Contact URBAN urban.submissions@gmail.com
Columbia University in the City of New York Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation
DEMOVolume. 21
BOARD Content Editor: Sahra Mirbabaee Design+Publishing Editor: Jacquelyne Sunwoo Design+Publishing Editor: Jessica Cruz
ASSISTANT EDITORS Stephanie Chan James Piacentini Ramya Ramanathan Shruti Shubham Cover photo by. Faraz Butte
CONTENTS p. 8
p. 30
Planning for Intersectionality in Public Space
Ghost Ship: An Instructive Tragedy for Uban Planning
p. 12
p. 36
Who puts “Community” in the Bushwick Community Plan?
Planning for Walls
p. 18
p. 42
Planning... Post-Humanist? Really?
On the Politics of Planners
p. 22
p. 46
Spatial Ethno-Geographies of the Skateboard Subculture
Planners as Visionaries or Pragmatists?
Rebecca Noble
Charlie Stewart
Tara Heidger
Androniki Lagos
Faraz Butte
Robert Beauregard
Chris Giamarino
Taylor Young
URBAN | 5
LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear Reader, URBAN Magazine is a publication produced by the Masters of Science in Urban Planning students in the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation (GSAPP) at Columbia University. The magazine’s origins stem from the GSAPP Planning Student Class of 1997, a group that called for a platform beyond coursework to share urban planning ideas. Today, the magazine hosts ideas, criticisms, reviews, photography, and creative writings about the built environment from students, faculty, and practitioners.
and more. URBAN believes that asking these questions and providing a formal platform for their discussion is paramount to the planning field. Yet, the pieces are presented in nonacademic formats which invites an audience beyond planners, just as planning is meant to be presented to the general public. URBAN believes that through discussion almost always comes progression and in that sense, URBAN serves as a snapshot of the state of the built environment in 2017 and ponders on the possibilities of the years to come.
URBAN is dedicated to exploring unconventional planning strategies as well as adding to the discourse for the greater adoption of existing ideas. The Fall 2016 publication, “Contra,” looked for ideas that went against the grain and yielded pieces such as a criticism of the valuation of housing as a commodity, the humanistic reuse of modernist spaces, and a call for rethinking the way in which transportation investments are made.
The Spring 2017 issue works to look beyond those planning strategies and asks where people fit into these conceptual strategies. “Demo-” is concerned with the connection between people and planning. URBAN requested contributors to ask critical questions about the role people should have in planning, the degree to which planning should affect people, the individual scale vs. the city scale, the strength of solidarity, Photo by Madeline Berry Cover Photo by Madeline Berry
6 | Spring 2017
From, URBAN
Photo by. Madeline Barry
Planning for Intersectionality in Public Space Rebecca Noble // MSUP ‘18
Since November’s presidential election, there has been a clear impetus for increased democratic activism on the left. The election of President Donald Trump brought many tattered “Democracy is a Verb” t-shirts out of Baby Boomers’ closets, led plenty of Americans to question the siloed nature of their social and political circles, and drew millions to the largest protest in American history. Many feel the call to participate in public demonstrations across the country and abroad, but protests have not been homogenous in ideology or practice. Since the election, many have expressed the need for increased intersectionality and coalition-building to combat the forces of racism, sexism, transphobia, able-ism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia, etc. that confine, exclude, and oppress countless people. Intersectionality should be both a theoretical framework and an active project. More than just a way of looking at the world, intersectionality could provide a way of navigating, acting in, and ultimately changing the world. While the framework of intersectionality helps us to understand the power dynamics at work around us, this recognition (whether communicated or not) is insufficient
8 | Spring 2017
Source: Emily Ladau
Source: Joe Rappaport
because while it makes visible that which is invisible, it sometimes fails to make visible those who are invisible. The topic of able-ism is broached by protesters whose signs bear messages proclaiming that they “march for those who can’t.” Part of our job as planners is to integrate marginality into the center, to make sure that people who have a stake in the political fight can have a presence and a voice in it as well. Many rely on us to expose and reform systems of entrenched disenfranchisement. People with disabilities are one of the (many) groups that are sidelined routinely by planning professionals and society at large. While the Americans with Disabilities
Part of our job as planners is to integrate marginality into the center, to make sure that people who have a stake in the political fight can have a presence and a voice in it as well
Act of 1990 proscribes unjustified discrimination based on disability, the act has not secured parity between people with and without disabilities. Twenty-seven years after the adoption of the ADA, many New Yorkers with disabilities still do not have quality access to transportation, education, jobs, housing, health care, or basic services. Without these necessities, people with disabilities are de facto denied access to the civic commons. If the reader thinks the latter point is overstated, consider this: only 92 of New York City’s 425 public transit subway stations are ADA accessible. The first ever New York City Disability Pride Parade in 2015 provided an illustrative example of how slipshod were the efforts of planning for people URBAN | 9
ADA Anniversary March in NYC, 1993 Source: Disability Pride NYC
10 | Spring 2017
with disabilities. In an ironic twist, the Commissioner for the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, Victor Calise, suggested a parade route without nearby elevator-equipped subway stations. This is but one example of how planning for people with disabilities, when it’s attempted at all, sometimes misses the mark.
The history of planning has often reified institutions of power and the powerful; let us work toward a different future.
Able-ism needs to be brought into the discourse because places planned with and for people with disabilities expand not only the possibilities for who can participate, which is absolutely crucial, but also the types of participation made possible in that space. At all scales, planners must do their part to promote accessibility through design and policy interventions. Recently a diverse and influential group of guardians of public space issued seven steps Mayor de Blasio’s administration can take to facilitate civic action in NYC. None of these steps included increased access for people with disabilities at these events. In a plea for the expansion of the civic commons, one that claims that “New Yorkers should be able to be seen and heard during pivotal historic moments, even if not everyone has the time or money to travel great distances,” this omission is negligent.
“ADA at 26 in New York City.” 2016. Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York. Disability Rights Advocates. http://www.cidny.org/resources/ADA%20at%20 26%20in%20NYC.pdf.
More than a nod in a think piece, though, what New York needs is an agenda of aggressive reform that moves toward practical improvements in accessibility. Until we plan for the varying needs of people, including people with disabilities, we aren’t doing our job right.
Bibliography
“An Open Letter to the Mayor of New York City.” 2017. Accessed March 3. http:// www.e-flux.com/announcements/93806/an-open-letter-to-the-mayor-of-new-yorkcity/. Bellafante, Ginia. 2017. “So Many Protests, So Little Space.” The New York Times, January 27. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/nyregion/anti-trump-protestsnyc.html. Crenshaw, Kimberlé, and Kimberlé Crenshaw. 2015. “Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait.” The Washington Post, September 24. https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/?utm_ term=.8ecf1496e502. “Disability Activists, Amplified: Social Media Gets the Job Done.” 2017. CNET. Accessed March 3. https://www.cnet.com/news/disability-activists-facebookaccessibility-protest-rallies-demonstration-march-trump/. Przybyla, Heidi, and Fredreka Schouten. 2017. “At 2.6 Million Strong, Women’s Marches Crush Expectations.” USA TODAY. Accessed April 3. http://www. usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/21/womens-march-aims-startmovement-trump-inauguration/96864158/. Willitts, Philippa. 2017. “The Women’s March on Washington: A Lesson in Intersectional Failures.” Global Comment. January 19. http://globalcomment.com/ the-womens-march-on-washington-a-lesson-in-intersectional-failures/. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rebecca is a first-year Urban Planning student. She’s interested in how cities can improve people’s quality of life and increasing urban accessibility, affordability, and equity.
Photo by Sahra Mirbabaee
URBAN | 11
Who puts “Community” in the Bushwick Community Plan? Androniki Lagos // MSUP 2017
The chatter started at around 10:15 am and soon it was the focal point of all conversation. Rumor had it, Churches United for Fair Housing (CUFFH) was en route to the Bushwick Community Plan Summit with possibly a hundred fired-up community members. No one could be sure whether this was an attempt to disrupt a muchanticipated day of discussion, or, an earnest effort toward broadening the inclusionary process. One thing was certain: CUFFH was putting its organizational muscle on full display. Time was creeping up on 11 o’clock when the head of the CUFFH crowd marched through the Ridgewood Bushwick Youth Center’s double doors. Not two minutes later, the foyer overflowed with a crowd sporting arm bands prominently displaying the acronym “CUFFH” and chanting “El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido!” [The people united will never be defeated!]. Marchers brought with them energy from an earlier immigration rally and anxiety following a night of ICE raids around New York City, including in Bushwick. It was an electric start to a slushy February morning.
Side conversations stopped and all eyes fixed on Councilman Antonio Reynoso as he took to the stage. His rallying cry to the packed auditorium was that this community plan was by the people and for the people. Long-term residents of Bushwick would shape the future of their community in a way never before accomplished in New York City. The people - not developers and not interested outsiders - would bring their visions of future Bushwick to life through rezonings and the establishment of strategic activity centers. This day would be critical for sharing information and collecting feedback. Before the crowd dispersed into small groups, Jesus Gonzalez of CUFFH stood and addressed attendees. In Spanish, he strongly urged everyone to stay for the entire day, to listen, give their opinions, ask questions
and challenge the ideas presented. But most importantly he wanted everyone to stay and participate. By 1pm, attendance dwindled to a fraction of the morning crowd, with many non-white, Spanish-speaking residents leaving before the critical zoning sessions commenced. Work and other obligations pulled people away, and with them, an opportunity to get input from a substantial yet underrepresented group. NYC Council Members Antonio Reynoso and Rafael Espinal initiated the Bushwick Community Plan in 2014 to get a handle on the rapid changes sweeping through Bushwick. The neighborhood has gained international notoriety for its edgy arts scene and DIY counterculture. The food, visual arts and music make Bushwick a more desirable destination now than ever for those with the URBAN | 13
resources and privilege to choose any neighborhood in New York to take up residence. However, alongside the trend-setters and trustafarians is a Bushwick comprised of concentrated poverty and marginalized populations. Median income in Bushwick is just over $36,000 with 30 percent of residents living in poverty. Sixty-five percent of Bushwick is Hispanic and the mix of national origins is shifting from predominantly Puerto Rican and Dominican to largely Mexican and Central American. The collision of these divergent demographics is certainly nothing new in New York City. And gentrification is an inescapable topic if you’ve stepped foot outside your apartment in the last ten years. Yet the political urgency to fight market forces that remove rather than uplift vulnerable residents has increased. The populist tenor of the Bushwick Community Plan’s launch generated excitement and hope in a time when the neighborhood was feeling less and less for the majority of the people. Their constituents were not interested in sitting idle while new as-of-right luxury condo buildings appeared consecutively block after block. Prior to the February summit, plan sponsors boasted 200 participants across four visioning meetings early in the process. This sounds like a respectable level of engagement until one considers the fact that the six subcommittees producing the real bulk of the community plan meet at least once a month to share information, give input and make essential policy recommendations. Although the Community Plan’s Facebook page encourages all members of the community to participate and the subcommittees are framed as open to the public, the gatherings are little more than an insider’s club. Subcommittee meetings are poorly announced, promoted in English only and are held at hours that preclude regular working people from having the luxury to attend. The Land Use & Zoning and Economic Development subcommittees are lucky if a single community resident is at first, aware of the meeting or secondly, able to join the conversation. Meetings reliably consist of a roundtable of on-the-clock paid 14 | Spring 2017
professionals from DCP, HPD, Councilmember staff, the Pratt Center and two or three CBO representatives. Exclusion by technocrats, policy wonks and elite urbanists may come as no surprise but even those with a very public commitment to the community are failing to bring everyday people into the planning fold in a new way as promised. Consultants at Hester Street Collaborative are charged with facilitating the Bushwick Community Plan, touting community engagement as their specialization. However, these same community engagement specialists have fallen short of bringing a wide pool of residents into the various subcommittees. They also failed to understand that a single Spanish language translation table at the zoning summit would fail to meet the needs of Bushwick’s majority Latino neighborhood. And groups adept at turning crowds out to rally for affordable housing and immigration issues - namely, CUFFH and Make the Road - succeed in bringing people to the table for major events. However, sustained engagement with residents and sound education on essential planning tools such as zoning and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) are sorely lacking. The result is a disingenuous exploitation of people’s passions without providing the vernacular and critical details to participate in a long-term and meaningful way. Which brings me back to the Community Plan Summit. There was so much excitement that day - a feeling that the community would truly have its say and not only keep the city honest, but just, in planning the future of their neighborhood. Instead, it played out more predictably. Attrition was high before rezoning was even discussed. People encountered complex planning concepts in oversimplified terms for the sake of time. A lack of understanding on zoning and MIH benefits and limitations created frustration and confusion. These are the outcomes when the community is expected to absorb and process information that others have taken years to aggregate and neatly package. This is no way to get
a radically different process and result than any other community planning efforts that have come before in NYC. Nothing has been set yet, and I for one hope to see an increased focus on sustained engagement and a reduced emphasis on infrequent summits. Such a change might help in making the community plan a product of the people for whom it is claimed.
Bibliography [1] NYC DOHMH 2015 Community Health Profile [2] American Community Survey 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androniki (Niki) Lagos is a member of the GSAPP UP class of 2017. Her work in this program has included developing best practices for inclusive planning and engaging marginalized populations. Currently, Ms. Lagos is Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council’s ANHD Morgan Stanley Community Development Fellow for 2016-17.
URBAN | 15
Photo by. Faraz Butte
URBAN | 17
Planning... Post-Humanist? Really? Robert Beauregard // Faculty
The following transcript was provided by Professor Robert Beauregard with the permission of the student.
Photo by. Madeline Barry
Professor Beauregard is a faculty of Urban Planning at Columbia GSAPP and the chair of the Doctoral Subcommittee . His research focuses mainly on urban growth and decline with specific attention to resurgent and shrinking cities.
Knock on office door. Student: moment?
Professor, do you have a
Professor: Certainly, come in. S: The students have been talking about something you said at the recent open house. We heard that you claimed that you were a post-humanist. P:
I did.
S: We were curious about what you meant. We thought that planning was for people. P: It is, in a way, but as you have learned, planning is also done “with” people. And, not to forget, it is done “by” people. “For” is too simple. S: This implies that planning is a humanist endeavor. P: Not quite. People are certainly involved. S: We don’t understand. Who else is involved? P:
Well, humans never act alone.
S: You mean they always act with other humans. P: Yes, I mean that but I also mean something more. For humans to act they need “tools.” Consider this: when a
city planner plans, she does so using GIS software, computers, smart-phones, desks, the census.gov web site, and maybe an automobile to do a windshield survey of a neighborhood. S:
O.K.
P: In effect, to plan for and with people, she has to collaborate with other “things” besides humans. Let’s call them non-human things. If you want to establish a wetlands to absorb water from rainfall run-off and to absorb storm surges, you will need to work with the grasses that bind the soil, the soil, the birds and fish which live there, the insects that spawn, and the salinity of the water. All of these non-human things have to collaborate for the wetlands to function properly. S:
Hmm.
P: As a planner, you are not acting alone or just with other humans. S: This all seems obvious. Moreover, it seems very humanistic. P:
What do you mean “humanistic”?
S: For the wetlands to be constructed, elected officials, residents, and planners have to agree that this is a good idea. Without humans making this decision, these projects will not happen. Non-human things are not going to address these URBAN | 19
issues by themselves. Humans are the ones who control the GIS software and specify the grasses to be planted. Where is post-humanism here? People are not absent.
S:
P: Would you agree that planners – humans – cannot act alone?
S:
S:
Yes.
P: Then, would you accept that the action in these cases occurs only when these tools and grasses (among many other things with which planners are involved) are mobilized together with humans? S: Certainly, but we still don’t see how this makes planning posthumanist? Planners are still in charge. P:
They think they are in charge.
S:
What do you mean?
P: Look, if the action is distributed across humans and nonhumans, then humans are no longer the sole repositories of either the intention to act or action itself. As planners, we act when a problem or opportunity exists in the material world: a slum, a degraded wetlands, too little affordable housing, traffic congestion in the downtown, a historic area threatened by development. Neither our intentions nor our actions are our own. 20 | Spring 2017
And, is this post-humanist?
P: Not yet, but accepting that planners are interacting with nonhumans is a start. I’ll accept that.
P: A post-humanist planner takes another step. She recognizes that non-human things are not just passive but have an active role in the collaboration. S:
What does this mean?
P: Two somewhat difficult ideas come together here. One is that all matter is vibrant. Non-human matter is not just waiting around for humans to give it direction. It is also doing things: rain is saturating soils that undermine the foundation of a home that then slides down a hill, deer are invading the suburbs north of New York City and people are becoming sick from deer ticks, and traffic lights are functioning or not. S:
So?
P: Well, when they do, these things often cause us humans to respond. That is, their actions trigger our actions and, as we collaborate with them, they continue to act independently of us. This is the second difficult (and contentious) idea. S:
This makes no sense. Only people
can have intentions and can learn from their actions. Rocks and plants don’t learn. P: Yes and no. However, the more important point is that, in this argument, an actor is any thing – human or non-human – that causes other actors to respond to it. The collaborations we have talked about are not just with non-humans that are passive and manipulated, but with non-humans whose presence has to be taken into account and whose actions are not wholly in our control. Things become actors in this sense. S: Is this, then a post-humanist planning? P: Yes. A post-humanist planning is one that recognizes that humans do not act alone and that, when humans do act, they share intention and action with vibrant, non-human matter. S:
Is that it?
P: Not quite. One of the implications is that humans are no longer viewed as the center of the universe and superior to all other beings.
is inaccurate. I actually promoted them. People are their proper place in the Knowing their place, they better planners. S:
Maybe.
P:
Still skeptical?
S:
Yes.
have now in world. can be
P: Are you rejecting this posthumanist perspective? S:
Not really, but ….
P: Let me make a suggestion. Read a bit and then come back and we can talk further. S:
Any recommendations?
P: Yes, my recent book Planning Matter: Acting with Things. It takes up a number of issues within planning from a post-humanist perspective or, what I call there, the “new materialism.” S:
Thank you for your time.
P:
You are welcome.
S: In effect, humans are being demoted. P: Partly. Humans are not as important as they thought they were. But to say that I have demoted them URBAN | 21
Spatial Ethno-geographies of the Skateboard Subculture: Democratic Urban Space Appropriation, Group Identity and Solidarity, and Utopianized Space in Los Angeles Chris Giamarino // MSUP 2017
This photo collage documents the spatial ethno-geographies of urban space production and appropriation by skateboarders in Los Angeles, California. Functioning as snapshots of a transient, sporadic urban idyll, these photographs speak to the myriad ways in which identifying with skate culture can produce democratized pursuits of anonymity, individuality, group solidarity, affinities with ‘nonhuman’ materiality, and ideals of socially-produced, utopianized, and accessible spaces in cities. Ethnographic research provides invaluable insight to planners as to how city space is used by stigmatized, misunderstood populations. Participant observation, photographs, and interviews reveal socio-spatial exclusion, which physically manifests itself as textual reguations and physical barriers that proscribe certain activities, deny certain population’s right to the city, and exacerbate the shrinkage of true public space in cities. Skateboarders elucidate previously hidden planning problems and studying them show how urban managers can implement policy/design solutions to create more inclusive, democratic space through planning, design, and community engagement strategies.
URBAN | 23
24 | Spring 2017
“In this respect, skateboarders are part of a long process in the history of cities, a fight by the unempowered and disenfranchised for a social space of their own. In doing so, they bring time, space and social being together through a performative confrontation of the body and board with the architectural surfaces; theirs is ‘not only the spaces of “no”, it is also the space of ‘yes’, of the affirmation of life.” C.R. Seijo & H.H. Hernandez, The Concrete Movements, skateboard art, ... space and the city issues and concepts = La historia sobre ruedas, 2009
URBAN | 25
“We’re automatically stereotyped as like hooligans or vandalists. People who are just around vandalizing stuff. Or not seeing that we see the average curb or ledge, while they’re not seeing and just walking by it.” -Lafayette Skateboarder
“Yeah, some something. W We can do ma
26 | Spring 2017
e people use like a bench to sit down or play cards or We put it on like a stair set. We do tricks on it. We grind on it. any stuff with it. We don’t just sit around with it.�
-Lafayette Skateboarder
URBAN | 27
“ it wasn’t intended for skating, but skaters made it their own way. It goes to this idea that the public should be able to use the space however they wanna use it. Not for certain designated ways.”
-West LA Skateboarder
28 | Spring 2017
“We need to think about what is happening around us, within us, each and everyday... [the] constant impression of familiarity makes us think that we know them, that their outlines are defined for us, and that they see themselves as having those same outlines. We define them. and we judge them. We can identify with them or exclude them from our world. But the familiar is not the necessarily known..” Henri Lefebvre, Critique of Everyday Life, 1991, pp. 14 – 15
Chris is a second-year in the Urban Planning program in the Community Development and Urban Analytics concentrations. His research interests include ethnographies of the social production of space and critical analyses of planned spatial exclusion in cities.
URBAN | 29
Ghost Ship:
An Instructive Tragedy for Urban Planning Charlie Stewart // MSUP ‘17
On December 2, 2016, thirty-six people died in an incident hailed as the deadliest American structure fire in over a decade. The fire occurred during a party at Ghost Ship, a former warehouse in Oakland, California that doubled as informal living quarters and a performance space for artists. Survivor accounts of the fire are harrowing. Their stories detail panicked partygoers bottlenecking at a makeshift staircase, choking on black smoke as the fire raged all around them. These accounts are amplified by the fact that the fire could have been avoided through proper enforcement of building codes, responsible and proactive ownership, and a comprehensive, citywide, affordable housing strategy. In a sense, Ghost Ship is a story about urban planning, and in the wreckage of the fire lies opportunity. Urban planners are uniquely qualified to address the issues posed by this incident and craft mitigation strategies for the future. One such solution is affordable artist housing.
The aftermath of the Ghost Ship fire on December 2, 2016.
