Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Challenging Environmental Gentrification How can sustainable development prevent environmental gentrification?
Toby Kirkaldie S1408902
P a g e 1 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………. pg.3 Urban Greening Paradox……………………………………………………………………………………………………………pg.3-5 What is Environmental Gentrification? …………………………………………………………………………………..…pg.5-6 Sustainable Development………………………………………………………………………………………….………………pg.6-8 Urban Parks in New York City………………………………………………………………………..………………………..pg.8-11 Anti-Gentrification……………………………………………………….……………………………………………………...….…pg.11 ‘Just-green-enough’………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………pg.12-13 The European Agenda…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………pg.14 The Social Ideology…………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………pg.15-16 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..pg.17 The Role of Landscape Architects………………………………………………………….…………………………………….pg.18 Reference List………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………….pg.19 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..pg.20
P a g e 2 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Introduction Environmental Gentrification (Checker M. 2011) is concerned with the gentrification of certain neighbourhoods, facilitated by sustainable development. This rests on an assumption that the sustainable paradigm has taken a specific form, advocated through the selective prioritisation of technocratic power over social equity and environmental justice. Environmental sustainability is rationalised through ‘urban greening’ and ‘post-industrial greening’ (Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J. 2014) to conceal the neoliberalist and economic agendas. The demand for ecological function has become an object of middle and upper class consumption and status, leading to the displacement of working class communities and marginal social groups (Checker M. 2011). This essay examines the triggers and consequences of environmental gentrification, to hypothesise ‘socially-just’ sustainable development as an ‘anti-gentrification’ solution (Haffner J. 2015). The ethnographic research focuses on environmental justice activism and private funding in New York City, resulting in ‘urban park disparities’ (Corbett B. 2016). The understanding of ‘social ideology,’ developed in context with sustainable development is introduced as a grounded solution to prevent environmental gentrification.
Urban Greening Paradox Urban Greening explores the potential of integrating green space in urban landscapes. Urban green space, also referred to as ‘metro nature’, includes; urban parks, street trees, green roofs, streams and community gardens. The implication of urban greening has led to the development of ‘liveable cities’ that facilitate global and societal wellbeing (Wolf K.L. 2010). Ecosystem services provided by urban green space not only support the ecological integrity of cities, but can also protect the public health of urban populations. Green space, particularly street trees, filter air and reduce pollution, attenuate noise, reduce the urban heat island effect, infiltrate storm water and replenish groundwater (Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J. 2014). While, research in Environmental Psychology advocates that urban parks improve physical and mental wellbeing; encouraging physical exercise, social interaction, and delivers a natural buffer to mental fatigue and chronic stress (Kaplan R. and Kaplan S. 1989 and Ulrich R.S. 1984).
P a g e 3 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
However, within cities, green space is not always equitably distributed. Access is often highly stratified based on income, ethno-racial characteristics, age, gender and (dis)ability. Like the context of human health and wellbeing, the uneven accessibility of urban green space has become recognised as an environmental justice concern (Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J. 2014). Environmental Justice, is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of; race, colour, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. The concept began in the US in the 1980s, due to the realisation that people of colour and low-income earners typically occupy the urban core and inner-ring suburbs where green space is marginalised and polluting industries and waste disposal plants are common. This environmental injustice has become a planning priority, leading to green park development programmes and community strategies to regenerate underutilised urban land for additional green space (US Environmental Protection Agency 1980). However, environmental justice activism, can lead to an urban greening paradox. Green space improves the attractiveness and public health of a landscape, making neighbourhoods more desirable to reside. Subsequently, house prices can rise exponentially, leading to the displacement of the residents that the green space was supposed to benefit. In most scenarios, those displaced are forced to migrate to less desirable neighbourhoods with similar park-poverty issues. The urban greening paradox, however, is not subject primarily to the US but is a global phenomenon that has led to the popular notion of gentrification (Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J. 2014). In China, the scale of internal migration, urban growth and rapid population increase has led to widespread environmental pollution. Environmental justice is an emerging concern, with access to green space distributed by income; with pollution impacts, hazardous jobs and poor quality housing concentrated amongst the lower-income earners. Rapid urbanisation in Hangzhou, one of China’s oldest cities has consumed its agriculture land and impacted the environmental quality. However, the city has addressed declining environmental quality by transforming underused urban infrastructure into parks and green spaces. Today, Hangzou is recognised as a ‘Garden City’, renowned for its tree-lined processional routes and scenic West Lake National Park. However, the design of urban green space, has focused on aesthetics rather than function. Furthermore, evidence suggests differences in access to green space is directly associated with socio-demographic characteristics of the population. In the inner city, green space is very limited and new studies propose that urban greening efforts may be inflating property values. Hangzhou may begin facing park-related environmental injustice unless it begins to combat the urban greening paradox (Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J. 2014).
