Contesting Public Space and Citizenship

Abstract

While research on business improvement districts (BIDs) has considered the constraints BIDs can place on the negotiation of public space and citizenship, little work has focused on the process of establishing neighborhood BIDs (NBIDs), and few scholars have examined perceptions of public space held by actual neighborhood constituents. This article analyzes a participatory mapping project and messages on a neighborhood e-mail list to compare the visions of place expressed by disempowered community members and by an NBID proposal. Our analysis illuminates how local power relations and inequalities can become inscribed in urban planning projects like NBIDs.

Grappling with Governance: The Emergence of Business Improvement Districts in a National Capital

“…The Georgetown BID director adds, "This BID has some influential folks-many are involved in business or government-and the relationships can become fractious when things don't work out properly; for example, individual board members may push for a BID to prematurely take on more functions than needed at the time" (Smith 2008). In their efforts to attract developers and raise rents, BIDs in Washington have sometimes allowed key players in business and politics to circumscribe the definition of who constitutes the "local community" and what constitutes acceptable uses of public space (see Clough and Vanderbeck 2006;Schaller and Modan 2005). Policy makers, in turn, may view the BID as a convenient one-stop shop in which the opinions of "the community"-however incomplete-can be gauged, according to one former BID director (Gibson 2008).…”

“…The result is often a lack of responsiveness to perceptions in the affected community that the BID is off course. (McGaw 2010) Consequently, BIDs' decision making in many of the BIDs is rarely challenged (Morçol and Zimmerman 2006;Schaller and Modan 2005;Christopherson 1994). According to one BID director, finding ways to reengage residents could in fact be an unleveraged opportunity to "recenter" the often fragmented governance of the city's BIDS: "Communicating with residents is a bit of a conundrum, as residents do not pay BID taxes; however, residents can be particularly helpful in lobbying D.C. Council, as they all vote in D.C., while most property owners and managers live outside the district-in other states or countries in many cases" (Reinhard 2010 ).…”

“…This echoes a study by Ellen, Schwartz, and Voicu (2005), which found that property values in New York City BID areas increased sharply just prior to BID implementation but declined afterward. But instead of pursuing market research, neighborhood advocacy, or government-business relations, most BIDs continue to emphasize entertainment, high-rent housing, and the attraction of "landmark" tenants-often with little attention to residents (Hernandez and Jones 2005;Gross 2005;Schaller and Modan 2005;Steel and Symes 2005, 328). As observed by critics like Peck (2005) and Ward (2007a), such practices should be seen not as imperatives but as inherently crisis-prone strategies that-when "woven" together with the state-have "profound implications for notions of spatial and social justice" (Ward 2007a, 669).…”

“…As an "area-based approach," BIDs are thought to improve small and ostensibly discrete commercial zones for a specific set of stakeholders-primarily business owners and secondarily consumers (Hochleutner 2003;Lloyd et al 2003). BIDs, however, have also been criticized for their lack of public accountability, an instrumentalist approach to social issues such as homelessness, and the allocation of government-like powers to a select group of business and property owners (Cook 2009;Morçol and Zimmerman 2006;Steel and Symes 2005;Schaller and Modan 2005;Ratcliffe and Flanagan 2004;Lloyd et al 2003). In places where government function is poor or socioeconomic inequality is high, these negative outcomes are often amplified.…”

La evaluación del espacio público de ciudades intermedias de Chile desde la perspectiva de sus habitantes: implicaciones para la intervención urbana

“…En este contexto, el espacio público urbano -existe también espacio público en lo rural y la esfera pública o espacio público de comunicación del que hablara Habermas (1987)-es objeto de reflexión en cuanto a su rol catalizador de la interacción social en las ciudades (Johnson & Glover, 2013). Su disponibilidad ha sido vinculada con una ciudadanía más activa (Schaller & Modan, 2005) y con menores conflictos intergrupales (Shinew, Glover & Parry, 2004). De manera más importante para el presente estudio, sin embargo, el tipo y calidad del espacio público urbano también ha sido asociado con medidas de bienestar de los 'urbanitas'.…”