17 minute read
PROPERTY RIGHTS, SIGN-VALUE, AND PLANNING FOR SELF-REALIZATION
MATT BOND
Matt Bond is a second-year master’s candidate with the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC. His academic interests include planning theory, planning for equity, and how space influences the production of culture. Matt received his undergraduate degree from UNC in Political Science and in his free time enjoys reading, writing, and supporting New York sports teams.
ABSTRACT
Land has different forms of value that can be altered through mechanisms such as property rights regulations, economic development, and community development. These changes can create mutually beneficial improvements in value for neighborhoods, cities, and regions between stakeholders such as homeowners, business owners, and even tenants. The two forms of value most considered in this paper are exchange value, which is the value for which land can be sold, and use-value, which is what the land can be used for and is dependent on the intended zoned use. But a third form of value, sign-value, (the value of the land as a social signifier), should also be taken into consideration. Associating an area with certain cultural products can increase the sign-value. This can be done through democratic and bottom-up mechanisms, with examples coming from Milan, Italy, and New York City. These success stories could shape future planning practices. I argue that by increasing the sign-value of an area, increases in other forms of value such as exchange-value soon follow.
GLOSSARY
Exchange-Value: The quantitative aspect of value. This is the value at which a commodity can be exchanged in the marketplace.
Use-Value: The qualitative aspect of value. This represents the value that a commodity has in meeting an individual’s needs. Use-value can be subjective and context-dependent.
Sign-Value: The social aspect of value. This represents the prestige or social status that a commodity passes on to the possessor. Similar to Use-Value, this is also context-dependent, as a commodity can signify different things to different communities of people.
INTRODUCTION
Everyday life is intrinsically linked with social space, or, the spaces in which people inhabit and interact with the world. These spaces do not exist as passive entities, but are produced and reproduced by power relations, social structures, and societal norms. The spaces we produce then recreate and mold our own behavior (Lefebvre 2014). Commodifying land makes it subject to certain rights, which are determined by social relations and collectively conceived values. Commodifying land also imbues it with certain values that interested parties want to defend and expand upon. In a consumer society, these values are entirely relational, depending on the properties’ access to other amenities and through cultural symbols that signify certain status markers or prestige. One of the fundamental goals of planning is to work to increase the values of local properties to the mutual benefit of the community and property owners.
In this paper, I will briefly describe the nature of property rights in America, how property value is determined, and the goals of planning related to these natures. Then, I will hypothesize possible alternative solutions that planners could use to plan for these values through a more equitable and bottom-up framework.
SOCIALLY PRODUCED PROPERTY RIGHTS
Property ownership is commonly conceived as complete dominion over the land, with any regulations or limits being a hindrance to liberty and freedom. But this is a reductive analysis of how property rights are formed and utilized (Singer 2000). Modern property rights are produced by social relations and maintained by social institutions that address the interdependent nature of property. Property inherently generates disputes, as the interests of one property owner will conflict with another. Does one owner have the right to use their property in a way that would damage the ability of another to use their property? (Singer 2000) Even within a parcel of land there can be disputes over rights, such as the rights given to a bank that owns the mortgage, the rights of an insurance company to demand certain actions be taken, and the rights of a tenant who has a lease. To solve these problems,regulation from state and non-state sources is needed. Legal theorist Joseph William Singer proposes that property rights are formed by the law of democracy, which addresses our collective desire to use our property as we wish, but also choose laws that protect our property from the actions of others. These laws are conceived through the collective norms and values of the populace (Singer 2014).
But this definition of property rights given by Singer is missing a key variable - property is a commodity with unique use-values and exchange-values. It provides a variety of possible uses, such as agriculture, commercial, and residential, and also provides access to additional use-values like businesses, communities, and schools (Logan and Molotch 1988). The exchange-value for property is also unique among commodities, as it is a fixed supply and significantly affected by the surrounding commodities/property. From this framework, regulation can be viewed as a tool to limit the use-value of one property owner to benefit both the use-value and exchange-value of another. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court originally sustained zoning laws to prevent a slaughterhouse from damaging neighbor land values (Warner and Molotch 2001); and in 2005, it was decided in Kelo v. City of New London that eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another for local economic development. Property’s interdependence also leads to coalitions, as individuals share common characteristics and wants with other property owners within a community. These coalitions will partake in collective action, such as voting or political action committees, where property owners seek beneficial regulations that protect their assets from others who possess opposing wants. Zoning for different land uses and intensities is one example of such regulations. An additional form of collective action is through non-state mechanisms, such as homeowners’ associations, which can promote regulations that they view would benefit the community. In summary, property rights and regulations are created through social relations, as property owners try to seek regulatory policies that would benefit and increase the use and exchange value of their property.
