Edith's story always made me smile, and she was always a popular figure in the media and blogosphere. I think it gives everyone a little charge to see someone fight ‘progress,’ or at least keep the powerful at bay. I suppose it's Davida v. Goliath.
It once again got me thinking, though, about the delicate subject of creating sustainable cities, because the way it's happening so far is via redevelopment. This frequently brings gentrification and cases such as Edith Macefield's -- albeit not nearly as visually compelling.
I'm going to pose a subject for discussion, and I'd like your comments. And I'm not fishing for a particular answer.
Whether it's a city drafting a master plan, a developer buying up parcels for a mid-rise project, or activists pushing for a new transit system, I see a tendency in discussions to speak of people as little units of supply and demand. "Build it and they will come" is often used when talking about the need for compact, walkable communities.
What I'm saying is that sustainability requires plans that are implemented by people, therefore like all human plans there are unintended consequences that impact real people. When a new urban village plan causes real estate speculation, how do you realistically mitigate that? How do you do congestion pricing and be fair to all income levels? How do you protect the urban tree canopy when infill construction causes trees to be cut down? How do you make photovoltaics affordable for all homeowners?
And what of the Edith Macefields of the world? An important part of sustainability is encouraging people to have an attachment to place. What if instead of a commercial project, her home was in the path of a new transit station? Would she still have been seen as a heroic Little Guy, or an obstacle to a sustainable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment