Race, transformative planning, and the just city

Abstract

Among the thorniest dilemmas stemming transformative planning practice in the context of American cities is the problem of race. While "just city" and neo-pragmatist perspectives have recently theorized progressive policy and planning efforts to create viable alternatives to the dominant neoliberal urban and local economic development model, they have paid less attention to the relationship between race, urban political economy, and transformative planning. This article seeks to bridge this gap by elaborating a conception of race that incorporates W.E.B. DuBois' notion of "double consciousness" with neo-pragmatist planning perspectives to illuminate potential synergies between the situated perspectives of socially marginalized groups and differentially situated, resourced, and abled allies in illuminating systemic problems and directing deeper modes of urban policy and planning recourse. Drawing from two empirical cases, it examines how progressive urban coalitions might use race as a diagnostic and dialogic tool in undertaking provisional and contextual inquiry and praxis in the urban economic sphere toward realization of the "just city."

Retracted: Urban greening as the ultimate urban environmental justice tragedy?

“…The question and challenge thus become 'Which policies, regulations, funding mechanisms, schemes, and partnerships are needed to address the unwanted and new unequal impacts of green planning in cities?' Much remains at stake for a more transformative and equitable planning practice (Albrechts, 2010(Albrechts, , 2013Fainstein, 2010;Friedmann, 2000Friedmann, , 2011Sandercock, 2004;Song, 2015;Steele, 2011) during and after the completion of new or restored urban green amenities.…”

The just city. Three background issues: Institutional justice and spatial justice, social justice and distributive justice, concept of justice and conceptions of justice

“… 1. Considering the period since 2000, the issue of just cities has been discussed for instance by Visser (2001), Cardoso and Breda-Vázquez (2007), Thomas (2008), Irázabal (2009), Irazábal and Punja (2009), Dooling (2009), Pavel (2009), King (2011), Fincher and Iveson (2012), Steele et al (2012), Winkler (2012), Castán Broto et al (2013), Chung (2013), Talen (2013), Alfasi and Fenster (2014), Reardon and Dymén (2015), Song (2015), Basta (2016), Low and Iveson (2016), Davison (2017), Pierce and Martin (2017), Perry and Atherton (2017), Uitermark and Nicholls (2017), Williams (2017), Grooms and Frimpong Boamah (2018), Jonkman and Janssen-Jansen (2018), Larson (2018), Medved (2018), Reece (2018), Hyra et al (2019) and Kim et al (2019). Several authors have resumed discussion of the more general relationship between geography and questions of justice: for example, Smith (2000), Valentine (2003), Barnett (2011), Storper (2011) and Israel and Frenkel (2018). …”

From landscapes of utopia to the margins of the green urban life

“…This essential question demands a transformation of environmental planning practices, including tighter connections and commitments to public and social housing, funds for community wealth creation projects, community land trusts, and even municipal financing reforms. A transformative and equitable planning practice (Friedmann 2000(Friedmann , 2011Sandercock 2004;Connolly and Steil 2009;Albrechts 2010Albrechts , 2013Fainstein 2010;Steele 2011;Song 2015) would indeed be one that puts race and class at the centre of green planning, considers how structural institutional inequalities have historically permeated the lives of marginalized low-income and minority residents, weighs in on the unintended (or intended?) role of green planning in (re)producing or aggravating race and class inequities in regards to accessing environmental goods, and substantively addresses tensions in order to co-produce new greener, resilient, and equitable urban communities.…”