Placekeeping, not “Placemaking”

What is “equity” in landscape architecture? All of the definitions of justice matter, but in my field we have a blindspot that keeps us from addressing one in particular: territorial justice, the right to occupy space.

You might think that spatial relationships among people would be at the center of spatial planning, and perhaps it is — but if so, it has been centered in a way that has been fundamentally unjust and inequitable.

Take the term “placemaking.” Who does that? Since all of the “places” on this planet already exist, the people who “make a place” are actually doing something cultural, something that expresses power. They are colonizing new territory, establishing standards and expressing values that may be different from those of the people who have lived in that territory before they arrived. When professional designers engage in “placemaking” they may be expressing the values and desires of a client. How have they defined that client? And presuming that definition is inclusive, how do they determine whether their proposed design genuinely reflects the larger community’s values and serves its interests?

Was the formation of the US National Park System done in a way that served the interests of the people who lived in those landscapes, in those existing places? Did it respect their territory? No, and no. How about Central Park, or the High Line — together, they represent an old model and a new model for urban public space. Did they engage and serve the people whose territory they altered? No, and no.

What if landscape architecture’s interest in “placemaking” is just code for “acting in the service of powerful interests”? Redeveloping neighborhoods in service of private investments, claiming territory for capital. Building so-called “public” parks that predictably increase the value of adjacent private real estate investments, and are patrolled by white citizens who feel entitled to police the actions and presence of other parkgoers. Parks and neighborhood street designs that — in the end — function as economic levers that displace lower-income people, and intensify the sometimes-violent policing of people with skin colors that are anything other than pale pink. People who lived in that territory, raising children while telling jokes and stories about their place.

How will we pursue goals of equity, inclusion, diversity and justice in a profession that cannot seem to recognize its own behavior, its own historical and present function as a tool of economic colonialism and elitism?

Maybe we should adopt the word “placekeeping” instead of placemaking as our first step. More on this in my next posts.