Welcome to Metro

Welcome to Metro, a new blog that will focus on the growing pains of urbanism here in Honolulu! This blog will mostly be written by yours truly, Henry Mochida. I am a PhD student in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawai’i and am in the midst of preparing for the inevitable comprehensive exam (date tbd!). That means I need to read A LOT and so I get to share what I learn with you!

This is our first blog together and I look forward to getting to know our online community and engaging in constructive dialogue. A little about myself: I am born and raised 5th generation in Hawaii, I grew up on Wa’ahila (Saint Louis Heights) and currently reside in Mānoa. I am pushing on 33 years of youth and my spare time is spent with my dog Ody, doing pullups at the gym (jungle), gardening and cooking. Oh yeah, I also make films for communities, so hopefully I can share some of those with you. 

May I forewarn readers that I will pose a critical lens on development and take the perspective of public good over special interest, shocking I know!  With this first column I welcome readers to send me their wish-list items to cover (I will try to address topics that seem to be most timely). Here in our first edition of Metro I will briefly write about the concept of civil society, bridge it with current developments in Honolulu and ask for your critical thought.

Civil Society

The city-state has come to dominate today’s conception of society and some even say has replaced the nation-state. Indeed metropolitan areas account for vast proportions of the world’s populations: Tokyo with upwards of 34 million people, Mexico City with over 21 million, and Jakarta, Seoul, Delhi, Manila, Shanghai, New York and Sao Paulo all over 20 million! Furthermore, it is argued that national borders have become more porous, particularly with the movement of globalized finance-capital as cities, not nation-states, have become the main proponents of information and economy (Castells, 1989). The structures of the built city have always been reflective of societal values from structures of religion, aristocracy, commerce, governance and financial institutions. If we look at the structures that are in the center of the city, we will find the power structures that shape it. Today what we find are financial and corporate skyscrapers, in tandem with the entrenched values of the private, or neoliberal city. In order to have a starting point in deciphering our city I propose that we visit the origins of the metropolis to see how far we’ve strayed.

The word metropolis (metro + polis) is Greek for ‘mother’ + ‘city’ and has origins in Plato’s Republic 380 BC, a city-state society ruled by the political body of its citizens. The city has origins in political community and activity, rather than the domineering consumer-based political economy we have today. This should shed some light on the question—why is it that the primary activity of contemporary state and corporate planning in Hawai’i is development? To find the answer to this question we just need to look at recent urban development here on Oahu and think about what values are revealed. Shall we look at the fast-tracking PLDC, Purple Spot, Ho’opili, Ko’a Ridge and rail?  Would it then be far off to suggest that the state serves the interests of private property and so-called “highest and best use” of land for profit, versus public good and deliberative democracy?

So what are our alternatives? Why are imaginings of Honolulu’s future only of stark Corbusierian garden cities? Where are all the people in these master plans? Where is the civil society we found in the original polis?

John Friedman, the eminent planning theorist, defines civil society as those institutions that mediate between the public, the state, and to this I add — the corporations. The city is in constant fluctuation as it morphs between the three centers of gravity — state, corporation and civil society. I believe then that it is the planner’s role to mobilize civil society via projects to engage in shifting what is at the center of the city and even more so to engage the public in dialogue through mechanisms such as tactical urbanism. However beware of the ability of the state and corporate interests to co-opt tactics that utilize, rather than empower civil society!

Community Building vs. Economic Revitalization

Richard Layman, a transportation planner in DC, in his July 21, 2009 blog offers one of the few critical analyses of the use of aesthetics in urban renewal. In the essay he informs us that art for economic revitalization vs. art for community building can result in two very different outcomes, with the former in gentrification or yuppification. In his conclusion Layman states that, “urban revitalization focuses on neighborhood improvement, usually through real estate-based strategies. Arts and culture strategies are particularly useful methods for reinvigorating otherwise ignored or abandoned places. But supporting and developing a place doesn’t always mean the support of arts, culture, artists, and the creative impulse in the manner that artists may prefer.” And so other economic revitalization tactics also require critical deliberation. Take for example, Richard Florida’s Rise of the Creative Class (2002), which on the surface appears innovative, but on closer look are growth centric, elitist and marginalizing propositions, rather than being sustainable, inclusive and community oriented. 

The term “sustainable” itself is another example of a commonly appropriated terminology with often hidden intentions.  Mike Douglass, the American urban planner and social scientist, reminds us that sustainability “is not about reproducing nature for itself, but is a socially constructed notion about how nature can serve people endlessly. Nature must be transformed to do so because nature does not operate in service of human beings. In this sense sustainable development is a false claim to a moral high ground. And as the moral high ground it becomes a flag for all manner of purposes, such as “sustainable urban competitiveness” or “sustainable tourism”. But let’s remind ourselves that “sustainable” just means for the long run, and it has no intrinsic moral value itself. 

On October 29, 2012, the Department of Transportation Services (DTS) announced that it would implement a complete streets plan for Waialae Avenue (see top image). This was a hard won civic victory that took many years of communicative action between civil society groups, such as the Hawaii Bicycle League, Cycle Manoa and the Red Hot Ladies, who diligently worked with the state and community at-large for the purposes of making it safer for all forms of transportation along this corridor leading to UH. Trust me, this complete streets implementation announcement in itself was not a walk in the park! I witnessed the contention and heated confrontation that turned a DTS report into an hour-and-a-half long line of testimonials from both cyclists and enraged car drivers. This small victory was a compromise for all between state, corporate and civil society that will tangibly result in a shift of how the city flows! Now we are all familiar with Kakaako and guess what, it’s not PowWow this time, it’s not the Night Market, nor Street Grindz, but Complete Streets Kakaako! On Wednesday, November 28th, at 5:30pm, 461 Cooke Street the HCDA is hosting a “community workshop” to plan a complete streets initiative.

I am of two minds on this. Correct me if I am wrong, but on the surface doesn’t it appear to be an example of “utilizing” rather than “empowering” tactical strategies to brand another development in the guise of “community building” for the value of “economic revitalization”? When will we transcend this neoliberal framework and start planning with civil society for the public good? My other mind is hopeful that the real Kakaako community shows up, like the displaced shop owners, the transient houseless and commuting laborers. Comments?

H

______________________________________________
1 I claim that the hegemonic power today that is shaping our city is neoliberalism. However, it is important to note that what planners fundamentally combat is hegemony itself, because diversity is necessary for deliberative democracy.