PROPERTY AND SIGN-VALUE
Another way that property owners attempt to maximize the monetary value of their property is through increasing access to amenities, such as shops and schools, and also by creating growth. The 2023 National Association of Realtors (NAR) Home Buyers and Sellers Trends Report found that proximity to amenities was among the most important factors influencing neighborhood choice for home buyers, such as: convenience to shopping, convenience to entertainment and leisure activities, and the quality of school district (Yun 2023). Property entrepreneurs, like developers and landowners, also value the increased access to amenities and growth, because the increased desirability for their land can result in larger profits. Business owners also like growth as it raises the use-value of their property, and more people means more opportunities to conduct business. American sociologist Harvey Molotch calls this system of growth-oriented development “the growth machine.” The growth machine is administered by a land-based elite who compete with the elite of other municipalities for resources that can produce growth. This competition creates economic profits for the elite, sometimes at the expense of those who live within the community (Logan and Molotch 1988). But, the theory of the growth machine denies the democratic nature of this growth, and additional work needs to be done to account for not only the seller of land but the buyer and consumer.
Molotch’s theory of the growth machine has faced recent scrutiny, in that it does not always play out in reality. Los Angeles from 1980s to the 2000s was dominated by an antigrowth elite, resulting in a chronic housing shortage going against the very nature of a growth machine (Whittemore 2012). His mistake was that he defined “growth” only through direct population growth, rather than economic growth or growth of values. Just as advertising does not solely target the use-value of an object, but also its sign-value, so do cities and towns in their pursuit of economic growth (Baudrillard 1998). Growth can be seen as a way to maximize the signvalue of a property.
In the French sociologist Jean Baudrillard’s analysis of the consumer society, consumption is about manipulating signs to distinguish oneself as a member of ideal or high-status groups (Baudrillard 1998). Individuals attempt to do this with property, due to property’s dual characteristic of being a commodity and a means to connect to more commodities. Property is both a sign and can be further manipulated as one, such as through interior/exterior decoration, increasing house size, and having a pool. Another way to signify membership to an in-group is through manipulating the surrounding area to build a commodity culture. A commodity culture can differentiate those who live in the community and build the identity of community members. Visible examples of this are the status given to those living in a gated community, or those living in an area with luxury stores and restaurants. A less visible example is how a city with a professional sports team has an elevated status above other cities without teams. This manipulation does not necessarily correlate with use-value or exchange-value (although it will most likely affect these values), but rather the sign-value (Baudrillard 2019).
In the 2023 NAR Home Buyers and Sellers Trends Report, of all the factors to influence neighborhood choice, the most important was neighborhood quality (Yun 2023). Defining what makes a quality neighborhood is entirely subjective and can be subsumed under the umbrella of commodity culture. And with commodity culture, differentiation is key. There must be a variety of options to consume so that people can socially define themselves as individuals. While prestige is a fundamental concept as a signifier, commodity culture promotes a variety of options which people will want to identify with. To differentiate themselves (to promote economic growth through use as social signifiers), cities will define themselves as artsy cities, as family-oriented suburbs, tech-hub cities, destination cities, etc. This process is democratic in nature - consumers want and need these commodities (options), and producers want and need to profit so they can in turn become consumers, who then define themselves through social signifiers. Strategies that can increase the sign-value of a community, such as producing certain cultural products or establishing an elite culture, should be key components of city planning.
