170
THE JUST CITY
CONCLUSION: TOWARD THE JUST CITY
171
The assertion that meaningful justice is attainable in cities caught within
the contemporary system of global capitalism provokes two possible responses: (1) It is impossible to work within this system and achieve a
modicum of justice. (2) The pressure for nonreformist reforms can lead
to incremental changes in the system that place it on a path toward justice. Harvey (2009, 46), who takes the first position, contends that "acting within the existing capitalist regime of rights and freedoms... [can
only result in] mitigating the worst outcomes at the margins of an unjust
system." My own view is that sufficient leeway exists that reform backed
by political mobilization can produce significant change. The two views
are not totally irreconcilable—demands expressed by groups such as
the Right to the City Alliance and the Los Angeles Alliance for a New
Economy and in antiglobalization demonstrations do represent efforts
to reconstitute the system of global capitalism in ways that are less than
totally revolutionary. Harvey (2009, 48-49) himself names participatory
budgeting as a collective form of governance that has, in fact, emerged
within the context of capitalism. At the same time he argues that "a Just
City has to be about fierce conflict all of the time" (2009, 47). One wonders, though, whether democratic participation is compatible with fierce
conflict, and whether most people wish to live in a state of constant battle.
Harvey (2009, 45) quotes the sociologist Robert Park as calling the city
humanity's most successful attempt to model the world "after his heart's
desire." But is unending fierce conflict truly the heart's desire of most
people? My objective has been to lay out principles that can move cities
closer to justice, which will undoubtedly involve their proponents in conflicts not easily settled, but which do not depend on revolutionary change
for their realization.
An analysis of the development of universal health provision in Western
Europe contends that the varying forms it has taken are the consequence
of path dependency: "Each [national system] has taken a drastically different form, and the reason has rarely been ideology. Rather each country
has built on its own history, however imperfect, unusual, and untidy"
(Gawande 2009, 30). We could expect that the form of governmental intervention and nonprofit activity in the provision of housing and local
economic development would similarly vary according to city and country and their historic path of development. Nonetheless, we can imagine
a movement toward a common goal of increasing equity in relation to
housing, economic development, and access to public space. The following section enumerates types of policies that are conducive to social
justice in cities without spelling out the particular institutional forms or
legislative mandates by which they would be accomplished.
Naming specific policies derived from the general criteria defining
urban justice undoubtedly goes beyond what would be acceptable to rigorous deontological philosophers.9 The list is more context-dependent and
much more detailed than Nussbaum's presentation of capabilities.10 It assumes societies with a preexisting commitment to democratic-egalitarian
norms as well as a history of applying such norms, albeit through practice
that may fall well short of the ideal. The contents of my list apply only
8. For an overview of the factors at work post-1975, see Caslells's (2000a, 2000b, 2004)
magisterial trilogy, The Information Age: Society, Economy, Culture. It is possible to list hundreds, if not thousands, of books and articles addressing the themes briefly recapitulated in
this section. I do not elaborate on them here, since I can add little that is new and the causes of
present injustice are not the principal concern of this book.
9. Nussbaum (2000, 78) does specify certain requisites in her list of capabilities that involve public policy, including adequate shelter, adequate education, and protection against
discrimination.
10. Fincher and Iveson (2008,214) provide a similar, but much shorter list under the categories "planning for redistribution"; "planning for recognition"; and "planning for encounter."
reliance on market processes. The urban political movements that had
Susan
S. Fainstein, The Just City (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
grown during the latter part of the 1960s and into the 1970s faded with
2010),
170-175onslaught."
thepp.
conservative
Within this set of forces urban planning and policy became increasingly
oriented toward a single-minded focus on encouraging growth through
the vehicle of public-private partnerships, as chronicled in the three case
studies presented here. Although these are not "ordinary cities" in the
sense described by Jennifer Robinson (2006)—that is, they are certainly
different from cities in the developing world and even from most in their
own countries in their economic importance and global connectedness—
the kinds of projects formulated and the conflicts around them are quite
typical. The extent of variation among the three cases points to the extent
that, within the existing structure of global forces and national politics,
we can hope for a more just city.
Principles to Guide Planning and Policy
172
CONCLUSION; TOWARD THE JUST CITY
THE JUST CITY
to planning and policies conducted at the local level; although national
policy severely constrains or enables local efforts to achieve justice, localities still have it within their power to make decisions that are more or less
favorable to justice." The list is as follows:
In furtherance of equity:
1. All new housing development should provide units for households
with incomes below the median, either on-site or elsewhere, with
the goal of providing a decent home and suitable living environment for everyone. (One of the most vexing issues in relation to
housing, however, is the extent to which tenant selection should
limit access to people likely to be good neighbors. It is an area
where the criteria of equity and democracy as well as different
ways of calculating equity are at odds with each other, and no
general rule can apply. Another issue pitting democratic determination against both equity and diversity arises because crises of
housing availability lead to pressure for building at higher densities. Proposals for densification, however, tend to be met by strong
neighborhood opposition, even though, if requirements are in
place for a substantial amount of affordable housing, as has been
the case under Labour in London, they would enhance diversity as
well as equity, J
2. Housing units developed to be affordable should remain in perpetuity in the affordable housing pool or be subject to one-for-one
replacement. (Until recently U.S. law required one-to-one replacement of demolished public housing, but this rule was eliminated.)
