Healthful spaces: the importance of public participation in urban development

Abstract

[From paper:] Urban development is frequently regarded as beneficial, improving the visual aesthetic and economy of a city. However, urban development often ignores the use value (communal value rather than economic value) of communities perceived as “blighted.” The use of the word blight to describe urban communities gained traction as sentiments for urban renewal grew. In the first half of the 20th century, blight was used as “a rhetorical device that enabled renewal advocates to reorganize property ownership by declaring certain real estate dangerous to the future of the city” (Pritchett 3). Because others had resentment towards low-income neighborhoods, real estate moguls saw an opportunity to capitalize, beginning a call for new urban development to correct these blighted areas. Today, urban development is instead referred to as gentrification, but the effect is the same. This paper will discuss how the history of urban development in the United States, specifically in Baltimore City, has harmed pre-existing Black communities. Gentrification—which is the process whereby private developers invest in impoverished urban areas in order to profit off of real estate and new businesses that become aesthetically pleasing to upper-middle class residents—has ultimately resulted in serial displacements of preexisting residents. This paper argues that rather than urban development and gentrification, the public participation of existing communities is essential for the health of neighborhoods.