30 | Spring 2017
Source: CurbedSF, Eric Risberg
URBAN | 31
Ghost Ship was a two-story warehouse built in 1930 and used for various industrial purposes over the years including copper pipe manufacturing and milk bottling.1 Located in an industrialized section of Oakland known as Fruitvale, the neighborhood was once a haven for European immigrants and in recent years has become home to majority African-American and Latino populations. Artists began inhabiting the building in 2013. The venue’s cheap rent and collaborative environment were particularly appealing to artists whom were forced out of both San Francisco and Oakland, two of the most expensive and rapidly increasing rental markets in the country. They lived in makeshift accommodations, with sheets of plywood serving as partitions and hotplates in place of formal kitchens. Overloaded electrical outlets were visible throughout the shared living spaces and stacks of pallets served as a staircase to the second floor. The building had no fire protection and only one means of egress. Nearly five months after the tragedy, there is still no consensus on the cause of the fire or the responsible parties. Instead, blame has been assigned to government agencies, landlord negligence, and an escalating housing market that continues to marginalize artists and low income residents. Affordable artist housing is a planning strategy that operationalizes affordable housing to create economic development, historic preservation, cultural capital, and neighborhood revitalization. Developers are incentivized to pursue affordable artist housing for its low risk and minimal equity investment, while cities fund these developments hoping that they will not only create affordable housing and shield artists from displacement, but also generate “off-budget returns” by impacting the local economy and preserving historic structures. The strategy accomplishes its primary goals of providing 32 | Spring 2017
low-cost housing and preventing displacement through recent changes to fair housing policies. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) expanded affordable housing protections to include people “involved in artistic or literary activities.” 2 These changes fomented a market for affordable artist housing development, which previously did not qualify for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”). Lawmakers enacted these changes to stimulate local economies and to address a process of artist displacement that had been occurring across the country for over a century. Artists tend to cluster in tertiary neighborhoods, seeking cheap rent and a prevalence of space. Their presence impacts the urban landscape, resulting in neighborhoods growing in popularity and eventually becoming commoditized, thus increasing rents and displacing the artists in favor of higher income residents. HERA harnessed this process, known as the “SoHo Effect,” by marrying it with LIHTCfinanced affordable housing to produce economic development. Maria Cantwell, a Democratic Senator from Washington, spoke in support of the policy, stating “these innovative housing developments…are being used as part of a larger redevelopment strategy to rebuild neighborhoods.” 3 Affordable housing is certainly needed in Oakland. Since 2014, the average monthly rent for a one bedroom unit has increased by 22% to nearly $2,500. 4 Affordable artist housing promotes economic development by simply leveraging the innate tendencies of artists. A nationwide study of artists found the group to have below-average incomes, high levels of educational attainment, a high prevalence of political activism in their communities, and an ability to increase cultural capital. 5 Artists tend to “cluster” together to derive inspiration from peers, which attracts other “creatives,” a cohort that economic development officials assume to be upwardly mobile and possessing
A-Mill Artist Lofts in Minneapolis, MN Source: a-millartistlofts.com
discretionary income. 6 The nature of artistic production is also inherently valuable as it has qualities that are not merely economic and are not found in other goods. Artistic production can be irrationally consumed and created; it is heterogeneous by nature, subject to creative and cultural whims, and unpredictable in both inception and success on consumer markets.7 Artists also produce and consume in one place, making them excellent consumers and place-making agents (e.g. SoHo, Haight-Ashbury). Oakland has a vibrant and growing artistic community. The city is home to hundreds of arts and cultural nonprofit organizations and a large population of working artists with an annual estimated economic impact of $53 million.8
In addition to affordable housing creation and economic development, affordable artist housing also produces historic preservation. Artists are constrained by (or perhaps drawn to) large working spaces that can accommodate their various mediums and the tools and materials needed to produce them. This tendency has led artists to industrial and manufacturing buildings that are often clustered together and located on the periphery of downtowns. Most affordable artist housing rehabilitates existing structures to mimic the authentic tendencies of artists in a controlled manner, such as the A-Mill Lofts in Minneapolis (pictured), a National Historic Landmark built in the 1880’s. Costs are a significant consideration in the rehabilitation of URBAN | 33
Read’s Artspace in Bridgeport, CT
buildings as well. Cities typically offload buildings from their real estate ledger into the hands of affordable artist housing developers to avoid the extensive environmental investigations, excavation, and foundational work inherent in ground-up development. Affordable artist housing has had demonstrable success in places like Seattle, Minneapolis, and New York City where strong and diverse local economies provide a built-in consumer base for artist-residents and other job opportunities for those unable to make a living wage from their artwork. These cities tend to have a diverse array of housing policies and subsidies to fund the projects as well as a greater level of sophistication in negotiations that increase their leverage and probability for mutual success. These housing designs for artists have proven to be an effective means of increasing affordable housing supply, but do not always produce the “off-budget returns” that they promise. Cities that lack strong, diverse economies are particularly vulnerable. For example, an artist housing development in Bridgeport, Connecticut created 61 units of affordable housing by rehabilitating 34 | Spring 2017
