Event Recap: Urban Growth and Citizenship Machines
On Wednesday, October 15th, the Initiative on Cities hosted a panel, “Urban Growth and Citizenship Machines,” where Boston University’s Professor Daniel Abramson discussed his forthcoming book, Designing Citizens. The panel also included prominent urban enthusiasts Lauren Mattioli, Anne Gatling Haynes, and Billy Dean Thomas. The conversation focused on the urban renewal project in Boston’s Government Center from the 1950s to the 1970s.
Professor Abramson framed his project around three themes, the first of which concerns American governance and the federal government’s hesitancy to engage in urban projects. He also discusses urban renewal and how evolving urban designs by various planners and architects were contested by real estate interests. The final theme of his work, citizenship, concerns “inside and outside spaces,” referring to the potential privatization of government buildings and the shift from large-scale planning to more localized, democratic urban development. Citizenship ideas are up for negotiation, require multiple perspectives, and are mediated through architecture.
All in all, the “urban growth machine,” as Abramson describes it, refers to the shift toward political actors in urban governance rather than private interests. Below are some key takeaways from the event.
“Urban struggle is a fracture between capitalist interests”
According to Professor Abramson, a fractionated urban growth machine indicates a split between the public and private sectors. As Boston began to construct its city hall, conflicting real estate interests played a significant role in shaping urban development. Large real estate interests were more frequently aligned with pure development, whereas smaller landlords and business owners did not want their property expropriated or faced competition. There were factions within the business community that nearly derailed the creation of a downtown government center. This split between private and public is further exacerbated when taking into consideration the fact that it took quite a bit of convincing to get the federal government to join the Government Center Project in the first place, mainly because city and state officials had to demonstrate a clear vision for a nonresidential, federally funded project to overcome potential resistance.
Architecture as a reflection of Civic Identity
Panelists helped trace how architecture shapes civic life, past and present. For example, anti-bussing protests in the 1970s at City Hall Plaza demonstrate how urban spaces became sites of political struggle and civic tension. Festivals, such as Boston’s first-ever Puerto Rican Day, expanded citizenship and allowed diverse groups to make themselves known to the government and to other members of the community. This way, their needs can also be met. Lauren Mattioli and Anne Gatling Haynes briefly discussed the “current revival” of Boston’s city hall plaza, which is now seen as Boston’s “suburbanized front yard.” Similarly, the mention of Government third spaces, where government work occurs outside Government buildings, informs Boston’s landscape beyond. For example, consider a café, a bench across the street, or a lobby. These spaces reveal the broader role of architecture within the city’s confines.
Citizenship by design
The discussion concluded with a reflection on how contemporary urban governance continues to be shaped by past issues and solutions. White flight, demographic changes, and the intricacies of form versus function remain pertinent issues. One crucial point, as stated by Billy Dean Thomas, regarding urban revival is that it is envisioned for the people who’d use the new development, with particular attention to whether it meets their needs. Urbanists must work to visualize and pay homage to a city, and place a direct emphasis on who is in the room when these conversations are happening. This is how urban planners, politicians, and the broader community can ensure that everyone’s voices are heard. Top-down planning, welfare considerations, and utilizing democracy as a passage were all mentioned as potential paths to
solutions for urban issues. Having more aligned values on how to use certain spaces, rather than everyone having their own opinion, has the potential to make Boston’s spaces more inclusive.