P a g e 4 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Figure 1. Green space retrofits, Hangzhou China
What is environmental gentrification? The urban greening paradox has led to the growth of a new body of gentrification research, that explores the process and unintended consequence of urban greening, conceptualised as ‘environmental gentrification’ (Checker M. 2011; Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). The terminology encompasses the literature of ‘green’ gentrification (Gould K.A. and Lewis T.L. 2009), ‘ecological’ gentrification (Dooling S. 2009) and as ‘political ecologies’ of gentrification (Quastel N. 2009) to explore the social-spatial consequences of sustainable urban development. The reading correlates social, economic and environmental policies at the urban scale, focusing on the significant relationship between society and nature. Dr Melissa Checker, Member of the Urban Studies Department at Queens College, focuses on grassroot environmental justice activism and the politics of urban sustainability in the US. In the
P a g e 5 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
article, ‘Wiped out by the ‘Greenwave…’ Checker defines environmental gentrification and delineates the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability, based on ethnographic research conducted in the Harlem neighbourhood of New York City. In correlation with neighbouring communities, Harlem’s gentrification has remained stagnant, due to its toxic history as a repository for industry, waste stations and bus depos; and the very lack of urban green space. Concerns for health and wellbeing led to the development of an active environmental justice organisation, West Harlem Environmental Action Coalition (WE ACT). The grass-rooted organisation fought against environmental burdens, and worked to create environmental amenities. In 2000, WE ACT introduced a community-based ‘Sustainable Development Programme’, which unintendedly propelled sustainability onto urban planning agendas. While, the intervention of PlaNYC 2030, New York City’s long-term sustainable plan launched in 2007, challenged Harlem’s grass-rooted philosophy. By operating through a discourse borrowed from WE ACT’s own rubric of sustainability, PlaNYC 2030 could ‘pick-and-choose initiatives’ (pg.222 Checker M. 2011) in a technocratic context, removing questions of social and environmental justice. Checker concludes, that Harlem residents and WE ACT activists ‘ran headlong into the paradox of sustainability’ (pg.224 Checker M. 2011) with green amenities symbolising and facilitating for the neighbourhood’s new elitism (Checker M. 2011). The ethnographic research conducted in Harlem, facilitated Checker’s notion of environmental gentrification. The ‘convergence of urban redevelopment, ecologically-minded initiatives and environmental justice activism in an era of advanced capitalism. Operating under the seemingly apolitical rubric of sustainability, environmental gentrification builds on the material and discursive successes of the urban environmental justice movement and appropriates them to serve high-end redevelopment that displaces low income residents’ (pg.212 Checker M. 2011). This suggests, the philosophy of sustainability becomes significant to post-political projects, hypothesising technocratic intervention instead of social justice.