PLANNING FOR VALUE AND SELF-REALIZATION
City planning as a field is made up of a variety of different practices, all managed through a social and political process featuring many actors, each representing different interests (Friedman 1987). Local actors trying to maximize the values of their property, whether through property rights disputes or consumer-oriented development, make up the bulk of local planning. Significant status and prestige are given to those who own detached homes with a yard. Because of the status and prestige related to this style of home, many urban areas have essentially become a mass agglomeration of single-family homes. This leads to a constraint of housing supply and disputes between developers who want to maximize the exchange-value of the land they own, homeowners who want to maintain the status of their neighborhood (sign-value), and those who cannot afford to live where jobs are located (use-value). Even those who do not own property, such as tenants, play their part in the system, as they reap the benefits stemming from increases in the use-value or the restructuring of the sign-value. However, increases in use and sign-value can enable increases in exchange-value that can hurt these tenants, such as through gentrification - where increased amenities and services in previously low-value communities (and the formation of a desirable culture) benefits homeowners and displaces renters (Qiang, Timmons, and Wang 2020).
To most equitably maximize the values of a town, city, or region, we must use alternative planning strategies. One of these alternative strategies is to plan for increasing access to self-realization opportunities. Self-realization is the active actualization and externalization of the powers and abilities of an individual. For example, actualization involves transforming a potential into an actuality, where an individual develops a certain ability, such as painting or cooking. Externalization involves demonstrating these new abilities to an external audience (be that other individuals or a community) (Elster 1986). Self-realization could serve as a partial replacement of commodities for ways that people can define themselves. Rather than defining oneself through what they consume, they can define themselves by what they can do and who they do it with. Relatedly, grounded culture is the culture that emerges out of face-to-face interactions that is intended to create meaning, moral boundaries, norms, values, and beliefs. Grounded culture can be created through a process of collective self-realization, where individuals attain self-realization through community projects or endeavors. Commodity culture, where all culture is based on seducing an individual to buy a product, is directly counter to grounded culture (Koch and Elmore 2006). Grounded culture, formed through self-realization, can occur in places where people do not have access to the same levels of consumption due to relative economic disadvantage, or as a form of active resistance against certain powers they feel neglected by. Two examples of this are: the development of art culture in 1970’s Milan, Italy and the development of hip-hop culture in New York City from the 1970’s to 1980’s.
MILAN AND NEW YORK CASE STUDIES
In Milan in the 1960s and 1970s, there was active antagonism between the working-class and the planners/city government. The 1953 comprehensive plan called for the “deportation of proletarians to the periphery” and for them to be replaced with luxury apartments and offices. As a form of resistance, the inhabitants’ response was to actively reappropriate the use-values of urban spaces in Milan. This was done by utilizing abandoned buildings and public spaces to engage in activities of collective leisure and creativity (Sevilla-Buitrago 2021). These activities of collective creativity led to the development of the Arte Povera movement. By allowing for art to be a part of lived space, this movement transformed the ways in which the public could interact with artists and experience art (Galimberti 2013). Forming outside the machinations of commodity culture, Milan became a symbol of art culture; but this resulted in a growth of exchange-values that was reinforced by new stores, excessive policing, and a commodification of the grounded culture. Those who originally contributed to this movement were slowly pushed out of Milan by the combined forces of increased policing, rising property values, and the commodification of their culture, and they could not experience the material benefits created by their movement (Sevilla-Buitrago 2022).
1970s New York also faced antagonisms between the city inhabitants and the planners/city government. The Bronx neighborhood was targeted for municipal disinvestment where public amenities, such as hospitals and fire stations, were continuously defunded. This, combined with landlord arson and destructive urban renewal projects, led to the Bronx becoming a symbol of urban decay. Between 1953 and 1980, the total number of housing units lost is estimated to be around 108,000 (Ansfield 2020). Out of this neglect came a new cultural movement - hip-hop, which was formed by young residents of the south Bronx externally from consumption models of cultural production. Hip-hop had its own codes, norms, and values which, similarly to the Arte Povera movement, involved a reclamation of the right to the city. Public spaces and vacant buildings were used as grounds for cultural production, whether through music or dancing, and led to the development of rap as a musical genre and breakdancing as a style of dance. Trains, buildings, and bridges also became canvasses for the new Graffiti art movement developed through hip-hop (Chang 2005). While vilified at the time, rap, breakdancing, and Graffiti art have become mainstays in urban culture throughout the world. Formed through grounded culture, hip-hop has been absorbed into commodity culture and now represents a multi-billion-dollar industry.
ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Third places, areas such as libraries, malls, and coffee shops, are on the decline throughout the United States. These places excel at producing social interactions and a sense of community that can lead to the formation of a grounded culture, and add to the sign-value of a certain area. If one of the fundamental goals of local planning is to maximize values, then planning for self-realization and the restoration of these third places can lead to the formation of a groundedculture that could create new sign-value for a community.
To create this new sign-value, planners should allow for alterations to property rights. These alterations could include allowing vacant buildings to be used for projects of self-realization or cultural production, as that would result in an increase in sign-value for the community. However, an important caveat is that planners need to enact policies that would allow for the communities responsible for the cultural production to reap the social or monetary benefits of their actions. In both the Arte Povera movement in Milan and the hip-hop movement in New York, local residents were not able to receive the benefits of their products, and faced displacement due to the gentrification caused by the sign-values that they produced. A possible solution that would at least offset the potential process of gentrification is to fund the building of affordable housing through the increase in taxes that would arise from increased property values.
CONCLUSION
Different mechanisms exist that facilitate the production of space, including property rights and their disputes, economic structures, and cultural production/consumption. Planning acts to insert direct human agency within these mechanisms to increase the values of property on both a collective and individual level. One way planning seeks to increase these values is through property law and regulations to property rights - both defend the values of collective property from individual meddling in an increasingly interdependent community of property. An additional way is through increasing access to amenities such as schools and jobs. The third way is by forming a local commodity culture that increases the sign-value of local properties (the sign-value being a marker of status or prestige tied to the relational status of commodities). Understanding this framework of central goals and mechanisms of city planning can help us understand alternative strategies to produce values in ways we may have viewed counterintuitive in the past, such as restoring third places or using vacant buildings for cultural production. These strategies may not directly increase the use-value or exchange-value of a community, but instead increase the sign-value, which would eventually bleed into other forms of value.
WORKS CITED
Ansfield, Bench. (2020). “The Broken Windows of the Bronx: Putting the Theory in Its Place”. American Quarterly. 72. 103-127. 10.1353/aq.2020.0005
Baudrillard, Jean (1998). The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. 55 City Road, London: SAGE Publications
Baudrillard, Jean (2019) For a critique of the political economy of the sign. London: Verso
Chang, Jeff. (2005). Can’t stop, Won’t stop: a History of the Hip-Hop Generation. New York :St. Martin’s Press
Elster, Jon (1986) An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press
Friedman, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Galimberti, Jacopo. (2013). “A Third-worldist Art? Germano Celant’s Invention of Arte Povera”. Art History. 36. 10.1111/j.1467-8365.12006.x
Koch, Andrew M. and Rick Elmore (2006) “Simulation and Symbolic Exchange: Jean Baudrillard‘s Augmentation of Marx‘s Theory of Value” Politics and Policy 34(3) 556- 575.
Lefebvre, Henri.(2014) Critique of everyday life. London: Verso
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch (1988). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. University of California Press. ISBN: 978-0-520-06341-9
Qiang, A.J., Timmins, C., & Wang, W. (2020). Displacement and the Consequences of Gentrification (cid:63).
Seipp, David J (1994). “The Concept of Property in the Early Common Law”, 12 Law and History Review 29
Sevilla-Buitrago, Álvaro. (2022). Against the Commons: A Radical History of Urban Planning. University of Minnesota Press
Singer, Joseph William (2000). Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. Yale University Press. ISBN: 0-300-08019-0
Singer, Joseph William (2014). “Property as the Law of Democracy”, 63 Duke Law Journal 1287-1335
Warner, K., & Molotch, H. L. (2001). Building Rules: How Local Controls Shape Community, Environments and Economies. Westview Press
Whittemore, Andrew (2017). “Racial and Class Bias in Zoning: Rezonings Involving Heavy Commercial and Industrial Land Use in Durham (NC),” 1945–2014, Journal of the American Planning Association, 83:3,235-248
Whittemore, Andrew (2012). “Requiem for a Growth Machine: Homeowner Preeminence in 1980s Los Angeles”. Journal of Planning History, 11(2), 124-140. DOI: 10.1177/1538513211417344
Yun, Lawrence (2023). “Home Buyers and Sellers Generational Trends Report” National Association of Realtors.
Zeldman, Jeffrey. (2015). “Break dancers at Brooklyn Bridge subway stop, City Hall Park, Lower Manhattan.” Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/zeldman/21143379664
