Question

Based on the passage provided, match each theorist's argument or proposal with the unstated assumption that necessarily underlies it.

In the mid-twentieth century, two dominant schools of thought emerged regarding the revitalization of declining post-industrial cities: the Infrastructuralists and the Agrarian Revivalists. The Infrastructuralists, championed by urban theorist Eleanor Vance, argued that urban decay could only be reversed by expanding high-speed transportation networks and centralizing commercial zones. Vance claimed that prioritizing vehicular efficiency and connectivity would inevitably attract large-scale corporate investment, thereby organically generating the municipal tax revenue necessary to subsequently fund robust public amenities, affordable housing, and comprehensive social programs. This approach, she argued, treated the city as a macroeconomic engine where capital accumulation at the center inherently benefits the periphery.

Conversely, the Agrarian Revivalists, led by Thomas Thorne, contended that the traditional industrial city was inherently alienating, regardless of how efficiently capital flowed through it. Thorne advocated for the systematic de-densification of urban cores, proposing that converting abandoned industrial tracts into communal agricultural spaces would restore a lost sense of civic engagement. He argued that when urban residents share the manual labor of food production, entrenched class stratifications naturally dissolve, leading to a highly cohesive community. For Thorne, the alienation of the urban working class was not merely a byproduct of poverty, but a direct consequence of their detachment from the natural environment and cooperative physical labor.

Contemporary sociologist David Oakes offered a sharp critique of both movements, suggesting they were fundamentally flawed in their shared, narrow focus on spatial and architectural solutions. Oakes argued that without first legally reconfiguring the unequal distribution of property rights and challenging the broader economic framework, any urban redesign—whether a high-speed highway or a community garden—would simply be co-opted by wealthy elites to gentrify neighborhoods and displace marginalized populations. According to Oakes, architects and urban planners suffer from 'spatial fetishism,' mistakenly believing that altering the physical landscape can resolve deep-seated systemic inequalities without corresponding political restructuring.