Sustainable Development In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published its report, ‘Our Common Future,’ chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the then Norwegian Prime Minister. The Brundtland Report, as it became recognised, hypothesised the links between the social, economic and ecological dimensions of development. The report refers to ‘development’ as a traditional and
P a g e 6 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
economic goal and ‘sustainability’ as an ecological goal, together devising a new model, ‘Sustainable Development’ (Baker S. 2006). The popularity of the model stemmed from its ability to reconcile economic development and ecological protection, while the holistic ideology allowed governments to take account of different, ‘political cultures, policy contexts and socio-economic needs’ (pg.46 Baker S. 2006). Subsequently, the rhetoric ‘Sustainable Development’ has become a guiding philosophy for global environmental negotiations and governmental implications. However, the process in which urban environments are being redesigned under the rubric of sustainable development are highly contested. Although, social development is incorporated in the ideology of sustainability, the surge in environmental awareness in cities has not been matched with the concern for social equity (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). ‘Sustainable development is not a social movement but rather a locus of greater commodification’ (pg.233 Luke T.W. 2005). The current application of the sustainable paradigm has been accused of promoting a ‘green competitiveness’ in the market economy, also known as ‘green growth’ and ‘green economy’ (UNescap 2005). The focus on the environment, ecosystems, and the concept of ‘urban greening’ (Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J. 2014) obscures the social dimensions. Therefore, it is critical to question exactly who, within our societies, has access to sustainable developments; considered ‘highly desirable’ and ‘liveable’ (Dale A. and Newman L.L. 2009). Topics relating to social justice have been concealed by the sustainable development paradigm and replaced by less measurable notions, such as; identity, sense of place and benefits of social networks (Cucca R. 2014). Scott D Campbell PhD, Professor in Urban Planning, explores the promises and obstacles of combining social justice and environmental sustainability, implicating urban planning research and practice. Sustainability and social justice are considered two political movements embedded in disparate ideologies. For urban planners, the priorities of social justice and sustainability are collectively confronting the damaging consequences of ‘uneven development’; both in the political economic sense and in the environmental sense. The imperative of economic growth further imbalances the potential for ‘just’ sustainable development. To challenge the notion of environmental gentrification, the philosophy of sustainability must progress to the growing concerns of social justice. This requires escaping from the middle-class sustainability of ‘elitism’ and adapting to the needs of the ‘deprived’. The sustainable paradigm has endured as a global development strategy due to its vagueness in definition and ability to evolve. Therefore, it is the awareness and productive collision of environmentalism and social justice that provides the opportunity to revitalise the advancement of sustainable development. Campbell, however, makes it clear that the
P a g e 7 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
progression towards a ‘just’ sustainable agenda will be an on-going process that requires compromise, collaboration and community intervention (Campbell S.D. 2013).
Urban Parks in New York City “Urban planners believed that parks would improve public health, relieve the stresses of urban life, and provide a democratic public space where the rich and poor would mix on equal terms” (pg.10 Sherer P.M. 2006). However, in New York City (NYC), uncontrolled private fundraising has led to park inequity. The amount of funding is representative of political power and socio-economic demographics, with urban parks in low-income neighbourhoods receiving lower maintenance budgets and fewer staff (Corbett B. 2016). Environmental gentrification has become a major concern in New York City, with the unequal funding of urban parks leading to intentional and unintentional high-end real estate development, at the expense of low income residents (Checker M. 2011). Originally, the City of New York’s Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) was primarily funded by public, governmental money. However, the 1970s-financial crisis caused severe cuts to all city departments and agencies, leading to the deuteriation of parks in NYC. Private funding methods began to become popular, as ‘conservancies’ and ‘friend’s groups’ developed to support specific parks. The agreement stood that private non-profit organisations would take on the responsibilities of the NYC Parks to support and maintain certain urban parks (Corbett B. 2016). The ‘Conservancy Model’ was supposed to be temporary, however the uncontrolled influx of private funds into signature parks has silenced political will to restore NYC Parks public control (Shakarian K. 2014). This two-tier budget system has led to the segregation of NYC’s public spaces, increasing the socioeconomic disparities between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ (Corbett B. 2016). In NYC, urban parks are becoming less democratic as private funding increases. This has led to the development of high profile urban parks with amenities that serve the ‘elite’. On the other hand, private funding leads to poorly maintained neighbourhood parks which signify the limited opportunities presented to low-income populations. However, under the political paradox of sustainability, urban parks within NYC continue to be redeveloped or specified to private entities. The sustainable paradigm hides the economic incentives for the city government, private investors and the global elite. Furthermore, urban parks with less affluent communities tend to be developed
P a g e 8 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
for commercial space due to their limited political influence. Subsequently, the area becomes a victim of eco-gentrification leading to the displacement of the native population and the disappearance of the cultural identity of a neighbourhood (Corbett B. 2016). Environmental gentrification is defined as the growing phenomenon of rising property values in the wake of a large scale urban greening project (Haffner J. 2015). The High Line is one of NYC’s most recent park developments. Funded by Friends of the High Line, the project aimed to turn a remnant of the industrial age into a post-industrial park and tourist attraction. However due to environmental gentrification, the redevelopment of the High Line park has drastically changed the socio-economic character and residential composition of West Chelsea, an iconic NYC neighbourhood (Haffner J. 2015). The large scale greening project has intensified gentrification in NYC, forcing small businesses and low-income residents to relocate while those who can afford it have begun to experience the negative implications of the ‘tourist-clogged walkway’ (Moss J. 2012). Land values increased exponentially with property values increasing by 203% between the years 2003 and 2011 (Moss J. 2012). However, there are benefits of the elitist park. The High Line has improved the ecological value of the landscape which has attracted financial investment and increased property values for the benefit of NYC. This suggests, that the notion of sustainability continues to reach its goals, however the ‘a-political’ and technocratic implication of sustainability remains responsible for environmental gentrification.