a 121,000 square foot department store in the heart of the city. However, the project did not fulfill the developer’s promise of economic development or result in downtown revitalization despite great optimism on behalf of the city. “Off-budget returns” are also not entirely off-budget as their name implies. In fact, affordable artist housing units cost 25% more than “normal” affordable housing units. 9 This signifies that when these projects don’t fulfill the promise of economic development, the premium paid by cities become a sunk cost. There is also the concern that the broadly-defined effect of “art” on neighborhoods is difficult to measure objectively. 10 This distorts the impact of affordable artist housing and leads developers to conflate its effect with other broad changes taking place in cities. Finally, the economic development that affordable artist housing promises often rests upon the assumption that the “creative class” is upwardly mobile, possesses discretionary income, and will cluster in neighborhoods pioneered by artists. If these assumptions prove to be faulty, the effect is obscured in Seattle, Minneapolis, and New York City
but more pronounced in cities with less resources, such as Bridgeport, which invested in affordable artist housing as a springboard to more development. Despite the criticisms of affordable artist housing, it is a powerful tool for cities seeking solutions for displacement. Recent events in Oakland suggest the city is taking meaningful steps towards creating a more comprehensive affordable housing strategy. In November 2016, Alameda County voters approved a $580 million affordable housing bond that allocated nearly $55 million to the city of Oakland for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. $35 million of the overall bond issuance is earmarked for an “Innovation and Opportunity Fund,” to “respond quickly to capture opportunities that arise in the market…e.g. rapid response, high-opportunity predevelopment and site acquisition loans.” 11 Days after the deadly fire, Mayor Libby Schaaf announced a $1.7 million fund dedicated to the creation of “sustainable, long-term solutions to creating affordable, safe spaces for Oakland’s artists and arts organizations. A portion of these funds will be allocated to acquiring real estate to “create permanently affordable, safe spaces for artists and arts organizations.”12 Ghost Ship represents the tragic consequences and limitless opportunities of urban planning. Not known as a field in which urgency is a daily companion, events such as this deadly fire are the exception to the rule. Ghost Ship demands a response. In the months surrounding this tragedy, Oakland has committed significant funding to affordable housing development and mitigating artist displacement. City officials would be wise to pursue affordable artist housing to simultaneously achieve both outcomes. The legacy of Ghost Ship should not end with a finger pointed squarely at one party, although that is precisely what is occurring as this story goes to print. As we
embark on our careers, let’s be mindful of Ghost Ship. Let’s create our own unique philosophy about urban issues and their effect on people, and apply that to our work.
Bibliography 1
Alcindor, Yamichie, Dougherty, Conor, Fuller, Thomas, Kovaleski, Serge, Turkewitz, Julie. (2016). “Why the ‘Ghost Ship’ Was Invisible in Oakland, Until 36 Died.” The New York Times. 2
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
3
Orfield, Myron. (2016). The Rise of White-Segregated Subsidized Housing. The Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity. The University of Minnesota Law School. 4
Project, Anti-Eviction Mapping. “Oakland UD EVICTIONS.” Oakland Evictions Anti-Eviction Mapping Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2017. 5
Jeffri, Joan, (1998). Information on Artists: A study of Artists’ Work-Related Human and Social Service Needs in Four U.S. Locations. Columbia University School of the Arts: Research Center for Arts and Culture. 6
Markusen, A. & G. Schrock. (2006). The Artistic Dividend: Urban Artistic Specialization and Economic Development. Urban Studies 43 (10): 1661 – 1686. Currid, E. & J. Connolly. (2008). Patterns of Knowledge: The Geography of Advanced Services and the Case for Arts and Culture. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98 (2): 414-434. 7
Throsby, David. (1994). The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 32 (1): 1-29. 8
“Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Announces Major $1.7M Philanthropic Investment to Help Create Safe & Affordable Space for Oakland’s Arts Community.” Northern California Community Loan Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2017. 9
Orfield, Myron. (2016). The Rise of White-Segregated Subsidized Housing. The Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity. The University of Minnesota Law School. 10
Guetzkow, J. (2002). How the Arts Impact Communities: An Introduction to the Literature. Taking the Measure of Culture Conference, Princeton University. 11
“2016 Alameda County Affordable Housing Bond Fact Sheet.” (2016): n. pag. Alameda County, 2016. Web. 18 Apr. 2017. 12
“Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Announces Major $1.7M Philanthropic Investment to Help Create Safe & Affordable Space for Oakland’s Arts Community.” Northern California Community Loan Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Charlie Stewart is a second year planning student specializing in affordable housing, land use, and the built environment. His thesis is entitled “Operationalizing the SoHo Effect: An Analysis of Affordable Artist Housing in Bridgeport, CT.”
URBAN | 35
Planning for WALLS Tara Heidger // MSUP 2018
A wall has two sides. One to keep you in, and another to keep you out. The side of the wall in which you are standing, can determine your route, your direction, your inclusivity or exclusivity, your property, your neighborhood, and in times of war or conflict, it can even determine your fate. Unlike the invisible lines on a map or between neighborhoods or groups of people, walls are the simplest and most obvious form of exclusion and inclusion. The planning and construction of a wall is a physical manifestation of a perceived or necessary requirement for separation of people, space, ethnicities, and communities.
