aquiline nose and extreme paleness. He has thick eyebrows, wild hair, a â€Å"heavy moustache† and â€Å"remarkably ruddy† lips. Almost immediately Harker notices aspects of Dracula's character which are not quite normal, describing Dracula as â€Å"cruel-looking,† with his moustache hiding his â€Å"cruel mouth. † This underlying unease demonstrates how Dracula's physicality reflects and warns of his internal evil. Stoker presents Dracula's specific appearance as very typical of the genre, as in The Monk, Matthew Lewis describes Ambrosia in an almost identical way to Dracula: â€Å"He was a man of noble port and commanding presence. His stature was lofty, and his features uncommonly handsome. His nose was aquiline, his eyes large black and sparkling, and his dark brows almost joined together. His complexion was of a deep but clear brown; study and watching had entirely deprived his cheek of colour. † This similarity shows how conventional Dracula's physical presence is, his stature reflecting his high status and aristocracy like Ambrosias. Stoker presents Dracula as having an element of the sexual, through his attacking of women, and his uncontrollable desire to overpower and control others. Harker's interaction with the Bride's of Dracula demonstrate the confusing relationship between pleasure and pain that the Vampire embodies: that we somehow desire what we know may or will hurt us. This connection is seen in one of Dracula's weaknesses: that he cannot enter a house without being invited first, which could be a metaphor for his role as a sexual predator, as a woman has to somehow desire or want Dracula to feed from them in order for him to suck their blood. When Mina discovers Lucy after Dracula's attack, Stoker describes her using post-coital imagery: â€Å"her lips were parted, and she was breathing- not softly, but in, long heavy gasps† demonstrating how Lucy possibly enjoyed her attack by the handsome stranger. In The Monk Ambrosia is undone by his carnal lust for Matilda, and then his rape of Antonia, as he is transformed from a pious monk into a sexual predator: â€Å"With every moment of the Friar's passion became more ardent, and Antonia's terror more intense. However Lewis presents Ambrosia as being full of self-loathing and disgust once he had â€Å"dishonoured† Antonia: â€Å"The very excess of his former eagerness to possess Antonia now contributed to inspire him with disgust. † Stoker presents no such sense of repentance from Dracula, whose uses his sexuality primarily to further his control over England. Finally, Stoker presents Dracula as associating with the bestial, through his control over animals and nature, his connection with the ‘other,' and his animalistic consciousness. When Harker arrives at the castle, Stoker immediately connects animals with the Count through the images of wolves: â€Å"All at once the wolves began to howl as though the moonlight had some peculiar effect on them. † Dracula's control over animals is one aspect of his foreign and unknown nature, reflecting Victorian fear of the barbarianism of the supposedly unrefined central Europeans. Dracula can transform himself into a giant bat, which appears as a menacing presence throughout the novel: â€Å"there was a sort of scratching or flapping at the window. Dracula's strange social behaviour and physical presence demonstrates how he is not quite human, and it seems that he certainly relates to animals more than he does to other people: â€Å"Ah, sir, you dwellers in the city cannot enter into the feelings of the hunter. † Ultimately it is Stoker's portrayal of Dracula as a character completely driven by primal desires that associates him with the animal, and any feeling s he represses ultimately become apparent. This characteristic along with the others demonstrate how Dracula is primarily a conventional protagonist in his looks and character traits, his doom and his desires.