Figure 2. The High Line, New York City
P a g e 9 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Central Park in NYC, is also an extreme example of gentrification, demonstrating how public space can be ‘malformed’ into an elite space. In 1857, New York State introduced a contest to create a large urban greening project, won by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvart Vaux (Corbett B. 2016). ‘One of the main reasons behind the construction of NYC’s Central Park-designed by Olmsted after a trip to Birkenhead Park, Merseyside- was to raise property values and tax revenues for the city’ (Haffner J. 2015). Olmsted conducted studies on rising land values around Central park admitting that the greening project would clear the area of ‘undesirables’ and encourage ‘elitism’ (Haffner J. 2015). The Central Park Conservancy was established in 1980, after the 1970’s-financial crisis had left Central Park ‘a dustbowl perforated with crime and drug’ (pg.42 Corbett B. 2016). The Conservancy was launched as a non-profit organisation, however the influx of funding from the surrounding residents led to the ‘first wave of the city’s gentrification boom’, pioneering the private fundraising model (Corbett B. 2016).
Figure 3. Central Park, New York City
The High Line and Central Park are ‘textbook’ examples of environmental gentrification and neoliberalism demonstrating how the elite private sector and city government have developed urban parks for profit within NYC. The establishment of private funding was necessary during the 1970’s-financial crisis; however, the uncontrolled development of ‘friends’ groups’ and ‘conservancies’ has catalysed the rate of gentrification. Today, the private fundraising of urban parks
P a g e 10 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
has created disparities between public ‘democratic’ space and socio-economic classes. The implication of urban greening, under the seemingly a-political rubric of sustainability, has led to an intentional means for economic growth, disregarding the socio-cultural impacts on the native populations and rich character of low-income neighbourhoods (Corbett B. 2016).
Anti-Gentrification However, by understanding the triggers and consequences of environmental gentrification, correct procedures and policies can be implemented to ensure that the native residents of an area are not displaced (Haffner J. 2015). Urban planners and related professions, must actively implement ‘conscious anti-gentrification’ solutions, aiming to increase the environmental quality and public health of a neighbourhood, without changing its socio-economic character (Haffner J. 2015). These solutions must integrate, ‘actually existing sustainabilities’ (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012; Krueger R. and Agyeman J. 2005), where technocratic implications of sustainability have failed or masked the intended agenda. In other words, the solution to environmental gentrification is to find a balance between ‘social equity and sustainability’ (pg.61 Corbett B. 2016). Timothy Beatley, Urban Planner, developed another way to green cities without changing its socioeconomic character. Beatley created the ‘Biophilic Cities Project’, aiming to facilitate the innate human-nature bond in urban landscapes (Beatley T. 2014). Biophilic design aspires to integrate green space where we live, enhancing the, ‘emotional connection of urban residents to life outside’ (Haffner J. 2015). Rather than advocating ‘urban greening’, the Biophilic Cities Project calls for urban planners and related professions, to consider the importance of nature in the development of large scale projects, rather than as an ‘afterthought’ (Corbett B. 2016). Biophilic Design, is not necessarily an anti-gentrification solution. However, implemented as a component of ‘socially-just’ sustainable development, the notion Biophilia inspires environmental justice.