Photo by. Sebastian Meyer
URBAN | 37
The erection of walls during times of war has been practiced for centuries. Modern examples such as Berlin, Belfast, Palestine and Baghdad, have proven time and again that initial short-term plans to enhance security, can freeze conflicts in place, dividing cities for the long term. Even today, in an effort to predict conflict before it exists, walls are going up across borders in Europe in an effort to keep extremists at bay. This in turn, divides communities, polarizes political ideologies and cuts off access to those looking for refuge. So, how do planners respond? Do planners work around the barriers of walled cities and borders, or do they work to turn them back into flowing, unbounded metropolises? While serving in the US Army, my unit, as part of the surge into Baghdad in 2007, was tasked to construct walls around entire neighborhoods during the dark of night. Sectarian violence was at its peak and Iraqi civilians and coalition forces were being targeted by car
Photo by. Sgt. James Selesnick
38 | Spring 2017
and roadside bombs multiple times a day. The ability for militias to operate freely and under the guise of average civilians made it difficult to know who was dangerous and who was not. In response to these threats, our newly emplaced walls became both a nuisance and a security blanket for civilians and military alike. The walls were not part of a planning process based on community participation or equity considerations. In fact, in times of conflict or occupation, very little urban planning happens FOR the community, but rather, it happens TO the community. Whether or not ethical in the mind of a planner, conflict brings about a sense of urgency and security for all involved. Senior Iraq War Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen said in 2007, “[Walls] in counterinsurgency are like tourniquets in surgery. They can stem a life-threatening hemorrhage, but they must be applied sparingly, released as often and as soon as possible, and they have side-effects that
Photo by. Holly Pickett
have to be taken into account.” The walls in Iraq did not only serve their intended security purposes, but political and armed groups throughout the city saw them as an opportunity to be used as canvasses, displaying sectarian slogans and political propaganda. This propagated use of space ultimately marked and designated public space as ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’, further segregating the city. Civilians in Baghdad, have had to bear the brunt of the side effects forced upon them through these walls. By some estimates, there are over 100,000, 12ft by 5ft barriers that still stand tall in Baghdad today. These walls result in military and police resources being tied up at checkpoints and overwhelmingly congested roads. Public spaces are walled off and militarized according to their location in the city. As a result, once-thriving local economies have been cut in half, highways slice through the city with restricted views and access into neighborhoods, children go through military
Photo by. Holly Pickett
checkpoints to get to school, and locals who commute across the city must start early in the morning to get to work on time. In response to these effects, each walled neighborhood has become a kind of isolated centrality where shops, markets, and services are installed in former and abandoned residential quarters. Despite the official end of US occupation, Baghdad is still very much a city in conflict. Since there is yet to be a large-scale plan to remove the walls, Iraqis are creating ways to live with them. Efforts of urban beautification of the militarized city have been underway for years with millions of dollars of funding coming from public and private organizations around the world. But do these efforts solidify the placement of these walls which have frozen a conflict in time? Does embracing the reality and the permanence of these walls legitimize their existence? As walls continue to go up across Europe and even potentially along our own border, urban planners around the world must grapple with how to plan for a city post-walls, but also, learn how to plan for cities plagued by them.
Photo by. Holly Pickett
URBAN | 39
People gather every Sunday in the Placa de Sant Jaume to dance a Sardana, which is seen as representing Catalan unity.
Photo by. Faraz Butte
URBAN | 41
On the Politics of Planners Faraz Butte // MSUP 2018 It would be naĂŻve to categorize planning as a neutral field and an objective tool with the sole purpose to better society. Yet, that is not to say planning cannot be a powerful force for good. The vast majority of planners hope to better the communities they work in, however, to understand how planning can be used as a positive force, it is crucial to be cognizant of the ways in which planning has been and continues to be negatively used, either inadvertently or intentionally. As planners, the efficacy of our work relies on our ability to recognize the underlying social injustices of planning and to attempt to mitigate the detrimental effects of policies and interventions, which are almost always guaranteed to be. The field of Urban and Regional Planning emerged at the turn of the 19th century as a reaction to the inhumane and unsanitary living conditions produced by rapidly industrializing and expanding cities. As with modern planning, the beginnings of the field sought to change the politics, economics, and geographies of cities as a method to protect people against the ills of unconstrained capitalism and to improve urban health and safety. This 42 | Spring 2017
principle is foundational to the study and practice of planning today. Nonetheless, questions of what constitutes a good neighborhood, city, or region, as well as who they should be made for, rest in the hands of those in power. While zoning separated industrial zones from residential areas and newly enforced housing standards improved living conditions, these same planning tools have also been used against vulnerable and minority groups in detrimental ways. In the United States, redlining and the creation of highways brought about the destruction of communities of color by keeping its inhabitants separated from economic opportunity. These moments amongst many others illustrate the frequency in which governments or other groups in power have used planning as a mechanism to protect dominant ethnic groups. The unintended consequences of planning policies or the absence of policies are usually a function of the political atmosphere. While the stated goals of policies or interventions may appear to have objective goals, the politics behind the planning will appear in its lasting
Photo by. Faraz Butte
URBAN | 43
effects. In his 1980 work titled Power/Knowledge, Michel Foucault demonstrated that the examination of power relations should not be overly concerned with what is stated, but rather upon concrete policy outcomes.1 The shift towards neoliberalism in the 1980s ushered in an era of privately-led development and a prioritization of profit and commercial activities over community needs. As a result, gentrification continues to negatively affect vulnerable communities the most as a subsequent byproduct of these capitalistic motives. Recent examples from New York clearly illuminate that although planners intend to create new community spaces, planning decisions are dominated by outside investments rather than the involvement of existing community members. The High Line is one such example in which the area surrounding the project has become all but unaffordable for those who had been living there. These consequences are a result of neoliberal politics, capitalism, and power relations that continue to heavily influence modern development priorities. The dark history of planning reminds modern planners to remain aware of the destructive powers that the field of planning embodies. This begs the question: where do planners engage with politics? Planning can play a vital role in advocating for increased community dialogue. For example, families who have been gentrified out of their home neighborhoods or the children of Flint, Michigan who have suffered for three years without clean tap water necessitate a venue to speak of their concerns. Yet, beyond advocacy and participatory planning, the knowledge of planners needs to be carried to the local, city, and state levels. Although working in government may not be desirable position for everyone, a nuanced understanding of its function within the scope of planning is necessary to create lasting impacts. After all, planning acts through intermediaries such as policies, legal frameworks, and built neighborhoods to shape cities. In order fully utilize advocacy and participatory 44 | Spring 2017
planning for meaningful change, we must not only be able to navigate existing policies but also work towards shaping future ones. The breadth of planning is extensive and its limits are only where we as practitioners draw the boundaries. Bibliography Foucault, Michel. Power, Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972 - 1977. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester, 1980. Print.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faraz is a first-year in the Urban Planning program and is studying the built environment. He is interested in the intersection of urban planning and public health, as well as the historical use of urban planning as a tool of emerging nation-states.
