This weeks classes, December 2nd and 4th, we focused on the city, and particularly ways in which the new urban city is allowing for new forms of citizenship and belonging. It has become evident through this week that citizenship has become ” flexible and performative” and is no longer “ascribed through birthright alone”. We now see that “place-making [is] defined through the participation in the appropriation of space and the production of its meaning”. Thus, as citizens increasingly become more involved within their cities they start to believe that they are no longer just occupiers but participants of the city. Related to this idea is the rise of neoliberalism and how this has allowed for new forms of civic participation in the creation, maintenance, and regulation of space. The most important to come out of this new participation is DIY Urbanism, which Gordon C.C. Douglas defined as “unauthorized yet ostensibly functional and civic-minded physical alterations or additions to the urban built environment in forms analogous (however abstractly) to official planning and streetscape design elements”. Douglas’ definition takes into account several aspects that DIY urbanism encompasses: firstly, the illegality of unauthorized nature, and secondly the functional, civic-minded alterations to the urban landscape.
My Expert Question focused squarely on the legality of DIY Urbanism and the possible consequences that could come from DIY urbanism projects. Our discussion of my questions yielded no clear response, but this was as expected. DIY urbanism has become so popular in recent times because of the sluggishness that our government works at. Citizens, empowered by the ideas that they are the real owners of space that they occupy, have turned to new forms of dealing with and avoiding the obstacles to bettering their own space. Thus, citizens have disregarded law and installed their own additions to the city, such as seats at bus stops, street signs at confusing intersections, and even a swing under a bridge. It is this disregard of the law that the city, and I as well, have found to be problematic. This revolt is potentially dangerous to our bureaucratic society, and is exactly what Lefebvre would have wanted. He talked about the need for a “radical restructuring of processes involved with decision-making over space”, basically the idea that when it comes to space, it should no longer be the over-arching power, i.e the government, that makes the decisions but it should be those who are participating and appropriating the space. His ideas, while I believe are well founded, are almost anarchist in the way that he would want to disregard bureaucracy. I believe that the best way to solve the issue with people taking DIY urbanism into their own hands, even if their intentions are good, is to have it be regulated by the city. I believe that the city should listen to all proposals that are received, deliberate over the feasibility of these suggestions, and give a response back to the citizen or citizens who made this suggestion in a timely manner, i.e 30 days. This will create more harmonization between the city and the citizen, allowing for the citizen to feel as if they still have some power in the say over their space. Also, I believe that by doing this the DIY aspect will remain intact as the suggestions will be derived from the ideas of the citizen, with approval from the city. This will also take out any of the gray areas of who is responsible for DIY urbanism projects and will make DIY urbanism a unifying process between city and citizen.
I found the DIY Urbanism conversation in class to be interesting. When thinking about the possible consequences that could come from DIY urbanism projects, I thought back to home – Brooklyn, New York. Brooklyn is central for DIY Urbanism projects (from creating bike lanes to painting, planting, and movable sitting). Yes, people are empowered by the idea that they are “real owners of the space that they occupy”. However, as I give much thought, I think DIY Urbanism projects are one of many reasons for the displacement of low-income people of color. The new, cool, trendy projects that are transpiring within areas results in people turning to “new forms of dealing with and avoiding the obstacles to bettering their own space”. One of the consequences can be gentrification. For example, in my neighborhood that is mostly populated with Puerto Ricans, there’s a mural on a school that represents the Puerto Rican culture that presented in the class. However, the school is a charter school filled with white students. The Handmade bike lanes across the street from my apartment target specific types of people that end up pushing the original residents of the community out.
I think government regulation of DIY urban projects has the potential to solve many of the legality issues that arise. However, I think that it will change the nature of the DIY movement significantly. Many of the people participating in DIY urban projects are members of the postmodern creative class, who value creativity and authenticity in cities. I think that the illegality of DIY projects is part of what makes them attractive to people. The idea of altering the urban landscape without the authority to do so makes it more bold and exciting to citizens. This reflects the way that members of the postmodern creative class want to “live on the wire”. There is excitement associated with danger, which draws people to “dangerous” areas, and similarly motivates people to engage in illegal activity. If the government were to more closely regulate DIY urban projects, I wonder if people would just seek new ways to bend and break rules.