P a g e 11 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
‘Just-Green-Enough’ Winifred Curran and Trina Hamilton, academics in the Departments of Geography at the University of Buffalo, have used the case study of Newton Creek in Brooklyn, New York to explore how different visions for the green city are enacted through activism and policy-making. Neighbourhood residents and business owners seem to be advocating a strategy, referred to as ‘just-green-enough’ (pg.1027 Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012), to achieve environmental remediation without environmental gentrification. The case study presents an example of how, ‘sustainable development processes can foster visions of economic diversity, social justice and democracy that directly complicate and contest gentrification and neoliberalism’ (pg. 1030 Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). Greenpoint is the northernmost neighbourhood in Brooklyn, bounded by Newton Creek and the East River. Greenpoint’s waterfront location helped to shape the neighbourhood as an industrial powerhouse, and an industrial centre for oil refineries, fertiliser factories and coal yards (Corbett B. 2016). During the 1950’s an estimated 17-30 million gallons of oil seeped into the Creek and 55acres of surrounding land, predominately facilitated by owners of Exxon Mobil (EPA 2007). Greenpoint became a ‘dumping ground’ with the neighbourhood housing waste water treatment plants and a Department of Environmental Protection sludge tank. However, in 2010, Newton Creek was declared as a Superfund Site, meaning the federal government became responsible for the clean-up of the Creek’s hazardous pollutants. The fear of gentrification spurred on a ‘cohesive community vision’ (pg.1030) for Greenpoint; achieving remediation while maintaining the workingclass residents and industrial land use (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). The Newton Creek Nature Walk, described as the ‘ironic-nature-walk’ (Ruen C. 2009) and the ‘antiHigh Line’ (Gabourie B. 2014) is a concrete park ‘wedged’ between the polluted creek and sewage treatment plant that challenges conventional concepts of ecological sustainable design. The Nature Walk allows residents to access the waterfront, creating a ‘skeleton’ for the industrial history of the city. The Newton Creek Alliance community organisation referred to the nature walk as a ‘community victory,’ allowing residents, ‘to connect to nature, even if that nature is a little dirty’ (pg.1034 Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). The Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA) programme gives grants to local governments and community groups to develop strategies for brownfield redevelopment (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). Newton Creek’s BOA is a partnership launched in 2008 with the vision to redevelop the Creek
P a g e 12 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
as a ‘21st century industrial corridor’ (pg. 1035 Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). The vision focuses on the recognition of the Creek’s current importance as an industrial site, and the potential for Greenpoint to flourish as a working-class neighbourhood (Newton Creek Alliance 2008). The vision of the BOA, incorporates the past and the future to advocate the neighbourhood’s industrial history as a ‘buffer’ (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012) to gentrification. The success of the ‘conscious anti-gentrification’ (Haffner J. 2015) initiative, ‘just-green-enough’, cannot necessarily serve as a model on how to achieve environmental remediation without displacement. However, Greenpoint is a case study in the ‘messy contextual politics of sustainability that offer the possibility for a democratic and socially just way to rethink and redesign the green city’ (pg. 1039 Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). Residents refused to accept their own displacement as an inevitable outcome of the real estate market of NYC, and instead formed alliances which highlighted the importance of industrial businesses to the neighbourhood and the city (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). The ideology for Greenpoint juxtaposes the a-political implication of sustainability used for the High Line and Central Park, exposing the potential for ‘just’ sustainable development, facilitating social equity and environmental justice.
Figure 4. The Newton Creek Nature Walk
P a g e 13 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
The European Agenda Urban green spaces (UGS) are at the forefront of European environmental policies, considered as a ‘nature-based solution’ (pg.123) to help produce socially-cohesive, economically-competitive and climate resilient cities (European Commission EC. 2015). However, UGS research in Europe largely retains a managerial perspective emphasising functional values, planning and aesthetics, overpowering terms such as, ‘social’ and ‘participatory’ (Rutt R.L. and Gulsrud N. 2016). Issues of equity and justice in the distribution and decision-making around UGS are largely absent due to European countries experiencing growing income disparity and spreading urban gentrification. Furthermore, immigration is ‘swelling’ and over recent years, European countries have received the vast majority of asylum applications of industrialised nations (Swedish Institute, 2016). Subsequently, more attention to environmental justice perspectives is recognised in European UGS research (Rutt R.L. and Gulsrud N. 2016). The evidence and concern of environmental gentrification, has led to UGS scholarship in Europe examining the benefits of differentiated distribution of heterogenous UGS and the ‘exploration into pluralistic notions of quality’ (pg.124 Rutt R.L. and Gulsrud N. 2016). However, more significantly, research has focused on governance processes, with a critical perspective of differentiated power relations. A ‘capabilities’ framework has been proposed as an alternative way to approach justice, or as an extension to ‘recognition-based justice’ which focuses on the integration of typically excluded social groups. ‘Capabilities’ are the abilities needed for people to ‘fully function in their chosen and valued lives’ (pg.125 Rutt R.L. and Gulsrud N. 2016). Understanding what capabilities are required to participate and be recognised helps to explain how technocratic asymmetries and environmental injustices are historically and socially constructed. Therefore, the European agenda directs its attention to ‘just’ sustainable development and environmental justice in the context of social activism. However, to fulfil this agenda, collaboration across academic fields, activist groups and public institutions are essential to reverse the trends in environmental injustice (Rutt R.L. and Gulsrud N. 2016).
