I thought this question was a jarring contrast to Fullilove’s classification of root shock as a “Community Burn Index” of sorts. I first read her analysis as a purely empirical, from her perspective of a curious psychologist rather than a concerned one. I appreciated how sensitive she was to the emotional state of the community members and how they viewed the situation. This, along with her journey with Cantal-Dupart, demonstrates her commitment to preserving the spirit of the community, and making upgrades of what exists rather than starting from scratch.
I was especially interested in Cantal-Dupart’s ideas about aesthetic beauty in public space. As Fullilove explains, the insider and outsider perspectives both have their biases. It takes a truly committed observer, an artist and healer of sorts to see neighborhoods for both what they are and what they can be to the people that live there, for what is truly beneficial and familiar to its roots. It takes a combination of the well-informed resident and the well-meaning onlooker to make wise decisions for preserving a community and its members.
Even with tragic events like 9/11, citizens have the chance to find the beauty in the rubble, the possibilities in what has been lost. So long as there is a commitment to preserving the presence of the people who have lived, worked, and make connection there, a community will remain very much alive.
The question is: how is a community to reach consensus on what is to be done?
-Jacqui Larsen
the quote you open with is a powerful example of how a clinical, analytic formulation of a problem can be experienced by a listener. however, there are positive examples of a community coming together to make difficult decisions. one staten island neighborhood that was destroyed by Sandy made a collective decision to negotiate with the city for a buyout. they met together many times, discussing their options, and finally created a legal delegation to negotiate the buy out for the entire area.