Title
|
Incomplete Streets: Processes, Practices, and
Possibilities
|
Editors
|
|
Publisher
|
Routledge, 2014
|
ISBN
|
1317930983, 9781317930983
|
Length
|
346 pages
|
I live in a slowly gentrifying neighbourhood of Edinburgh,
Scotland – of the sort that typifies many of the case studies in this book (Doucet 2009). The main road to the city
centre from the neighbourhood is currently being upgraded and there was a local
campaign to get it redesigned in what this book, and readers based in North
America, would call “complete streets” style – wide pavements, segregated cycle
lanes and vastly reduced space for vehicular traffic, with speeds reduced to
20mph. The battle was lost, and non-segregated, advisory cycle lanes were
installed which are now predominantly used a car-parking places for businesses
on the road. Meanwhile, in the more affluent south of the city, an extensive
segregated network of cycle paths is emerging. In the suburban south-west of
the city, a non-affluent community I work with extensively have poor quality
public realm and a streetscape designed in the 1960s which is hostile to
pedestrians and cyclists.
This collection of essays edited by Stephen Zavestoski and
Julian Agyeman illuminates these issues of equity and road infrastructure
design in fascinating detail. The book focuses on the “complete streets”
movement (living streets in the UK; standard road design in the Netherlands and
Denmark) highlighting through various critical approaches that in societies
with high levels of socio-economic inequality ‘when implemented incrementally,
Complete Streets will inevitably benefit certain people in certain urban spaces
and not others’ (p.7). The book is broken into three sections: processes,
practices and possibilities.
The processes section essentially takes us through stories
to tell us “where are we now?”, starting off with Peter Norton’s beguiling
chapter on the role of the motor industry PR in the US in forming motor-vehicle
oriented road design standards, a theme developed further by Aaron Golub. The
chapters by Chronopolous and Lee then critically engage with the intersection
of sustainability policies – such as complete streets design and congestion
charging – and various policies that could be labelled “neoliberal”.
Chronopolous, in particular highlights how congestion charging is a regressive
tax. The section ends with Mehta using an evocative description of street life
in India to describe what a complete street might be like if it was truly
inclusive.
The sections on practices and possibilities were less
clearly delineated in terms of content. They were mainly case-studies of
various cities in the US and how they have implemented various Complete Streets
policies, or related policies such as pavement/sidewalk food vending, or
community stewardship schemes. Particular highlights in these last two sections
were Langegger’s account of the racially-driven removal of Hispanic “lowriders”
from the streets of Denver; and Vallianatos' account of the illegal street
vendors making the sidewalks of Los Angeles their space.
However, in their introduction Zavestoski and Agyeman
rhetorically suggest that ‘this volume initiates the kind of dialogue and
future research that can help answer these questions’ – and the trouble, as they
allude to in their conclusion, is that many of the chapters signally do not
answer questions. Over many of the chapters the bogeyman of gentrification
looms large – essentially (and the evidence presented in the volume is
compelling in this regard) complete streets as an urban design practice in the
USA goes hand-in-hand with gentrification and the displacement of poor People
of Color by richer white hipsters on fixed-gear bikes.
I find this troubling, because it leaves the planner with a
Hobson’s choice – design safe streets and create a tidal wave of
gentrification; or leave things as a status-quo. As a researcher interested in
delivering socially just urban renewal I find this troubling – do less affluent
communities have to stay in neighbourhoods with poor quality public-realm that
endangers their safety and their health just in case improving them leads to
some displacement? Obviously, the answer is no; we can do things such as ensure
levels of affordable rented housing remain high; but that the logic of their
argument ends at this point does not seem to have been fully grappled by many
of the authors.
The chapters that get nearest to this are Cadji and Hope
Alkon in their chapter on North Oakland farmers market and Goodling and
Herrington writing about the Portland Community Watershed Program. Both these
chapters offer fascinating accounts of community organisers and workers
wrestling with the challenges of trying to deliver environmental equity without
exacerbating socio-economic injustice through their work. A frustratingly short
chapter was that by Chapple – this highlights that in the US context Complete
Streets policies are regressive because most lower-skilled, lower-paid workers
have to drive to their suburban work locations. This is an argument and issue
that could have been explored in much greater depth throughout the book.
A major weakness of the book was its parochial focus on the
USA and this weakened the argument overall. An engagement with practice from
northern European countries, particularly Denmark and the Netherlands could
have offered real opportunities to learn how to deliver environmentally
sustainable street design without exacerbating socio-economic injustices.
Parallels could also have been made with UK practice which seems to be
following the US trend.
This notwithstanding, I would recommend this book be read by
anyone involved in urban design, transport planning and cycling advocacy – it
raises thorny issues and questions that stick with you a long time. I wish
traffic engineers would read it to realise their engineering solutions have
social impacts. As a cycling advocate myself, it has made me rethink what my
priorities are for the city in which I live as it expands its provision for
active travel.
Doucet, B. (2009).
"Living through gentrification: subjective experiences of local,
non-gentrifying residents in Leith, Edinburgh." Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment 24(3):
299-315.
No comments:
Post a Comment