P a g e 14 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
The Social Ideology In Berlin, Germany, conscious anti-gentrification is emerging as a concept of sustainable redevelopment. Tempelhof Airport, located in the popular neighbourhoods of Kreuzberg and Neukolln, was a large Nazi-era terminal closed to air traffic in 2008. The ‘Land of Berlin’ bought the airport in 2009, without having any clear intentions (The Economist, 2012). Originally, the airport was to be designed by a group of internationally renowned architects and transformed into 4,700 new residencies, with associated commercial amenities. However, fearing the socio-economic changes that often accompany large scale developments, locals, many considered anti-gentrification activists, rejected the project in a referendum in Spring 2014 (Haffner J. 2015). Most recently, antigentrification activists appealed against the BMW Guggenheim Lab, a well-intentioned urban project, referring to it as a ‘crappy capitalist luxury project’. Today, Tempelhof Airport remains as a public park, hosting garden allotments and public art exhibitions; and Germany’s decennial International Garden Show in 2017 (The Economist, 2012). However, the case study of Tempelhof Airport does not postulate the philosophy of ‘just’ sustainable development; instead highlights the ideology of the local population. Anti-gentrification activists protest technocratic development proposals that facilitate economic goals, rather than social equity and environmental justice.
Figure 5. Tempelhof Airport, Public Park, Berlin
P a g e 15 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Similarly, Solheimar, Iceland, founded in 1930 by visionary, Sesselja Hreindís Sigmundsdóttir, is a world renowned sustainable community, recognised for its social ideology. Solheimar creates the space and opportunities for each person to grow and develop, thus becoming an important and active participant in the community. Therefore, the spirit of the ecovillage is embodied by the concept of ‘reverse-integration’. Sesselja focused on listening and facilitating to the needs in society, with the aim to strengthen the qualities and desires of individuals. Personal development encourages individuals to ‘become the director of their own story’ and subsequently, the community’s philosophy. Launched in 2004, ‘Reform and Community Reintegration for Model Prisoners’ focuses on the collaboration between the national prison and Solheimar. Prisoners are integrated in the community, working and socialising with other residents, rebuilding ‘broken’ relationships (Solheimar, 2004). The focus on the possibilities of people, rather than limitations, has led to a ‘diverse’ community celebrated for sustainable living. Solheimar is not a case study of antigentrification, as such, however exploits an ideology that can prevent environmental gentrification. Sesselja’s philosophy provides a grounding for what constitutes ‘socially-just’ sustainable development.
Figure 6. Solheimer Eco Village, Iceland
P a g e 16 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Conclusion In conclusion, the rubric of sustainable development can prevent environmental gentrification, however the concealment of technocratic and economically driven agendas must be addressed. Therefore, it is not necessarily the sustainable paradigm that requires speculation but the ‘apolitical’ manipulation of its philosophy. The versatility and adaptability of sustainable development, has led to a political superiority masked by the popular notion of environmental sustainability. The philosophy of sustainable development should not be oppressed, but must be allowed to evolve in context with social equity and environmental justice. Therefore, sustainable development is not responsible for environmental gentrification; it is the adaptable solution. Anti-gentrification solutions, hypothesise a ‘socially-just’ sustainable paradigm, aiming to increase the environmental quality and public health of a neighbourhood, without changing its socioeconomic character (Haffner J. 2015). However, anti-gentrification activism tends to be facilitated by community and neighbourhood intervention, without technocratic support and involvement. Therefore, to facilitate sustainable anti-gentrification solutions, concepts of ‘collaboration’ and ‘compromise’ must be addressed (Campbell S.D. 2013). The ‘just-green-enough’ approach examined in Greenpoint, Brooklyn foregrounds the significance of developing sustainability led alliances that foster visions of economic diversity, social justice and democracy that directly contest gentrification and neoliberalism (Curran W. and Hamilton T. 2012). Social ideology is not necessarily an anti-gentrification solution, however, provides a grounding of what constitutes ‘socially-just’ sustainable development. The focus on listening and facilitating to the needs of a society, advocated in Solheimar Eco Village, is essential to combat the process of environmental gentrification. By understanding and incorporating the social ideology of communities, urban planners and associated professions can strive for ‘socially-just,’ and ‘ecologically-rich’ sustainable development.
