Thanks for reading, and having such a great response. The ask of 'socio-spatial marginalization' is to think about the problem spatially instead of just as social, political, or economic. Social and economic solutions can allow people to escape spatial marginalization, but the main planning tool is segregation.

If you look at the map of San Francisco in the article there are two San Franciscos: a green wealthy single family Western part, and a red multifamily part of 'environmental justice' communities. The segregator is single family vs multifamily housing. The 'fix' to marginalization would be to build multifamily housing throughout the city. Or conversely build single family housing in the Eastern parts of the city. Neither is planned at this point. Yet it is known that single family homes create intergenerational wealth.

The idea here is that segregation is being implemented through the abstraction of economics, but it is just as powerful as the 'redlining' of cities in the past.

You ask if socio-spatial marginalization is intentional or unplanned. I believe that 'Power' (institutional or social structures) must create a system of hierarchies and structured social interactions. Some people and groups have power and some are rendered powerless and exploited. Architects, city planners, developers, etc..., are taught to work for 'Power' uncritically. City planners think they are doing good by building low-income multifamily housing in 'disadvantaged communities'. Yet they are just perpetuating the power structure of spatial marginalization.