While I agree that your proposal for how the government should go about listening to and responding to public suggestions, I think that to effectively implement this policy might be hard. DIY Urbanism occurs in response to the lack of government response to public problems, so I don’t think that the same institution that is contributing to the problem can be viewed as the source of a reliable solution—although I do agree that that would be the ideal situation. Kate’s question of whether or not people would find new ways to break rules even with greater government regulation of urban projects also makes me wonder how effective this strategy might be. In the readings on DIY urbanism, some citizens completing DIY urbanism projects cited that they wanted to do so not just to install the new structure, but to feel some sense of power and control over their society. This makes me think that even if the government were to play a more organized and effective role in the response to urban demands, there would still be some element of DIY urbanism in communities.
The issue with DIY urbanism and the lack of government participation stems from the government’s inability to approve or deny projects. If we want to government to accept or deny projects within 30 days then we should look at the reason why the government is functioning so slowly, is it lack of employees, accountability, or do they not want to deal with the requests? However, I do agree with a lot of what people have said thus far about community members enjoying the dangerous aspect of DIY urbanism. The fact that some even leave their names or Instagram pages means they use it as a form of marketing their brand. I think DIY urbanism has grown more than just improving the community in ways the government cannot. It is more about expressing the local communities culture and appeal.
You Have some interesting perspectives here and I agree with most of your viewpoints. Although I will disagree with you on DIY urbanism being regulated by the city. The idea that the city should listen to responses and then give a response back to the citizens is a bit doubtful. The whole point of DIY urbanism is taking matters into your own hands without the consent of government. Additionally if the government were to review the plans, it would just make more sense for them to take on the project themselves. Additionally, it would be hard to guarantee any sort of response time with the government as there are often many levels and red tape to deal with logistically. Even if the government made a rule that citizens could not do DIY urbanism without submitting a proposal and receiving feedback, I doubt citizens would follow that rule. There is difficulty enforcing punishment because these acts often occur at night out of the eye of the public. For instance if someone installs a bench at night and nobody is around to see them, the next day who is held responsible? Nobody will fess up to it. A further complication is the government would have to intervene and remove the bench because it wasn’t “sanctioned”, but who’s to say they have the time or resources to remove the bench at all. I am more in support of the use at your own risk philosophy. This is inherent with everything one does, there is always some level of risk and it has been considered. When you sit in a chair it could break, when you ride a swing you could get hurt. In these cases the risk is elevated because of these are often homemade, and one needs to take that into consideration. I’m going to take the position of devil’s advocate and say the citizens are responsible for their own risk management as they navigate the urban landscape.
You bring up many interesting points in your response, especially the idea that the bureaucratic society is being threatened through this DIY Urbanism taking place. While I do believe your idea of citizens creating DIY proposals and then the government either approving or not approving is a harmonious solution, it is an unrealistic one. The DIY Urbanism, “do-it-yourself” aspect, the idea of new urban citizenship, and people’s claims to this space is based around the fact that space is no longer exclusively contingent on landownership and/or permission. Through this place-making, people are able to connect and produce individual meaning to their specific area they occupy. If they were to have to go through governmental approval, this defeats the purpose of self-identification, or the idea of people drawing largely on spatial practices to mobilize against the perceived threats of community (government regulation).
This is a really interesting idea regarding how to best make DIY urbanism safe and beneficial to the city. I definitely agree that the practice poses dangers and that there is room for some amount of reform with how DIY urbanism works. Increased government involvement and validation of citizens’ concerns would also likely increase satisfaction with and trust in local government. However, I don’t think that this kind of regulation would be consistent with the purpose of DIY urbanism. This form of placemaking aims to fill in the gaps of government failure with immediate, resident-driven solutions. Regulation may take power out of the hands of community members to execute projects to their satisfaction and the buffer-period and additional time spent completing the request would perhaps create too slow of change. I also worry that the requirement of government approval would only further exasperate the preexisting privilege dynamics in which only some individuals are able to participate in DIY urbanism. Though the government might have the power to equalize this process by supporting more marginalized individuals in their DIY efforts, they may also prove a biased force and could potentially only support projects in certainly neighborhoods or projects initiated by those with more privileged identities.
I personally do not think DIY urbanism could ever be completely regulated by government. Not only would it take away from the essence of what DIY urbanism is, but people would find ways around the law, especially due to the often anonymous nature of DIY urbanism. When DIY urbanism becomes threatening or dangerous, it makes sense that it be removed, especially if it is not on private property or property owner by the creator, but otherwise it serves as a creative way for anyone to be able to express or add to a community. DIY urbanism already requires either creative or material resources, but I also agree that regulating it could add to dynamics of more elite people being able to participate.