3. Households or businesses should not be involuntarily relocated for
the purpose of obtaining economic development or community
balance except in exceptional circumstances. When relocation is
needed for the construction of public facilities, to improve housing
quality, or to increase densities so as to accommodate additional
population, adequate compensation requires that the dislocated be
given sufficient means to occupy an equivalent dwelling or business site, regardless of whether they are renters or owners and independent of the market value of the lost location. Reconstruction
11. The components of a just national urban policy are more complex and will not be discussed here. Markusen and Fainstein (1993) develop the elements of a national urban policy
for the United States.
4.
5.
6.
7.
173
of neighborhoods should be conducted incrementally so that
interim space is available in the vicinity for displaced households
who wish to remain in the same location.
Economic development programs should give priority to the interests of employees and, where feasible, small businesses, which
generally are more locally rooted than large corporations. All new
commercial development should provide space for public use and
when possible should facilitate the livelihood of independent and
cooperatively owned businesses.
Megaprojects should be subject to heightened scrutiny, be required
to provide direct benefits to low-income people in the form of
employment provisions, public amenities, and a living wage, and,
if public subsidy is involved, should include public participation in
the profits. If at all possible, they should be developed incrementally and with multiple developers.
Fares for intracity transit (but not commuter rail) should be kept
very low. Low-income people are disproportionately reliant on
public transit. Local government thus has the power to affect income distribution through collecting tolls and taxes on automobiles and designating the proceeds for transit support. Low-income
people with no choice but to commute by car should receive
rebates.
Planners should take an active role in deliberative settings in pressing for egalitarian solutions and blocking ones that disproportionately benefit the already well-off.
The policy directives listed as furthering equity respond to the most
pressing concerns arising from current urban programs in the three cities
discussed here. Increasing the supply of affordable housing is the most urgent need, but all three, at least until the economic crisis of 2008-9, have
been engaged instead in promoting megaprojects that provide only limited amounts of low-income housing (Fainstein 2008). Although many
of these projects (e.g., Battery Park City in New York; Stratford City in
London; Amsterdam's Western Garden Cities) aim to provide new, highquality housing and include some proportion of low-cost units, they
mainly involve transformation of the social composition of the affected
areas and are aimed at higher income groups. Financing issues are, as of
this writing, stalling the full realization of uncompleted projects for housing and commercial development; only sports facilities (the Yankee, Mets,
174
THE JUST CITY
and Jets stadiums in New York and the Olympics venues in London) have
continued despite the contraction of credit markets. This is in the face of
serious problems of housing availability and affordability in the three
cities and an epidemic of mortgage foreclosures (repossessions in U.K.
vocabulary) in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United
States the commitment to enlarging the stock of affordable housing is
the lowest of the three countries, but even the Netherlands has increased
reliance on demand-side subsidies rather than housing construction.
In furtherance of diversity:
1. Households should not be required to move for the purpose of obtaining diversity, but neither should new communities be built that
further segregation.
2. Zoning should not be used for discriminatory ends but rather
should foster inclusion.
3. Boundaries between districts should be porous.
4. Ample public space should be widely accessible and varied; where
public spaces are provided by private entities, political speech
should not be prohibited within the property. At the same time,
groups with clashing lifestyles should not have to occupy the same
location.
5. To the extent practical and desired by affected populations, land
uses should be mixed.
6. Public authorities should assist groups who have historically suffered from discrimination in achieving access to opportunity in
housing, education, and employment.
Kwame Anthony Appiah {2006, xv), who uses the term "cosmopolitanism" to express his view of what I have called diversity, identifies two
strands to the concept: (1) we have obligations to others stretching beyond those to whom we are related by blood or nationality; (2) we take
seriously the value of the lives of others, including taking an interest in
the practices and beliefs that lend them significance (i.e., we give recognition, in the terminology of other philosophers). 12 Adherence to this
set of guidelines in respect to diversity does not require that people who
cannot get along live next door to each other. Indeed, people should have
12. Ulrich Beck (2006) argues that, in a globalized world, cosmopolitanism is a necessity,
reflecting an irreversible process of intermingling.
CONCLUSION: TOWARD THE JUST CITY
175
the right to protect themselves from others who do not respect their way
of life. What is important is that people are not differentiated and excluded according to ascriptive characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, or
homelessness.
In furtherance of democracy:
1. Groups that are not able to participate directly in decision-making
processes should be represented by advocates.
2. Plans should be developed in consultation with the target population if the area is already developed. The existing population,
however, should not be the sole arbiter of the future of an area.
Citywide considerations must also apply.
3. In planning for as yet uninhabited or sparsely occupied areas,
there should be broad consultation that includes representatives of
groups currently living outside the affected areas.
There need not be an expectation of high levels of participation by
people who do not wish to take part. The purpose of inclusion in decision
making should be to have interests fairly represented, not to value participation in and of itself. If justice is the goal, the requirement of democracy
is mainly instrumental—without it, those with less power are likely to be
treated badly. Democratic theory regards democracy as a good in itself—a
means by which people educate themselves and reach an understanding
of their own interests, as well as an expression of citizenship. My purpose
is not to dispute these other aims but rather to limit my discussion to the
achievement of the just rather than the good and thus to give less priority
to democracy than to equity.
State and Market
The guidelines, as well as assuming the context of a liberal-democratic
political tradition, reflect societies in which markets have historically
played a dominant role in allocating resources. The policy specifications
do not call for government takeover of functions such as housing or business premises. Nevertheless, they do require a considerable increase in
government involvement through regulation and some increase in public ownership. Thus, development of affordable housing could occur via
the governmental, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, but would depend
on generous public subsidy and intervention. Likewise, public space may