Planners as Visionaries or Pragmatists? Taylor Young // MSUP 2017
Source: Eric Skiff
46 | Spring 2017
In the summer of 1936, Robert Moses and the New York City Parks Department opened 11 new pools to give communities in overcrowded neighborhoods a way to escape the scorching summer heat. The construction of the impressive projects also assisted in putting New Yorkers back to work following the Great Depression. [1] The most famous of these pools, the Astoria Park Pool, is overshadowed by another crown jewel of Robert Moses’ work - the ambitious and grand Triborough Bridge. The Triborough Bridge was constructed using state-ofthe-art engineering and technology to span Randall’s Island and connect motorists from Manhattan, the Bronx and Queens. In perspective, both the Astoria Park Pool and the Triborough Bridge have become two works emblematic of the current state of New York’s public projects and the nuances in scale and vision of which they suggest. New York planners are familiar with the story. Public projects today are not completed on the same scale as they once were under Moses and often times for good reason. Moses was the Master Builder, but his accomplishments often came at the expense of marginalizing communities and public opinion. His lasting legacy brought to fruition the many strategies used today to mitigate large-scale development such
as limited budgets, extensive environmental reviews, NIMBYism, and an increasing recognition of local opinion and community participation. We’re still constructing large scale projects in New York, but it seems that they are only for the rich. For example, 432 Park Avenue is the tallest residential building in New York, located in a neighborhood well known for impressive towers and wealth. These buildings inspire New Yorkers with their beautiful designs and grandeur, yet they serve very little public purpose as the average price of a unit within 432 Park Ave is $30 million. [3] In contrast to Midtown’s lofty projects, municipal governments can learn from other opportunities to improve residents’ lives in smaller, more incremental ways. The work of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) is one such example. Since 2006, NYCDOT has opened approximately 250 miles of bike lanes to satisfy the increasing, annual demand for cycling.[2] The NYCDOT’s Vision Zero campaign has also helped to lower the total number of annual deaths of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians caused by traffic since the campaign’s initiation in 2014. These projects shows that cities can still make large impacts on the lives of their residents through small and inexpensive designs. Pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements cost pennies on the dollar in
Photo by. Taylor Young
48 | Spring 2017
Cities can still make large impacts on the lives of their residents through small and inexpensive designs.
comparison to the overall budget of the Department of Transportation and the city, and are often simply completed with the use of paint, concrete barriers and flex-posts. Where should city planners focus their time and efforts in these days of limited budgets and political will? Should planners be visionaries or pragmatists? Although Daniel Burnham lived in a different age, his famous statement that we should “make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood” applies to this conundrum. Street safety improvements and painted bike lanes that are created every-so-often do not capture hearts or inspire entire populations the same way that the opening of new bridges, tunnels, subway extensions, or even a Moses-era pool would do. The ideal scenario is that planners should be both visionary and pragmatic. Cities should plan large projects for the long-term and complete smaller scale improvements in the short-term. Although money and political will are both scarce commodities that continue to leave lasting tensions between these two scales of development, I believe that we should still plan for the cities we want. Large projects could spur investment or re-define areas, but they are deserving of both substantial time and money to create beautiful outcomes through landscaping and good urban design. In the meantime, planners should also focus on less expensive ways to improve urban daily life by implementing practical safety improvements. There is a third option exemplified by the work of NYCDOT and its Vision Zero campaign. The mayor and the NYCDOT could take inspiration from the summer of 1936 and make a bold statement about street safety and quality of life by conducting a massive overhaul of New York City’s streets through a Vision Zero blitz. This program would first target the most critical streets then connect these streets to a larger
livable network. This blitz would make streets safer and change the ways in which New Yorkers think about their streets. Transportation Alternatives state that streets and sidewalks make up 80 percent of New Yorker’s open space and that planners should use these streets as primary, programmatic areas to create a city that justly serves its people. Redesigning our streets will create safer and more hospitable neighborhoods for the people that live in them and implementing these redesigns on a massive scale could help inspire residents to take back their streets. It is time to end great steel and marble urban development. Choose any reason, but large projects at the inspirational scale of the Triborough Bridge take much too long to construct and are costly investments. Although we still need new Hudson River tunnels and subway expansions, we should build and plan for such infrastructure in the long-term but make smaller, more incremental changes at the neighborhood level in the short-term. These incremental changes would have a greater impact on people’s day-to-day lives, while still having the potential of being branded as part of larger programs organized by the city. The people of New York deserve quality of life improvements in every neighborhood of every borough. Redesigning New York City’s streets for the 21st Century appear to be a small plan in comparison to the Triborough Bridge, but when done on a comprehensive scale, it too will inspire and stir the hearts of all New Yorkers.
[1] “History of Air Conditioning.” Energy.gov. US Department of ENergy, 20 July 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. [2] “Bicycling in New York City: Know the Facts.” Transportation Alternatives, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2017. [3] “Building: 432 Park Avenue.” Street Easy, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2017.
URBAN | 49
Early forms of Democracy at a Greek Theatre at ruins of Priene, in present day Turkey.
Photo by. Faraz Butte
URBAN | 51