{"id":3126,"date":"2013-11-12T07:15:17","date_gmt":"2013-11-12T14:15:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/?p=3126"},"modified":"2014-06-20T13:20:36","modified_gmt":"2014-06-20T19:20:36","slug":"is-sustainable-urban-placemaking-elitist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/?p=3126","title":{"rendered":"Is ‘Sustainable’ Urban Placemaking Elitist?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jamaal Green thinks so<\/a>.\u00a0 Playing off of a recent post by Kaid Benfield<\/a>, he suggests that mainstream sustainability advocates must \u201cmove beyond a consumptive conception of cities that\u2019s based on attracting a preferred social elite, whether they be footloose millennials or middle class families.\u201d\u00a0 Too often ignored are current residents who typically have limited options about where to live and can be easily displaced by the force of gentrification as newcomers move in. \u00a0The benefits of gentrification don\u2019t readily trickle down<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Green\u2019s message is important. \u00a0There\u2019s still a dearth of voices addressing the \u201cequity deficit\u201d in our thinking about sustainable urbanism. \u00a0Some other standouts are Richey Piiparinen<\/a>, who usefully asks of the urban \u201clivability\u201d trend: for whom, and at what cost?\u00a0 Like Green, Piiparinen suggests that the focus falls disproportionately on the coveted group of \u201ccultural creatives\u201d having disposable income.\u00a0 Consequently, current urban interventions\u2014tactical or otherwise\u2014too often reproduce the divide between amenity-rich and amenity-poor neighborhoods.\u00a0\u00a0 Similarly, Roberto Bedoya<\/a> detects in creative placemaking practice a blindness to the social and racial injustices at work in society.\u00a0 He challenges placemakers to become more aware of \u201cthe politics of belonging and dis-belonging,\u201d noting that \u201cbefore there is the vibrant street one needs an understanding of the social dynamics of that street.\u201d Neeraj Mehta<\/a> builds on this theme, asking:<\/p>\n

<\/i>For whom are we trying to create benefit when implementing our creative placemaking strategies?\u2026Which people do we want to gather, visit, and live in vibrant places?\u00a0 Is it just some people?\u00a0\u00a0 Is it already well-off people?\u00a0\u00a0 Is it traditionally excluded people? Is it poor people? New people? People of color? \u2026.We need to create an explicit pro-equity agenda to our creative placemaking efforts, be explicit about who benefits from the beginning, put it in our logical models and include it in our measurement.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Three<\/a>

The Three E’s of Sustainability: Environment, Social Equity, and Economy (Wikipedia)<\/p><\/div>\n

Julian Agyeman<\/a> takes up this challenge most comprehensively in his recently published book Just Sustainabilities<\/i><\/a>. \u00a0Agyeman usefully considers both the physical and symbolic character of the urban built environment.\u00a0 \u00a0The \u201ccomplete streets\u201d and \u201ctransit oriented development\u201d agendas are rooted in middle class visions, values, and narratives.\u00a0 They can signal something very different to people of color, immigrants, refugees, and other urban underclasses. Newly established bike lanes and pedestrian zones can breed resentment when biking and walking\u2014historically the primary transportation options for low-income people\u2014become fashionable for people of greater means. Their appearance can also increase anxiety because they often portend gentrification and displacement.\u00a0 Other celebrated sustainability initiatives like community gardens and urban farms can remind non-white citizens of the oppression their ancestors experienced under plantation and share-cropping systems, when sometimes all that\u2019s really desired by residents is a simple, affordable grocery store. \u00a0Even equally accessible urban parks and other public spaces can signal cultural and sub-cultural inclusivity or exclusivity depending on signage, amenities, and whether adequate space is available for different kinds of outdoor activities. Agyeman\u00a0describes various bottom-up and top-down placemaking initiatives in cities like Boston and Bogota that are more congenial to the needs of urban minorities and underclasses, and exemplify \u201cshared narratives of equity and justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Certainly, there can be some significant overlap between mainstream sustainability agendas and explicit pro-equity agendas.\u00a0 In the Sustainable Cities<\/i> post that provoked Green\u2019s critique Benfield embraces a broad notion of sustainability that reflects concerns well beyond pollution and resource consumption.\u00a0 He notes that cities must be made to work for all<\/i> people given a rapidly diversifying urban demographic. Benfield admits that some tactical urban interventions are frivolous and self-indulgent (see also here<\/a>).\u00a0 He has also written about the dangers posed by commercial gentrification<\/a> to minority businesses in suburban areas that attract immigrants. He has written positively about the rejuvenated South Lincoln (Mariposa) neighborhood in Denver<\/a>, and its developer\u2019s use of a \u201ccultural audit\u201d to solicit a broad spectrum of community opinion about desired features and services. \u00a0The Project for Public Spaces channels both Mehta and Bedoya<\/a> in articulating the challenges facing inclusive placemaking. The new MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning report on Places in the Making<\/i><\/a> <\/i>takes equity concerns to heart where it problematizes the concept of \u201ccommunity\u201d (typically invoked far too casually in most platemaking discourse; for a Denver example see here<\/a>), urges greater attention to the \u201cright to the city,\u201d and advocates a more \u201cnuanced\u201d understanding of political power and social capital. New Urbanists<\/a> acknowledge the need to better engage with working class and minority groups.<\/p>\n

\"\u201cLa<\/a>

\u201cLa Alma de la Mariposa\u201d Mural by Jeremy Ulibarri (left) and \u201cMestizaje\u201d sculpture by Emanuel Martinez (right), South Lincoln Neighborhood, Denver (D.Saitta)<\/p><\/div>\n

Tactical urbanism has its virtues.\u00a0 The Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper (LQC)<\/a> interventions celebrated by Places in the Making<\/i> attract attention and spark the imagination.\u00a0 And where imagination is sparked, permanent changes that enhance livability and vibrancy can follow.\u00a0\u00a0 But not everyone has the time, resources, freedom, or interest to experiment with LQC.\u00a0 The approach is no substitute for a more substantive focus on questions of housing, transportation, and affordability that prioritize social equity and the accommodation of cultural difference<\/a>.\u00a0 Advancing the equity agenda requires changes to planning theory and practice that, in Agyeman\u2019s terms, are transformative and not simply reformist. \u00a0In this regard, Bedoya usefully recommends that placemaking practices be informed by critical race theory<\/a> as well as more conventional spatial planning and economic development theories. Learning from history also helps.\u00a0 Failure to do so risks\u2014as Green notes\u2014reproducing earlier forms of urban renewal that resulted in the marginalization, containment, or displacement of our most vulnerable citizens.<\/p>\n

This essay was reposted to Sustainable Cities Collective<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jamaal Green thinks so.\u00a0 Playing off of a recent post by Kaid Benfield, he suggests that mainstream sustainability advocates must \u201cmove beyond a consumptive conception of cities that\u2019s based on attracting a preferred social elite, whether they be footloose millennials […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[18,20,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intercultural-city","category-placemaking","category-sustainability"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1H2bI-Oq","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3126"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3126\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3260,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3126\/revisions\/3260"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.interculturalurbanism.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}