Making the case that infrastructure itself can be exclusionary is hardly straightforward. Many of the worst decisions in US planning were made decades ago to intentionally disenfranchise, marginalise and separate communities; policies such as redlining and “blight clearing” are well-documented embarrassments. But many decisions that segregated communities were unintentional. The stop sign and one-way street might seem benign, but they shape our lives in ways we sometimes don’t even realise. — The Guardian
Through focusing in on 5 case studies where communities have been obliterated by infrastructure decisions, the direct impact of highways and walls take on greater levels of meaning and urgency. The power of city planning also comes into greater consideration presently as the US takes on a massive infrastructure revitalization project.
"Too big to replace, too expensive to tear down", Miller emphasizes the importance of digging into the history of our country's development in order to understand past injustices, prevent future abuse, and address current issues as they stand right now.
An in depth look focuses on Detroit’s 8 Mile and historical Black Bottom neighborhoods, West Oakland in California, West Baltimore, and Jackson Ward in Richmond, Virginia. Arresting images of overlapping interstates where communities used to be reveal a truth many of us drive on in our everyday lives.
Please read Johnny Miller's full piece on how infrastructure decisions impact communities and are directly connected to greater issues in our country.
11 Comments
But how is this news? We've known this for decades now.
Actually I take it back. This article is very well written.
Rondo Neighborhood St. Paul, MN
There's a lot of "we've saying this" in the article. The thing I found problematic was the reliance on the term blight instead of the more accurate term disinvested. I also wish more attention was paid to Baltimore and the imbalance in how transportation is being used to support communities.
Big takeaway? There's a lot of drone porn in this article.
"Drone porn". Interesting, given that it's the Guardian.
I was a little surprised.
Incredibly simplistic, fly-by article. For one, while the development of Lafayette Park did raze Detroit's Black Bottom, LP was from its beginnings an integrated neighborhood and for decades has been home to many of Detroit's prominent AA leadership. Second, most of Detroit's public housing was developed along the I-75 corridor. While one can disagree with the modernist planning principles that led to its creation, it was at the time (and still is in many neighborhoods) perceived as a benefit to the community to be in close proximity to the highway. Third, recent efforts to take out these pieces of highway infrastructure are not being led by the AA community. It is generally being driven by a (mostly white) planning elite in proximity to areas experiencing intense gentrification. The narrative around these projects is that they are healing a past racial wound when they are in fact principally benefiting developers and the new population (again mostly white) that are moving into these neighborhoods. This is happening at a time when many AA families still aspire to leave the city for the suburbs and look at the highways as a means to access a new life away from the very real challenges of the city. It's a complicated story, far more complicated than ideological dogma or fly-by journalism can explain.
Won, quick Question: did you find the lack of focus on place non-productive?
In which respect, contemporary planning processes that propose the removal of highway sections? Within those conversations, I think there is often an assumption that "place" does not exist next to a highway; that "place" was taken away once the highway was constructed; that moving forward it is the role of the planner to restore place and that the avenue to do that is through new development. I would disagree with much of that. The highways were responsible for destroying a "place," but history evolves, place evolves and as new decisions are made regarding how infrastructure should be configured moving forward, planners need to listen to the diversity of voices within a community, and it's just possible that the solution the planners have preordained may not be the best solution for the community.
Actually, I was thinking more about the lack of a focus on only one of the locations. Your comments clearly demonstrate a need to address not just the range, but the depth of this in each place.
NT
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.