American Civil War Battle of Mobile Bay

How Many Plays Did Shakespeare Write

The question of how many plays William Shakespeare wrote is one of some dispute among scholars. There are of course the various factions that believe he did not write any of the works attributed to him. And there’s the question of whether he co-wrote a play titled Double Falsehood, which was previously attributed to Lewis Theobald. The majority of Shakespearean scholars agree that he wrote 38 plays: 12 histories, 14 comedies, and 12 tragedies. But several theories persist that question that total. Shakespeare and Double Falsehood After many years of research, Arden Shakespeare published â€Å"Double Falsehood† under the name William Shakespeare in 2010. Theobald long claimed his work was based on a lost Shakespeare work, whose title was believed to be â€Å"Cardenio,† which was itself based on a section of Miguel de Cervantes â€Å"Don Quixote.† It’s still not fully incorporated into the canon, but may be over time. â€Å"Double Falsehood† is still debated by scholars; many of whom believe it bears more of the hallmarks of its co-author, John Fletcher, than of William Shakespeare.  Its hard to say when, or if, it will be universally recognized among Shakespeares other plays.   Christopher Marlowe and Other Would-Be Shakespeares Then, there are the numerous theories which rest on the assumption that Shakespeare, for whatever reason, could not or did not write all (or any) of the plays that bear his name. Some Shakespeare conspiracy theorists believe he was not well-educated enough to have written so eloquently and so prolifically. Other theories suggest that the name William Shakespeare was a pseudonym for an author or authors who wished to remain anonymous for some reason. The leading contender for the role of the â€Å"real† Shakespeare is playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of the Bard. The two men were not exactly friends but did know each other. The Marlovians, as this faction is known, believe Marlowe’s death in 1593 was faked, and that he wrote or co-wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays. They point to similarities in the two authors’ writing styles (which can also be explained as Marlowe’s influence on Shakespeare). In 2016, the Oxford University Press even went so far as to credit Marlowe as a co-author of its publications of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays (Parts I, II and III). Edward de Vere and the Rest The other leading candidates for the â€Å"real† Shakespeare are Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, a patron of the arts and noted playwright (none of his plays survive, apparently); Sir Francis Bacon, philosopher, and father of empiricism and the scientific method; and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who signed his works â€Å"WS† just like Shakespeare did. There’s even a theory that some of all of these men collaborated to write the plays attributed to Shakespeare, as one elaborate group effort. It’s worth noting, however, that any â€Å"evidence† that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote his 38 (or 39) plays is entirely circumstantial. It’s fun to speculate, but most of these theories are considered little more than fringe conspiracy ideas by the most knowledgeable historians and scholars. The full list of Shakespeare plays brings together all 38 plays in the order in which they were first performed. How Many Plays Did Shakespeare Write The question of how many plays William Shakespeare wrote is one of some dispute among scholars. There are of course the various factions that believe he did not write any of the works attributed to him. And there’s the question of whether he co-wrote a play titled Double Falsehood, which was previously attributed to Lewis Theobald. The majority of Shakespearean scholars agree that he wrote 38 plays: 12 histories, 14 comedies, and 12 tragedies. But several theories persist that question that total. Shakespeare and Double Falsehood After many years of research, Arden Shakespeare published â€Å"Double Falsehood† under the name William Shakespeare in 2010. Theobald long claimed his work was based on a lost Shakespeare work, whose title was believed to be â€Å"Cardenio,† which was itself based on a section of Miguel de Cervantes â€Å"Don Quixote.† It’s still not fully incorporated into the canon, but may be over time. â€Å"Double Falsehood† is still debated by scholars; many of whom believe it bears more of the hallmarks of its co-author, John Fletcher, than of William Shakespeare.  Its hard to say when, or if, it will be universally recognized among Shakespeares other plays.   Christopher Marlowe and Other Would-Be Shakespeares Then, there are the numerous theories which rest on the assumption that Shakespeare, for whatever reason, could not or did not write all (or any) of the plays that bear his name. Some Shakespeare conspiracy theorists believe he was not well-educated enough to have written so eloquently and so prolifically. Other theories suggest that the name William Shakespeare was a pseudonym for an author or authors who wished to remain anonymous for some reason. The leading contender for the role of the â€Å"real† Shakespeare is playwright and poet Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of the Bard. The two men were not exactly friends but did know each other. The Marlovians, as this faction is known, believe Marlowe’s death in 1593 was faked, and that he wrote or co-wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays. They point to similarities in the two authors’ writing styles (which can also be explained as Marlowe’s influence on Shakespeare). In 2016, the Oxford University Press even went so far as to credit Marlowe as a co-author of its publications of Shakespeare’s Henry VI plays (Parts I, II and III). Edward de Vere and the Rest The other leading candidates for the â€Å"real† Shakespeare are Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, a patron of the arts and noted playwright (none of his plays survive, apparently); Sir Francis Bacon, philosopher, and father of empiricism and the scientific method; and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who signed his works â€Å"WS† just like Shakespeare did. There’s even a theory that some of all of these men collaborated to write the plays attributed to Shakespeare, as one elaborate group effort. It’s worth noting, however, that any â€Å"evidence† that anyone other than William Shakespeare wrote his 38 (or 39) plays is entirely circumstantial. It’s fun to speculate, but most of these theories are considered little more than fringe conspiracy ideas by the most knowledgeable historians and scholars. The full list of Shakespeare plays brings together all 38 plays in the order in which they were first performed.