This week takes a new approach to defining community, and brings into question the politics of place. Instead of just using a community as a standard, Hayden investigates the built environment as questioning for who the city is for and who it belongs to. This characteristic is especially interesting within the urban setting, and in new york, because of continuous growth the city is experiencing at the hands of both private developers as well as federal and local government. Space is a cultural product that indicates both identity and history of certain group, while revealing specific social connotations (“knowing one’s place”, a woman’s place”). Hayden argues that preserving the memory of place is not enough, and that public space is necessary and must foster a need for maintaining diversity and culture. Having “Place” is then defined as a privilege by Young, and those who have limited access to space do no get an equal hand in shaping social reproduction and a full spectrum of economic and political rights. Young states that terms like “sprawl” are applicable specifically to a privileged class, as urban centers continuously reveal growing minority, low income populations.
However, these notions are tested in what we’ve been talking about as gentrification. In a city as a growth machine, with very limited access to land, growth must occur in neighborhoods that may be considered “undesirable” or that “need fixing anyway”. Place then becomes a political matter, as land is seized by those who can afford it and used in a manner which Hayden would argue does not consider its social impacts. We’ve been discussing the role of the government in city planning, yet are facing a situation of a shifting focus to private development at the hands of a neoliberal economy. New ownership of space is what is then used to exploit and oppress certain people within these communities. While they might be part of the labor force that takes on developments, these developments shape how the city grows, with little public investment. Gentrification drives rents up, destroys the identity of place, and makes these places unsuitable for those who lived in them initially. “Placeless” planning, as Hayden would define it, can not meet the needs of an existing community, contributing to marginalization of people within their own communities.
We should consider whether De Blasio’s inclusionary housing plan actually considers the politics of place. As understood in Smith’s article from few weeks ago, it doesn’t at all. Proposed developments are not for communities but for market growth within a capitalist economy. “Inclusionary Housing” is not in fact inclusionary, as it must be discussed in terms of a larger built environment- the entire architectural landscape of a community, what existed before development, as well as a shifting political and demographic situation.
To what extent is public space in the hands of communities? Is any form of community planning able counter “Placeless” planning? How can we ensure economic diversity in preservation?