P a g e 17 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
The Role of Landscape Architects There is minimal research that examines the role of landscape architects in the ‘a-political mess’ that constitutes environmental gentrification and sustainable development. This is because, the role of Landscape Architects is concealed by technocratic agendas that govern the consequences of design and planning. Therefore, Landscape Architects are partly responsible for environmental gentrification, however, tend to follow a brief which conceals the political and economic agendas. The High Line was designed by Landscape Architects, James Corner Field Operations and Horticulturist, Piet Oudolf. The post-industrial large scale greening project, foregrounds the role and success of landscape architecture as a profession; redesigning space that encourages the three pillars of sustainable development; social, economic and environmental. The High Line is an ecologically rich landscape, with an abundance of flora and fauna. Signage, lighting and seating encourages social interaction and ease of access. The greening project has dramatically increased land value, encouraging new development opportunities and an influx of tourists from around the world. So, what’s the ‘catch’? Landscape Architects create multifunctional and aesthetic landscapes, however are not questioned to whom they are designing for. This paradigm exposes the unintended consequences of the profession that catalyses the process of environmental gentrification. Similarly, Central Park designed by Calvert Vaux and Frederick Law Olmstead, considered ‘the father of landscape architecture’ highlights the negative impacts of the profession. Central Park is an aesthetically pleasing natural environment; incorporating natural lakes, processional routes, woodlands and open expanses of green space; encouraging the biophilic human-nature bond. However, the urban park is a ‘textbook’ example of how environmental sustainability, embedded in the fabric of Landscape Architecture, encourages property values and tax revenues to increase exponentially. The role of Landscape Architects must adapt to the evolving body of knowledge concerned with ‘socially-just’ sustainable design. The profession must detach itself from technocratic agendas and propose alternative methods, implementing the social ideologies of communities and neighbourhoods. Collaboration and compromise are essential to the future roles of Landscape Architects, encouraging ‘specific solutions’ where ‘blanket interventions’ have failed.
P a g e 18 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Reference List Baker S. (2006), Sustainable Development, Routledge Publishers Beatley T. (2014), Biophilic Cities [Online] http://biophiliccities.org/ [Accessed: April 2017]. Campbell S.D (2013), Sustainable Development and Social Justice: Conflicting Urgencies and the Search for Common Ground in Urban and Regional Planning Checker M. (2011), Wiped Out by the ‘Greenwave’: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability, City and Society [23:2, 210-229]. Corbett B. (2016), Urban Parks: A Study on Park Inequity and Eco-Gentrification in New York City Cucca R. (2012), The Unexpected Consequences of Sustainability: Green Cities Between Innovation and Eco-gentrification Curran W. and Hamilton T. (2012), Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability [17:9, 1027-1042]. D.S. The Economist (2012), No ‘crappy capitalist luxury project’ please [Online] Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/04/berlin%E2%80%99s-tempelhof-airport [Accessed April 2017]. Gabourie B. (2014), ‘Just Green Enough’ [Online] http://www.880cities.org/index.php/newsfeeds/880inthenews/entry/just-green-enough [Accessed: April 2017]. Haffner J. (2015), The dangers of eco-gentrification: what’s the best way to make a city greener? [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/06/dangers-ecogentrification-best-way-make-city-greener [Accessed April 2017]. Kaplan R. and Kaplan S. (1989), The Experience of Nature, A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press. Luke T.W. (2005), Neither Sustainable nor Development: Reconsidering Sustainability in Development, Wiley Interscience [13, 228-238]. Moss J. (2012), Disney World on the Hudson [Online] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/in-the-shadows-ofthe-high-line.html [Accessed: April 2017]. Ruen C. (2009), The Ironic Nature Walk [Online] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/nyregion/thecity/10boul.html [Accessed: April 2017]. Rutt R.L. and Gulsrud N.M. (2016), Green justice in the city: A new agenda for urban green space research in Europe, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening [19, 123-127]. Shakarin K. (2015), For Richer & For Poorer: Tying the Park Equity Knot [Online] http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5052-richer-poorer-park-equity-new-york-city [Accessed: April 2017]. Sherer P. (2016), The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space, The Trust for Public Land. Solheimar (2004), Solheimar Eco Village [Online] http://www.solheimar.is/en/ [Accessed: April 2017]. Ulrich R.S. (1984), View through a window may influence recovery from surgery, Science Journal [v224, P420(2)]. UNescap (2005), Green Growth and Green Economy [online] Available at: http://www.unescap.org/our-work/environmentdevelopment/green-growth-green-economy/about [Accessed: April 2017]. Wolch J.R., Byrne J. and Newell J.P. (2014), Urban Green Space, public health, and environmental justice: The Challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’, Landscape and Urban Planning [125, 234-244]. Wolf K.L. (2010), Green Cities, Good Health [Online] https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_Healing.html [Accessed: April 2017].
P a g e 19 | 20
Toby Kirkaldie s1408902
Challenging Environmental Gentrification
Advanced Professional Practice
Images Figure 1. Green Space retrofits, Hangzhou China https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260439342_Urban_green_space_public_health_and_environmental_justice_T he_challenge_of_making_cities_%27just_green_enough%27/figures?lo=1 [Accessed: April 2017]. Figure 2. The High Line, New York City https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/the-high-line [Accessed: April 2017]. Figure 3. Central Park, New York City https://lovingnewyork.de/sehenswuerdigkeiten/central-park/ [Accessed: April 2017]. Figure 4. Newton Creek Nature Walk http://www.qrpartners.com/project/newtown-creek-nature-walk/ [Accessed: April 2017]. Figure 5. Tempelhof Airport, Public Park, Berlin http://www.amusingplanet.com/2015/06/abandoned-tempelhof-airport-now-berlins.html [Accessed: April 2017]. Figure 6. Solheimar Eco Village, Iceland https://www.worldpackers.com/positions/1103 [Accessed: April 2017].
Bibliography Antrop M. (2005), Why landscapes of the past are important for the future, Landscape and Urban Planning [70, 21-34]. Brown K.D. and Jennings T. (2005), Collective Consciousness in Landscape Architecture: Embracing a Social Justice Orientation to Professional Responsibility [Online] http://www.plannersnetwork.org/2005/04/collective-consciousness-inlandscape-architecture-embracing-a-social-justice-orientation-to-professional-responsibility/ [Accessed: April 2017]. Dale A. and Newman L. (2009), Sustainable development for some: green urban development and affordability, Local Environment [14:7, 669-681]. Dooling S. (2009), Ecological Gentrification: A Research Agenda Exploring Justice in the City, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research [33:3, 621-639]. Gould K.A. and Lewis T.L. (2009), Green Gentrification, Routledge Publishers. Kwon Y., Joo S., Han S. and Park C. (2017), Mapping the Distribution Pattern of Gentrification near Urban Parks in the Case of Gyeongui Line Forest Park, Seoul, Korea, Sustainability [9:231, 1-17]. McConville M. (2013), Creating Equitable, Healthy, and Sustainable communities, United States Environmental Protection Agency Mendelhall A. (2016), A Welcome Profusion: Social Justice Discussion and Action [Online] http://land8.com/profiles/blogs/a-welcome-profusion-social-justice-discussion-and-action [Accessed: April 2017]. Schroeder H. and McDermott C. (2014), Beyond Carbon: Enabling Justice and Equity in REDD+ Across Levels of Governance, Ecology and Society [19:1, 31].
Quastel N. (2009), Political Ecologies of Gentrification, Urban Geography [30:7, 694-725]. Zavestoski S. and Agyeman J. (2015), Incomplete Streets: Processes, Practices and Possibilities, Routledge Publishers.
P a g e 20 | 20